Our experience in dozens of employment matters in venues around the country, including conflicts in “union shops” and “right-to-work” states, enable us to provide insight into factors that will determine juror perceptions of the parties and evidence in your case. We can apply these “lessons learned” to the specific facts in your case and assist you in developing effective case themes, focusing our case presentation, and preparing witnesses for effective deposition and trial testimony.
More than any type of civil litigation, jurors’ personal experiences in influence their evaluation of the reasonableness of employer and employee conduct. Juror questionnaires and voir dire are essential tools for understanding jurors’ experiences and predispositions.
Plaintiff-oriented jurors in employment cases tend to blame others for problems in own lives. Jurors with such an “external locus of control” will be predisposed to blame managers and co-workers for problems the plaintiff(s) encountered at work.
Evidence of non-discriminatory policies and procedures is essential for a successful defense of a discrimination or harassment claim. Jurors also want evidence that employees have been properly trained in the policies and procedures.
Jurors do not expect perfection and understand that rogue employees may exist in larger companies. However, jurors demand proof that there are consequences for employees who violate company policies.
Jurors are especially critical of managers and corporations that coddle “jerks at work” and refuse to take steps to curtail abusive conduct. Sometimes jurors punish employers for not taking action sooner to terminate problem employees.
When confronted with the task of evaluating problem employees, managers are often reluctant to assign a “needs improvement” or “poor” performance evaluation. Neutral or favorable performance reviews are often the centerpiece of a plaintiff’s claim.
Although some conduct warrants immediate termination for cause, in most cases jurors want to see evidence that remedial action was taken to improve an employee’s performance before termination.
Given the ambiguity surrounding the intentions of parties involved in an employment dispute, comparative judgments about the credibility of fact witnesses determine verdict preferences.
Jurors are often impressed with evidence in the form of diaries, recorded conversations, and e-mail exchanges that reflect the “unvarnished” state of mind of the plaintiff during the time of the alleged harassment or discrimination.
Jurors are susceptible to suggestions that disparate treatment or unpleasant exchanges in the workplace are proof of discrimination or harassment. Jurors need to be educated about the proof required to establish a specific claim of racial or sexual discrimination or harassment.
"I first worked with Jim on a sensitive employment case where the client asked for the research very close to our trial date. Trial Analysts not only pulled it all together on short notice, but worked very well with our trial team. Their mock trial/focus group approach tested the issues we were concerned about and helped us prepare for trial. As the Group Chair of the national Employment and Labor practice at Baker Hostetler and a trial lawyer for 27 years, I have experience with a number of jury consultants - I would strongly recommend Jim and his team."
