Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Keeping Bad Science Out Of The Courtroom: Why Post-Daubert Courts Are Correct In Excluding Opinions Based On Animal Studies From Birth-Defects Cases, Dije Ndreu
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment argues that courts should keep animal studies out of the courtroom in birth-defects toxic-torts cases. This will not only result in proper exclusion of unreliable evidence, but will also lead to valuable resources being directed to more worthy alternative tests, ultimately reducing human and animal suffering as birth defects are eradicated. Part I sets forth the evidentiary standards used to determine the admissibility of evidence and then presents background information on birth defects and how they are studied. It also discusses the problems inherent with animal tests and the contrasting value of human data. Part II explores the …
Expert Testimony And "Subtle Discrimination" In The Workplace: Do We Now Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows?, Deborah Dyson
Expert Testimony And "Subtle Discrimination" In The Workplace: Do We Now Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows?, Deborah Dyson
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Comment studies Elsayed in order to investigate these questions. The Background discussion traces the two great lines of cases whose trajectories cross in Elsayed, the Daubert v. Merrell Dow expert testimony jurisprudence under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the McDonnell Douglas v. Green line of cases establishing the "pretext" model of proof for individual employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Then, turning to the opinion proper, the Analysis considers Elsayed under the following headings: (A) The Crux: The Court's Harmless-Error Determination, (B) Decoding in the Pretext Context, (C) Substituting the Mixed-Motives Regime …