IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN ... · a CTU member should be found to have...

Economists Incorporated 2

I. INTRODUCTION, QUALIFICATIONS AND ASSIGNMENT

1. I submitted an expert report dated July 20, 2016 in this litigation matter. That report

reached three main conclusions. First, the layoff policy that the Board of Education of the City of

Chicago (“Board”) applied in 2011 had a statistically significant disparate impact on African-

American members of the Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 (“CTU”). By this I meant that

African-American CTU members received lay-off notices at a statistically significantly higher

rate than white CTU members did. Second, the disparate impact was not the result of hundreds of

unrelated decisions by principals at the various Chicago Public Schools (“CPS”), but rather was

the result of centralized decisions the Board made. Third, the Board’s stated decision criteria for

allocating cuts among schools, namely enrollment changes and changes in participation in free-

and reduced-price lunch programs, explain some but not all of the disparity in the rates at which

African-Americans were impacted by the layoff policy as compared to the rates at which white

CTU members were affected. I explained further that it would not rule out discrimination if the

Board’s allocation of budget cuts across schools had been explained entirely by enrollment

changes or changes in free- and reduced-price lunch participation rates. These variables were

correlated with race, so the Board could discriminate intentionally by using these variables as a

proxy for race or it could discriminate unintentionally by using these variables unnecessarily and

without regard for the racial ramifications.

2. Now Dr. David Blanchflower has produced two expert rebuttal reports on the Board’s

behalf, one dated March 2, 2017 and the other dated November 7, 2017. These two reports differ

in how Dr. Blanchflower defines adverse impact. In his first report, Dr. Blanchflower opined that

a CTU member should be found to have been impacted by the 2011 layoffs only if a) he or she

went off of the CPS payroll roster without any compensation from the CPS for fifteen days or

more and also b) the CTU member also did not die, retire or otherwise voluntarily terminate his

or her employment with CPS prior to the end of the 2011/2012 school year. In his second report,

Dr. Blanchflower opined that a CTU member should only be found to have been impacted by the

2011 layoffs if he or she did not have a full time position with the CPS on September 1, 2011.

Having defined impact in these respective ways, Dr. Blanchflower proceeded to conduct various

statistical analyses testing for racial disparities in how CTU members were impacted by the

Board’s 2011 layoffs policies.


3. In this reply I explain the following two general facts related to Dr. Blanchflower’s

rebuttal reports. First, Dr. Blanchflower’s reports corroborate my original findings that African-

American CTU members were more likely to receive layoff notices than white CTU members.

The disparity is statistically significant to an extraordinarily high degree of confidence, and there

is literally nothing in Dr. Blanchflower’s new work that contradicts this conclusion. Although it

would not disprove discrimination if the disparities were attributable to correlations between race

and other facially race-neutral job or individual characteristics, the disparities cannot be

explained in this way. There were statistically significant racial disparities in the allocation of

layoff notices even after controlling for all of the job and individual characteristics that Dr.

Blanchflower tried to control for. Second, African-American CTU members were

disproportionately impacted by the Board’s 2011 layoff policies even based on Dr.

Blanchflower’s definitions of impact and his assessment of who was impacted. African-

Americans were more likely to suffer an “adverse action” as Dr. Blanchflower has defined it, and

they were more likely to be terminated. The racial disparities in impact as Dr. Blanchflower

assessed it remain even after controlling for job characteristics and performance ratings.

4. In order to form the opinions I express in this reply report, I have relied on my training

and experience as an economist, Dr. Blanchflower’s rebuttal reports, the back-up material for his

rebuttal reports, the transcript of Dr. Blanchflower’s deposition in this case, the deposition

transcripts of the named plaintiffs and a sample of layoff notices.1

5. EI is being compensated for my time in this case at the hourly billing rate of $675. Other

economists and research staff at EI have assisted me on this matter. EI is being compensated for

their time at their standard hourly rates which range from $280 to $495 per hour. Neither my

compensation nor EI’s compensation for work on this matter depends in any way on the litigation

outcome.

II. DR. BLANCHFLOWER’S LIABILITY THEORY AND DATA

6. I discuss the major differences between Dr. Blanchflower’s analyses and the analyses that

I conducted for my first report in this matter below.

1 The sample of layoff notices are contained in CBOE0002221, CBOE0005159, CBOE0015154, CBOE0000493 and CBOE0003226.


a. Definition of Harm

7. The most significant difference between Dr. Blanchflower’s analysis and my own is the

definition of harm to CTU members from the 2011 layoffs. Although the CTU had maintained the

legal position that receipt of a layoff notice was the adverse employment action that bound the

class together, Dr. Blanchflower argued in his March 2017 report that statistical analysis in this

case should test for racial disparities in final terminations rather than racial disparities in the receipt

of layoff notices. Accordingly, Dr. Blanchflower purported to identify all of the CTU members

who were terminated as a result of receiving a 2011 layoff notice. He conducted statistical analysis

to determine whether there were disparities between the rate at which African-American CTU

members were terminated and the rates at which other groups of CTU members were terminated.

8. In his November 2017 report, Dr. Blanchflower seems to continue to argue that final

terminations are the only legitimate measure of harm, but he also introduces an alternative measure

of harm that he calls “adverse action.”2 According to Dr. Blanchflower, a CTU member suffered

an “adverse action” if he or she received a layoff notice and did not get a new full-time

appointment with the CPS by September 2011.3

9. Retirement status appears to be an additional factor affecting Dr. Blanchflower’s

categorization of CTU members as having suffered “adverse action” or having been unaffected by

the 2011 layoffs although Dr. Blanchflower is unclear about his intent in this regard. In his March

2017 report, Dr. Blanchflower opined that named plaintiff Lillian Edmonds was not “a layoff”

because she chose to retire after receiving her layoff notice rather than continuing on in the

reassigned teachers pool for a year.4 He opined further that ten other unnamed CTU members who

retired subsequent to receiving layoff notices were also not to be considered layoffs for purposes of

analyzing disparate impact.5 In his November 2017 report, Dr. Blanchflower states explicitly that

2 See page 22 of the Deposition of David Graham Blanchflower, May 24, 2018 where Dr. Blanchflower testifies that his original analysis based on terminations is appropriate and that the Court’s class certification ruling to the contrary “makes no sense at all.” 3 Blanchflower November Report, p. 8: “ . . . of the 1470 Board employees who received a notice only 638 actually suffered an adverse employment action. That is to say they did not a have full-time job with the Board in September 2011.” Also see p. 9: “If an employee did not have a full-time position in a school by September (2011), regardless of whether they were employed by the Board as a substitute teacher, or were receiving full pay and benefits in the reassigned teacher’s pool . . . or even returned to the Board as a full-time employee shortly after the 2011-2012 school year started, I assume for purposes of this model that they suffered an adverse action.” 4 Blanchflower March Report, p. 28. 5 Ibid.


he does not consider Ms. Edmonds to have suffered an “adverse action”. However, he also asserts

that Ms. Edmonds went into the reassignment pool (contradicting both his March 2017 report and

Ms. Edmonds’ deposition testimony), received full pay and benefits during the 2011/2012 school

year and retired a year after receiving her layoff notice.6 He includes Ms. Edmonds in Appendix E

to his November 2017 report among the CTU members who had a full-time job in September 2011

(also contradicting his March report and Ms. Edmonds’ deposition testimony). Thus, it is

ambiguous whether Dr. Blanchflower categorizes Ms. Edmonds as unharmed because he thinks

she was in the reassigned teacher pool for a year (notwithstanding that that would seemingly meet

Dr. Blanchflower’s definition of “adverse action”), because he thinks she found a new position

(notwithstanding his acknowledgement elsewhere that she did not) or because she retired after

receiving her layoff notice. Dr. Blanchflower never states whether he categorized the ten other

retirees as unharmed for purposes of his November 2017 report as he did for purposes of his March

2017 report.

10. At his deposition, Dr. Blanchflower admitted that his categorizations were judgment calls

based on his interpretations of business records.7 Personal judgment may be subject to error, and

there are apparent inconsistencies in how Dr. Blanchflower categorized people in terms of impact.

There are African-American CTU members whom Dr. Blanchflower classified as having suffered

no harm despite seeming to meet his criteria for having suffered an “adverse action.”8 For

example, Dr. Blanchflower categorized the following African-American CTU members as having

suffered no “adverse action” although they received layoff notices and did not have full-time jobs

with the Board in September 2011: Dorothy Hanna (employee identification number 69353),

Cynthia Solomon (employee identification number 90112) and Joseph Washington (employee

identification number 114002). On the other hand, Dr. Blanchflower categorized the following

white CTU members who were similarly relegated from regular teacher positions to part-time or

substitute jobs as having suffered “adverse action”: Amy Paulikaitis (employee identification

number 63319), Dorie Hodges (employee identification number 204199), Melissa Zimmerman

(employee identification number 218272) and Jennifer Lessman (employee identification number

6 Blanchflower November Report, p. 11. 7 Blanchflower Deposition, p. 26. 8 See CBOE0015322. On page 41 of his March Report, Dr. Blanchflower asserts that this is the spreadsheet that I should have relied upon in my original report to determine teachers’ work histories with CPS after receiving layoff notices.


150027). These inconsistencies suggest that Dr. Blanchflower’s “adverse action” analysis is

statistically biased. Understating the number of African-American CTU members who were

impacted by the layoffs and overstating the number of white CTU members who were impacted

will tilt the analysis against finding disparate impact.

11. Human error may not only bias the analysis, but it can also cause random error and thus

make it less likely that empirical analysis will yield statistically significant results. At page 27 of

his deposition transcript, Dr. Blanchflower explained that he did not have any assistants working

with him on this case. That means that his work has not been independently checked. This lack of

quality control practically guaranteed that his final work product would be unnecessarily affected

by human error and thus less likely to generate statistically significant findings.

12. In addition to the inconsistencies I discussed above regarding categorization of

employees between harmed and not harmed, Dr. Blanchflower’s report includes many additional

errors suggesting a high error rate in the quantitative analysis and thus a reduced the likelihood of

recognizing statistically significant relationships between race and harm if such relationships

actually exist. For example, Dr. Blanchflower’s primary opinion in this case is that the majority of

African-American CTU members who received layoff notices suffered no “adverse action.” On

pages 9 and 10 of his November 2017 report, Dr. Blanchflower explained how he developed his

list of African-American CTU members who received layoff notices but did not suffer an

“adverse action,” and thus arrived at his primary conclusion regarding disparate impact. There Dr.

Blanchflower refers back to ten appendices from his March 2017 report. In the course of a

roughly half-page explanation of how he determined that the majority of African-American CTU

members suffered no “adverse action,” the central topic of his November 2017 disparate impact

analysis, Dr. Blanchflower misstated what his own March 2017 Appendices 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11,

12, 13 and 14 purported to measure. For example, in his November report, Dr. Blanchflower

referred to Appendix 3 of his March report as a list of 25 African-American tenured teachers who

went to XFREAT and returned to the same school. However, Appendix 3 from his March 2017

report actually purports to be something entirely different—a list of 116 African-American PSRPs

whom Dr. Blanchflower classified as layoffs.9 Dr. Blanchflower’s entire description of how he

concluded that the majority of African-American CTU members who received layoff notices were

9 Although Appendix 3 purports to list 116 African-American PSRPs who were laid off, it actually lists 115.


nonetheless unharmed is demonstrably erroneous. His errors were not merely getting appendix

titles wrong either. The November discussion and the March appendices both purportedly

measured how many employees fell into various categories. For example, as noted above, in his

November 2017 report, Dr. Blanchflower discusses 25 African-American tenured teachers having

gone to XFREAT but having returned to their same schools, and he refers to Appendix 3 for

support. Not only is it not true that Appendix 3 from his March 2017 report purported to list such

CTU members, but also the Appendix that did purport to identify such CTU members listed 26

rather than 25. For 9 out of 10 employee categories discussed on pages 9 and 10 of his November

2017 report, Dr. Blanchflower asserts a different number of employees being in that category in

his November 2017 report than he asserted previously in his March 2017 report.

13. These obvious errors are especially relevant to Dr. Blanchflower’s analysis because he

purports to have personally reviewed PeopleSoft files pertaining to 870 or 875 of the 1,470 CTU

members who received layoff notices and categorized these 870 or more CTU members as

“adverse action,” not “adverse action”, terminated and not terminated based on this unchecked

work.10 Each and every one of these intermediary determinations was subject to potential, human

error without any independent quality control. Yet we know that one or both of Dr.

Blanchflower’s reports must be wrong in its assessment of how the career of one of only three

named plaintiffs progressed subsequent to receiving a layoff. We know that Dr. Blanchflower

erred 10 out of 10 times essentially transcribing key information from one report to the other

concerning the primary topic of his analysis, and we know that he miscounted the number of

employees in different groups at least 9 out of 20 times.

14. Despite the potential bias and random error in identifying employees who were subject

either to “adverse action” as Dr. Blanchflower defines it or termination, there were statistically

significant racial disparities in “adverse actions” and terminations as I explain in detail below.11

Although the strength of the relationship between race and these measures of harm is likely

obfuscated by Dr. Blanchflower’s errors, verifying and correcting Dr. Blanchflower’s

10 Dr. Blanchflower claims on page 19 of his March report to have reviewed 875 PeopleSoft files. In footnote 6 on page 9 of his November report he claims to rely on only 870 PeopleSoft files. 11 For purposes of the termination-related statistical discussion in this report, I accept Dr. Blanchflower’s categorizations of CTU members as terminated or not terminated as a consequence of the Board’s 2011 layoff policies. My acceptance of these categorizations for this limited purpose is not meant to indicate that I agree that the categorizations are correct.


categorizations in order to measure this relationship more accurately is beyond the scope of my

assignment. Ultimately, Dr. Blanchflower’s termination and “adverse action” analyses are

irrelevant to the CTU’s liability theory, except insofar as they corroborate that African-Americans

suffered more greatly from the 2011 layoffs than white CTU members did. Moreover, CTU

members need not have suffered “adverse action” as Dr. Blanchflower defines it or termination to

have been injured as a matter of economics.

15. Dr. Blanchflower’s basic premise is that CTU members cannot have been impacted by the

2011 layoffs unless they suffered some loss in compensation.12 According to Dr. Blanchflower,

unless a CTU member was ultimately terminated, having received a layoff notice was “the

equivalent of having a blank sheet of paper handed to them,”13 an event of literally no moment

whatsoever. However, the layoff notices informed the recipients that their current positions no

longer existed. Although pay might continue for as much as a year for some CTU members who

received layoff notices, no recipient would continue employment at CPS into the indefinite future

unless he or she successfully competed for a new position. Economics is grounded in the principle

that individuals are worse off when they suffer a diminution in their well-being, and well-being

depends on the totality of their circumstances, including risk-exposure, not just their compensation.

The risk-exposure attendant with a layoff notice diminished CTU members’ well-being, at least

temporarily, even the well-being of CTU members who subsequently found new positions that

paid as much or more than their old ones. Moreover, finding a new position that paid as much or

more did not necessarily mean that a CTU member’s injury from receiving a layoff notice ended.

Jobs differ in other dimensions besides pay and benefits, so one job that pays as much or more than

another is not necessarily as good from the worker’s perspective.14 Dr. Blanchflower is wrong that

there were CTU members who received layoff notices and suffered no injury, and he has no basis

in economics to quantify the non-monetary injury that they did suffer. Most importantly, it is a

matter of law and not economics whether the class members’ non-monetary injuries are legally

12 Blanchflower November Report, p. 3: “. . . the class definition is too broad as to be meaningful and is totally unsupportable in the real world. It shows no understanding of labor economics where monetary losses reign supreme. It makes no sense to include in a class of individuals who are suing to recover economic losses when the majority of that so-called ‘class’ had zero economic losses and not a single day of lost employment.” 13 Blanchflower Deposition at 50, 57, 58, 64, 67, 68, 81 and 115. 14 The economic literature concerning compensating differentials addresses this topic directly. For example,see Mona Said, “Compensating Differentials and the Value of Job Security: Evidence from the Egyptian Public Sector,” International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 4, #1.


actionable.

b. Supplemental Race Data

16. The second difference between the analysis that I conducted for my first report and the

analysis that Dr. Blanchflower conducted is that Dr. Blanchflower supplemented the race data that

I had with information from other sources. I do not know whether Dr. Blanchflower’s

supplementation was accurate, but there were too few CTU members with missing race

information for that exercise to have had a material effect on the analytical results. As I show

below, there were statistically significant disparities in the rates at which African-American and

white CTU members received layoff notices regardless of whether the analysis is performed on the

original dataset that I used or the dataset that Dr. Blanchflower constructed with additional race

information.

c. Control Variables

17. Another difference between my original analysis and Dr. Blanchflower’s relates to the

choices of control variables.15 Some of Dr. Blanchflower’s choices regarding control variables are

demonstrably wrong, and others are questionable. Nevertheless, these decisions about how to

structure the statistical analysis do not affect the ultimate conclusion that African-American CTU

members were more likely than white CTU members to receive layoff notices.

18. Many of Dr. Blanchflower’s analyses estimating the probability of an individual being

subject to an adverse employment outcome omit variables that distinguish Native American,

Asian, Hispanic, multi-racial and persons of other races from white persons. These regressions

presuppose that Hispanic, Asian and other non-African-American, non-white persons had the same

probabilities of being subject to an adverse employment action as white persons did. These

regressions are obviously misspecified. The variables distinguishing white persons from members

of these other races are jointly significant when they are included, and the CTU’s legal theory is

that African-Americans were disproportionately harmed relative to white CTU members, not

relative to Hispanic CTU members, Asian CTU members or CTU members of other races.

Excluding these other racial variables is statistical error, and it biases Dr. Blanchflower’s estimates

15 Blanchflower March Report, p. 44: “I do question some of the variables he uses, such as enrollment change in the 2011-2012 year after the layoff decisions were made, tenure rank, and availability of free lunch . . .”


of the effect of African-American status on employment outcomes.

19. Dr. Blanchflower’s inclusion of “utilization” as a control variable appears to be data

mining. To my knowledge, no one from the Board testified that the Board took utilization into

account in the layoff process. Dr. Blanchflower explains his basis for including utilization by

saying: “[U]tilization reflects long-term changes in enrollment, relative to capacity. It is my

understanding that the Board had typically used student enrollment in schools as a crucial factor in

determining the number of quota teacher positions a school should be allocated. Therefore, it is my

opinion that using utilization as a control factor for enrollment changes over time is reasonable.”16

This explanation is a non sequitur. Dr. Blanchflower includes enrollment as a control variable

directly. The fact that utilization is correlated in some way with enrollment, if true, would not

imply that utilization was a separate factor that the Board considered in addition to enrollment

itself.

20. As I stated, these specification-related decisions are ultimately irrelevant. The statistical

analysis indicates that African-American CTU members were disproportionately impacted by the

2011 layoffs regardless of whether the analysis is based upon the control variables I used or the

ones that Dr. Blanchflower did.

d. Positions and Individuals

21. Dr. Blanchflower suggests that my analysis was based on positions rather than

individuals and thus counted persons with more than one position twice.17 The original files from

the Board were based on positions; however, the files underlying the tables in my report were

based on individuals with duplicates removed. There are only two sets of differences I am aware

of between the number and identity of individuals in the dataset that I relied upon and the dataset

that Dr. Blanchflower relied upon. First, there are three African-American teachers included in

my analysis whom Dr. Blanchflower deliberately excluded. In footnote 6 of his March 2017

report, Dr. Blanchflower states that the Board erroneously included these three people in the

original file reporting the number of layoff notices but that they were not actually CPS

employees. Second, there are two Hispanic CTU members in my analysis who are missing from

Dr. Blanchflower’s, Ofelia Sosa (identification #94104) and Helen Cortecero (identification 16 Blanchflower March Report, p. 49. 17 Blanchflower March Report, p. 17.


#97098). Ms. Sosa and Ms. Cortecero both appear on Exhibit 9 to the Defendants’ Opposition to

Class Certification, a list of paraprofessionals who received layoff notices.

22. I do not know whether Dr. Blanchflower is correct that the three African-Americans

originally identified as having gotten layoff notices were not actually CPS employees or why Dr.

Blanchflower excluded Ms. Sosa and Ms. Cortecero. Regardless, his choices regarding these five

people had no material effect on the analytical results. As I discuss below, there were statistically

significant disparities between the rates at which African-American and white CTU members

received layoff notices whether the analysis included these five people, as mine did, or it excluded

these five people, as Dr. Blanchflower’s does.

III. DR. BLANCHFLOWER’S ANALYSIS AND DATA FURTHER CORROBORATE DISPARATE IMPACT BASED ON LAYOFF NOTICES

23. Dr. Blanchflower concedes that there were statistically significant differences in the rate at

which African-Americans received layoff notices. Racial disparities remain in Dr. Blanchflower’s

data and analysis even after facially, race-neutral individual and school level differences are

accounted for.

24. Dr. Blanchflower opines explicitly that “African Americans were more likely to receive

layoff notices than whites for both teachers (6.9% versus 3.7%) and for PSRPs (10.8% versus

7.2%).”18 Dr. Blanchflower also presented data showing that for teachers and PSRPs combined

7.7% of African-American CTU members received layoff notices, but only 3.9% of white CTU

members received layoff notices.19 Thus for teachers, PSRPs and for teachers and PSRPs

combined white CTU members received layoff notices at less than 80% of the rate that African-

American CTU members did based on Dr. Blanchflower’s data. The layoff notice percentage for

white teachers was approximately 54% of the percentage for African-American teachers; the layoff

notice percentage for white PSRPs was approximately 67% of the percentage for African-

American PSRPs, and the layoff notice percentage for white teachers and PSRPs combined was

approximately 51% of the layoff notice percentage for African-American teachers and PSRPs

combined. All of these racial differences in the incidence of layoff notices are statistically

18 Blanchflower March Report, p. 21. 19 Ibid.


significant at the 99% confidence level.20

25. In Table 1(a) of his March 2017 report, Dr. Blanchflower summarized the results of logit

regressions which measured the likelihood of a CTU member receiving a layoff notice by race

after controlling for differences between teachers and PSRPs, probationary status as a teacher

(PAT1, PAT2 or PAT3), tenure status, years of tenure and whether the CTU member was

employed at an elementary school. Dr. Blanchflower conducted three versions of this regression.

In one version, the analysis was conducted based only on African-American and white CTU

members. In another version, the analysis was conducted on CTU members of all races, but

controls were included to distinguish among white, Native American, Asian, Hispanic, multi-racial

and people of other races. In the third version, Dr. Blanchflower excludes the variables that

distinguish white, Native American, Asian, Hispanic, multi-racial and other races, effectively

comparing African-Americans to everyone else. All three versions indicated that there was a

statistically significant correlation between African-American status and receiving a layoff

notice.21 African-Americans were more than twice as likely as whites to receive layoff notices

even after controlling for the other characteristics that Dr. Blanchflower controlled for in these

regressions.22

26. In Table 1(b) of his March 2017 report, Dr. Blanchflower added controls for performance

ratings to the list of controls he had already used in his Table 1(a). Once again, Dr. Blanchflower

conducted three versions of the analysis. African-American status was statistically significant in all

three versions. Once again, African-Americans were more than twice as likely as whites to receive

layoff notices after controlling for status as either a teacher or PSRP, teachers’ probationary status,

teachers’ tenure status, years of tenure, teacher performance rating and distinguishing between

CTU members at elementary schools and other schools.

27. In Table 1(c) of his March 2017 report, Dr. Blanchflower added school fixed effects. That

is, he included dummy variables distinguishing each school from the others. He also controlled for 20 The chi-squared statistics with one degree of freedom are 91.45 for teachers, 7.89 for PSRPs and 138.27 for teachers and PSRPs combined. The critical value for significance at the 99% confidence level is 6.63. Based on the allocation of layoff notices among teachers and among teachers and PSRPs combined, the probability that race and receiving a layoff notice were independent is less than one in a million. 21 Dr. Blanchflower’s Tables 1 (a) through 1 (e) erroneously assert that they report standard errors associated with coefficient estimates. Actually, they report t-statistics instead. 22 Here and in subsequent paragraphs, I estimate odds-ratios by exponentiating the coefficients that Dr. Blanchflower reports in his tables.


the same individual level characteristics that he had accounted for in his Table 1(b). This analysis

with school fixed effects indicated that African-Americans were 34% to 35% more likely than

white employees to receive layoff notices, and that the disparity was statistically significant. These

differences in probability correspond to white CTU members’ probability of receiving a

termination notice being approximately 74% to 75% as high as African-American CTU members’

probability.

28. In Table 1(d) of his March 2017 report, Dr. Blanchflower included change in enrollment

between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 and utilization rate in his analysis rather than school

fixed effects. These logit regressions indicated even stronger race effects than the regressions

based on school fixed effects. African-Americans were 43% to 44% more likely than white

employees to receive layoff notices, and the disparity was statistically significant. These

differences in probability correspond to white CTU members’ probability of receiving a

termination notice being approximately 69% to 70% as high as African-American CTU members’

probability.

29. Table 1(e) from Dr. Blanchflower’s March 2017 report pertained to CTU members in

citywide positions. The analysis reported in this table distinguished between non-tenured teachers,

tenured teachers and PSRPs. It also controlled for years of tenure and performance rating. African-

American status was a statistically significant predictor of receiving a layoff notice for citywide

employees. African-American CTU members in citywide positions were over ten times as likely to

receive layoff notices as white CTU members employed in citywide positions, and the disparity

was statistically significant.

30. Table 3 from Dr. Blanchflower’s March 2017 report shows that the number of layoff

notices at a school increased as the African-American percentage of the school’s CTU members

increased. For each percentage point increase in African-Americans among a school’s teachers and

paraprofessionals, approximately 2.2 more CTU members received layoff notices. This

relationship was statistically significant at the 99% level.23 Adding schools’ change in enrollment

and capacity utilization as control variables reduced the estimated race effect to approximately 1

additional layoff notice per percentage point increase in African-Americans. Even after controlling

23 Dr. Blanchflower’s Table 3 erroneously asserts that it reports standard errors associated with coefficient estimates. Actually, it reports t-statistics instead.


for enrollment change and capacity utilization, the probability that percentage of African-

Americans in the workforce and number of layoff notices were independent was less than 10%.24

31. To summarize, Dr. Blanchflower’s March 2017 Tables 1(a) through 1 (e) show that there

was disparate impact in the allocation of layoff notices. The results in Table 3 that do not control

for enrollment or capacity utilization and the results in Table 1(e) indicate that the Board caused

the disparate impact through its allocation of cuts across schools and its direct decisions regarding

citywide positions. The analysis in Dr. Blanchflower’s March 2017 Table 3 that does control for

enrollment changes and capacity utilization indicates that there was less than a 10% probability

that the racial differences in allocation of layoffs among schools was due solely to the Board

allocating cuts to schools based on enrollment changes or capacity utilization.

IV. DR. BLANCHFLOWER’S ANALYSIS AND DATA INDICATE RACIAL DISPARITIES BASED ON DR. BLANCHFLOWER’S DEFINITON OF IMPACT

32. Dr. Blanchflower’s reports indicate that African-American CTU members were more

likely than white CTU employees to be terminated and to suffer “adverse action” as Dr.

Blanchflower defines the term. Table 1 of Dr. Blanchflower’s November 2017 report compares the

racial composition of the groups of CTU members receiving layoff notices, being terminated and

made subject to “adverse actions” to the racial composition of the CPS workforce. Based on Dr.

Blanchflower’s data, African-Americans were 29.7% of the CPS workforce, but they received

42.9% of the layoff notices, suffered 41.3% of the “adverse actions” and suffered 42.5% of the

terminations. In contrast, white CTU members were 43.5% of the workforce, yet they only

received 31.6% of the layoff notices, suffered only 28.5% of the “adverse actions,” and suffered

only 26% of the terminations. The worse the type of injury, the less likely white CTU members

were to have suffered it.

33. Dr. Blanchflower produced additional tables showing that the racial disparities in the

probability of “adverse action” and termination remained even after controlling for individual

24 This finding refers to the second column of results on Table 3. There was a third column reporting analytical results after excluding Native American percentage, Asian percentage, Hispanic percentage, multi-race percentage and other race percentage as explanatory variables. These variables were jointly significant, so Dr. Blanchflower excluding them was statistical error causing omitted variable bias. In particular, Hispanic percentage had a statistically significant estimated effect on the number of layoff notices that was even stronger than the estimated effect of African-American percentage. By aggregating Hispanic and white persons, Dr. Blanchflower obscured the differences between African-American CTU members and non-Hispanic, white CTU members.


characteristics such as type of job, tenure status and job performance. Table 2 of Dr.

Blanchflower’s November 2017 report summarizes logit regression results indicating statistically

significant racial disparities in the probability of suffering an “adverse action” even after

controlling for being a teacher versus a PSRP, teacher probationary status, teacher tenure status

and employment at an elementary school rather than another type of school. Dr. Blanchflower’s

Table 2 summarizes the results from four different regressions that differ in how CTU members

who were neither white nor African-American were treated. All four versions show higher

probabilities that African-Americans would be subject to “adverse action.” In all four cases, this

race effect was statistically significant. Comparing African-Americans to all other races, African-

American CTU members had 69% higher probability of being subject to “adverse action.”

Comparing African-Americans to white CTU members, African-American CTU members had

87% to 100% higher probability of being subject to “adverse action.” This corresponds to white

CTU members’ probability of “adverse action” being 50% to 54% of African-American CTU

members’ probability after controlling for job characteristics, probationary status and tenure.

34. Table 3 of Dr. Blanchflower’s November 2017 report shows that statistically significant

racial disparities in the number of “adverse actions” remain even after controlling for differences in

teacher performance ratings. Comparing African-Americans to all other races, the probability that

an African-American CTU member would suffer an “adverse action” was 49% higher after

distinguishing between teachers and PSRPs and controlling for teacher probationary status, tenure,

elementary school and performance rating. Comparing African-American CTU members to white

CTU members, African-Americans’ probability of suffering an “adverse action” was 59% to 68%

higher. Put differently, white CTU members’ likelihood of suffering an “adverse action” was 60%

to 63% that of African-American CTU members after controlling for job characteristics,

probationary status, tenure and performance ratings.

35. Table 4 (b) of Dr. Blanchflower’s March 2017 report shows that there were also

statistically significant racial disparities in terminations after controlling for job characteristics,

probationary status, tenure and performance ratings. Controlling just for job (PSRP versus

teacher), teacher probationary status and tenure, African-Americans’ probability of being

terminated as a result of the 2011 layoffs was 79% to 81% higher than white CTU members’

probability. This corresponds to white CTU members’ probability of being terminated as a result

of the layoffs being only 55% to 56% of African-American CTU members’ probability after


controlling for job characteristics, probationary status and tenure. Further controlling for

performance rating closes the gap marginally, but there were still large and statistically significant

disparities between African-American and white CTU members’ probabilities of being terminated.

After controlling for job, teacher probationary status, tenure and performance rating, Dr.

Blanchflower found that African-Americans’ probability of being terminated as a result of the

2011 layoffs was 55% to 56% higher than white CTU members’ probability. This corresponds to

white CTU members’ probability of being terminated as a result of the layoffs being only 64% of

African-American CTU members’ probability.

V. DR. BLANCHFLOWER’S ADDITIONAL ANALYSES ARE UNINFORMATIVE

36. Dr. Blanchflower conducted additional analyses in which he further controlled either for

a) school enrollment and utilization or b) school fixed effects to predict individuals’ probability of

suffering an adverse action or termination. These are the results that Dr. Blanchflower ultimately

relies upon as they fail to show statistically significant effects of race. None of these analyses

rebuts the broader findings that I discussed above.

37. First, there are statistically significant disparities in the rate at which African-American

CTU members received layoff notices even after adding school level controls. None of the

regression results that Dr. Blanchflower relies upon for his ultimate conclusions address, let alone

rebut, that there are statistically significant disparities between the rates at which African-

American and white CTU members were issued layoff notices.

38. Second, the results from the “adverse action” and termination regressions that include

enrollment and utilization controls do not refute that there were racial disparities in the incidence

of both “adverse actions” and terminations or that the disparities were discriminatory. At best,

adding school enrollment and utilization as additional controls explains the mechanism by which

African-American CTU members suffered disproportionately many “adverse actions” and

terminations. That is, the Board may have chosen schools for layoffs based on changes in

enrollment and capacity utilization and these variables are correlated with race. But African-

American CTU members still suffered disproportionately many “adverse actions” and terminations

whether this was the mechanism or not. Moreover, these regressions cannot disprove that the

Board chose to rely on enrollment changes and utilization for layoff decisions because of their

predictable racial effects or that the Board could have achieved its legitimate business purposes


some other way. In other words, these regressions cannot disprove intentional or unintentional

discrimination.

39. Third, the fixed effects regressions that Dr. Blanchflower ultimately relies upon are

statistically biased against finding racial disparities. The fixed effects regressions in which harm is

defined to be “adverse action” are limited to CTU members at schools at which there were

“adverse actions.” The fixed effects regressions in which harm is defined to be termination are

limited to CTU members at schools at which there were terminations. In Table 1, I show that the

schools that had “adverse actions” had lower percentages of CTU members who were white and

higher percentages who were African-American than the schools with no “adverse actions.”

Similarly, the schools that had terminations had lower percentages of CTU members who were

white and higher percentages who were African-American than the schools with no terminations.

These differences are all statistically significant. Because Dr. Blanchflower’s “adverse action”

regressions with fixed school effects only use data from schools that had “adverse actions,” they do

not address and thus cannot explain the racial disparities in “adverse actions” that are caused by

some schools not having any “adverse actions” at all. For the same reasons, the termination

regressions with fixed effects do not address and cannot explain racial disparities in terminations

that were caused by some schools not having any terminations at all because the termination

regressions with fixed effects only use data from schools that had terminations.

VI. SUMMARY

40. Dr. Blanchflower’s rebuttal reports do not in any way refute the primary results from my

opening report in this matter. There were statistically significant disparities between the rates at

which African-American CTU members and white CTU members received layoff notices pursuant

to the Board’s 2011 layoff policies. Dr. Blanchflower’s analysis corroborates this finding, and Dr.

Blanchflower acknowledges this racial disparity explicitly.

41. Dr. Blanchflower criticizes the data that I relied upon and my choice of control variables,

but these criticisms were irrelevant to any serious issue in this case as none of the key findings

differ based upon use of the original dataset and controls that I relied upon or the dataset and

controls that Dr. Blanchflower favors.

42. Dr. Blanchflower’s primary criticism is that I supposedly should have measured the effect

of race on “adverse actions” as he defines them or final terminations rather than the effect of race

Percentage of Employees African American Percentage of Employees White

Schools with "Adverse Actions" 32.75% 41.17%

Schools without "Adverse Actions" 25.54% 46.56%

Schools with Terminations 33.70% 40.83%

Schools without Terminations 25.92% 45.92%

Racial Composition of Schools With and Without “Adverse Actions” and TerminationsTable 1

Note: The racial differences in the incidence of "adverse actions" and terminations are statistically significant at the 99% confidence level. The "adverse actions" chi-squared statistic with one degree of freedom is 186.5430. The terminations chi-squared statistic with one degree of freedom is 219.8176.

JONATHAN L. WALKER

Office

Economists Incorporated 101 Mission Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Direct: (415) 975-3223 Main Office: (415) 975-5510 Fax: (415) 281-9151 [email protected]

Education

Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1991 A.B., Economics, University of California, Berkeley, 1983

Fellowships, Honors and Awards

1986: American Economic Association Doctoral Fellowship 1983: National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship

1983: Honors in General Studies, University of California, Berkeley

Fields of Concentration

Industrial Organization, Labor Economics, Economic History Professional Experience

2003 – Present: President, Economists Incorporated

2001 – 2002: Principal, Economists Incorporated 1998 – 2000: Senior Vice President, Economists Incorporated 1996 – 1998: Vice President, Economists Incorporated 1990 – 1996: Senior Economist, Economists Incorporated

Professional Experience (continued)

1988 – 1990: Management Consultant, Monitor Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1987 – 1988: Visiting Research Fellow, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston Massachusetts 1987: Teaching Assistant Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dissertation

Essays on the Commercial Banking Industry Publications

“Discounting Lost Future Earnings,” Economists Ink, Summer 2015 (with Erica Greulich) “DTB and the Use of Regression Analysis to Assess Market Definition and Competitive Effects,” Antitrust Law Section of the American Bar Association, Economics Committee Newsletter, Spring 2011 (with Erica Greulich) “Preparing for Trial: Expert Economic Testimony,” Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association 59th Spring Meeting, Continuing Legal Education Written Materials, March 2011 “The Single Entity Issue in American Needle and DTB,” Westlaw Journal Antitrust, Volume 18, Issue 1, April 2010 (with Erica Greulich) “Event Studies, Toxic Stock and Non-Compete Provisions,” Economists Ink, Fall 2005 “Statistical Evidence and a Daubert Challenge in a Recent Discrimination Case,” Economists Ink, Summer 2004 “Price Increases Attributable to Patent Infringement or Entry,” Economists Ink, Spring 2004 (with Tessie Su) “Ninth Circuit Expounds on Antitrust Injury,” Economists Ink, Fall 2003 “The Deterrence Value of Punitive Damages,” Economists Ink, Fall 2001 (with Laura Malowane)

Curriculum Vitæ Jonathan L. Walker pg. 2


Publications (continued) “Recent Development in Bank Merger Competition Policy,” Banking Law Review, Spring 1992 (with Bruce Snapp and David Balto) “U.S. Bank Merger Competition Policy,” International Merger Law 16, December 1991 (with Bruce Snapp) “Not So Safe Harbor for Bank Mergers,” Economists Ink, Winter 1991

Panels

87th Annual Conference of the Western Economics Association International, “Sports Economics on Trial,” June 30, 2012 – Symposium panelist American Bar Association Antitrust Section Annual Meetings, March 9, 2011 – Presentation concerning preparation for economic trial testimony American Law Institute – American Bar Association Course of Study, “Antitrust Law in the 21st Century,” September 14-15, 2000 – Presentation concerning the economics of professional sports leagues American Bar Association Antitrust Section Annual Meetings, April 14, 1999 – Presentation concerning the economic foundations of antitrust law National Economists Club Educational Foundation, “What Effect Will Financial Restructuring Have On Banks?” August 13, 1991 – Moderator

Board Memberships

Economists Incorporated

SF-Marin Food Bank Expert Reports and Testimony

In Re: Processed Egg Products Litigation – Expert reports (4), class decertification declaration, hearing testimony, deposition testimony and class trial testimony on behalf of defendants concerning antitrust damages and liability Anne Roty and Mary Neff v. Battelle Memorial Institute, et al. – Expert report on behalf of defendants concerning statistics Bobby Jones et al. v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co. et al. – Expert report and declaration on behalf of defendant concerning class certification and damages

Expert Reports and Testimony (continued) In Re: Aaron Slator – Export report and arbitration testimony on behalf of respondent concerning contract damages All-South Subcontractors, Inc. v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. – Expert report on behalf of defendant concerning class certification Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and Crowe Horwath LLP – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of plaintiffs concerning damages

Precision Spine, Inc. and Spinal USA, Inc. v. Zavation, LLC et al. – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of plaintiffs concerning damages

Chicago Teachers Union et al. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago et al. (Case No. 12-C-10311) – Expert reports (3), declaration and deposition testimony on behalf of plaintiffs concerning liability

Chicago Teachers Union et al. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago et al. (Case No. 12-C-10338) – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of plaintiffs concerning liability Charles Ridgeway, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. – Expert report, trial and deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning class injury and damages Daniel Villalpando, et al. v. Exel Direct Inc., et al. – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning class damages United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp., et al. – Expert report, declaration and deposition testimony of behalf of plaintiff concerning damages The West Virginia Investment Management Board et al. v. The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning damages In Re: Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions – Expert reports (2), deposition and trial testimony on behalf of defendant concerning liability and remedies Peter Sripramot v. Nor Cal Freight Mgmt., Inc., et al. – Expert report on behalf of defendant concerning damages Moroccanoil Inc., v. Marc Anthony Cosmetics, Inc., et al. – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of plaintiff concerning trademark infringement remedies


Expert Reports and Testimony (continued) Isidro Baricuatro, Jr., et al. v. Industrial Personnel and Management Services, Inc., et al. – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning Fair Labor Standards Act and contract damages Ameira Watters v. General Motors LLC, et al. – Expert report on behalf of defendants concerning damages

Louis Cimaglia v. Royal Pontiac Buick GMC Inc., et al. – Expert report on behalf of defendants concerning damages Harris County, Texas et al. v. International Paper Company, et al. – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning punitive damages United States v. Bank of America Corp. et al. – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning financial harm Diane Zwarg v. BB&T Insurance Services of California, Inc., et al. – Trial and deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning damages Ritchie Risk – Linked Strategies Trading (Ireland), Ltd., et al. v. Coventry First LLC, et al. – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning economic loss In Re: BDO Seidman – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning damages from alleged breach of professional responsibility U.S. SEC v. Ralph Cioffi – Deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning hedge fund operations Ultra Internet Media, S.A., et al. v. Caesars License Company, LLC et al. – Expert report on behalf of defendants concerning damages Lauren Knowles v. Kelly Buick, Inc., et al. – Expert report on behalf of defendants concerning economic loss Kenneth D. Klaas, et al. v. Vestin Mortgage Inc., et al. – Expert reports (2) on behalf of defendants concerning contract damages Tyr Sport, Inc. v. Warnaco Swimwear, Inc., United States Swimming, Inc., et al. – Expert report on behalf of defendants concerning antitrust liability United States of America v. Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin – Testimony at criminal trial on behalf of defendants concerning hedge fund operations


Expert Reports and Testimony (continued) Charles M. Felton et al. v. Vestin Realty Mortgage II, et al. – Deposition testimony and testimony at a bench trial on behalf of defendants concerning contract damages National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Puget Plastics Corporation et al. – Deposition testimony and testimony at a bench trial on behalf of plaintiff concerning lost profits and diminution in business value Deutscher Tennis Bund, et al. v. ATP Tour Inc. – Expert reports (2), deposition testimony and testimony at a jury trial on behalf of defendant concerning antitrust liability John Johnson, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc. – Expert reports (2), declarations (2), deposition testimony, and testimony at a bench trial on behalf of defendant concerning alleged violation of Fair Labor Standards Act. MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc. and S&M NuTec, LLC – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning damages In Re: H Street Building Corporation – Deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning damages In Re: The National Benevolent Association of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), et al. – Expert report, rebuttal report and deposition testimony on behalf of plaintiff concerning damages Chemical Overseas Holdings Inc., et al. v. Republica Oriental Del Uruguay, et al. – Expert report, supplemental report and arbitration testimony on behalf of respondents concerning damages In Re: Lockheed Meridian, MS Shooting Incident – Expert reports (3) and deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning damages John D. Wee v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. – Arbitration testimony on behalf of plaintiff concerning damages In Re: Robin Singh d/b/a Test Masters – Expert reports (2), declaration and deposition testimony on behalf of plaintiff concerning damages Patrick J. Cunningham and Anton N. Zanki v. International Business Machines Corporation – Expert report, rebuttal report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning alleged breach of contract


Expert Reports and Testimony (continued)

Mark Hodges, et al. v. Greater Canton Ford Mercury, Inc., et al. – Expert report on behalf of defendant concerning punitive damages

In Re: Frank T. Vega – Declaration on behalf of defendant concerning damages

Martin Leach v. Ford Motor Co. – Expert report on behalf of defendant concerning the corporate officer labor market in a breach of contract suit Westways World Travel, Inc. and Sundance Travel Service v. AMR Corp., et al. – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning compensatory damages

Traci A. Savage v. Ford Motor Co. – Expert report on behalf of defendant concerning the economics of punitive damages Randy Eugene Wheeler v. Ford Motor Co. – Deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning lost NFL earnings and other alleged damages David Braswell v. Holley Performance Products Inc. – Expert report and rebuttal on behalf of defendant concerning antitrust liability and antitrust damages Ertha Mae Williams v. CSX Transportation Inc., et al. – Deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning the economics of punitive damages R. Straman Co. and Newport Convertible Engineering, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, et al. – Deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning antitrust liability and antitrust injury Roll International Corporation and Paramount Farms, Inc. v. Unilever United States, Inc. and Conopco, Inc. – Testimony at jury trial on behalf of defendants regarding compensatory damages for alleged breach of contract and false promise Newhall Land and Farming Co. v. Kerr McGee Operating Corporation, et al. – Deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning the economics of punitive damages Marcia Spielholz, et al. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company, et al. – Expert report on behalf of defendants concerning remedies in a class action false advertising suit David N. Orrik v. Stryker Corporation, et al. - Deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning the economics of punitive damages


Expert Reports and Testimony (continued) Agneta Karlsson, et al. v. Michael A. Savage – Deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning the economics of punitive damages and product liability Homestore, Inc. v. America Online – Expert report and arbitration testimony on behalf of respondent concerning damages from breach of contract Michael Meitus, et al. v. Dain Rauscher Wessels, Dain Rauscher Corporation and Dain Rauscher Inc. – Arbitration testimony on behalf of claimants concerning the competitive structure of the securities industry and other economic matters

In Re: 1994 Exxon Chemical Plant Fire – Expert report on behalf of defendant concerning the economics of punitive damages Avis Buchanan, et al v. Consolidated Stores Corp. – Declaration and deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning statistical and other economic analyses in a class action public accommodations suit State of Alabama v. Exxon Corporation – Affidavit and testimony at post- trial hearing on behalf of defendant concerning the economics of punitive damages Aspen Knolls Corp., et al v. McDermott Will & Emery – Expert report on behalf of defendant concerning damages in a legal malpractice suit Legi-Slate Inc. v. Thomson Information Services Inc. – Expert reports (2) and deposition testimony on behalf of plaintiff concerning damages from breach of contract United States of America ex rel., William I. Koch and William A. Presley v. Koch Industries, Inc., et al. – Expert report, deposition testimony and testimony at jury trial on behalf of defendants concerning economic issues in a False Claims Act suit Ronald O. Lewis v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. – Expert reports (4) and deposition testimony on behalf of plaintiff regarding statistics and damages in an employment discrimination suit Richard Rogers Mason v. Ford Motor Company – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendant regarding liability in a product liability suit Dr. Michael J. Galvin v. The New York Racing Association, Inc., et al. – Expert report and declaration on behalf of defendant regarding commercial damages in breach of due process and tortious interference suit


Expert Reports and Testimony (continued) Roll International Corporation and Paramount Farms, Inc. v. Unilever United States, Inc., et al. – Deposition and bench trial testimony on behalf of defendants regarding business valuation and damages in a breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation suit Yvonne Trout, et al. v. John Dalton, et al. – Affidavit and declaration on behalf of the United States concerning prejudgment interest Willie Brown Jr., et al. v. General Motors Corporation – Testimony at deposition and jury trial concerning lost NFL player earnings Royer Homes of Mississippi, Inc., et al. v. Redman Homes, Inc., et al. – Affidavits (2), expert reports (2) and deposition testimony on behalf of defendants concerning antitrust liability and damages W. C. and A. N. Miller Companies v. United States of America – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning commercial damages in a Federal Tort Claims Act suit SMS Systems Maintenance Services, Inc. v. Digital Equipment Corporation – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendant concerning antitrust damages and liability Francis W. Murray and FWM Corporation v. National Football League, et al. – Expert report and deposition testimony on behalf of defendants regarding market definition, alleged anticompetitive conduct and alleged antitrust injury Michael A. Willner v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., et al. – Deposition testimony on behalf of defendants regarding damages in a breach of contract and unfair dealing suit Dream Team Collectibles, Inc. v. NBA Properties, Inc. – Expert reports (2) and deposition testimony on behalf of NBA Properties regarding damages and other economic issues in a trademark infringement suit and counter suit Breezevale Limited v. Timothy L. Dickinson, et al. – Deposition and jury trial testimony on behalf of defendants regarding commercial damages in a legal malpractice suit Sonja Lumpkin v. Citizens Bank of Maryland, Incorporated – Affidavit on behalf of defendant regarding damages in a wrongful termination suit


Expert Reports and Testimony (continued) Carolee Brady Hartman, et al. v. Joseph Duffey – Declarations (7) and live testimony at four Teamsters Hearings on behalf of the defendant, the United States Government, regarding damage estimation in a class action sex discrimination suit

Robert B. Reich v. Charles I. Brown, Peter M. Mazula, and Ronald F. Nuzman – Affidavit and deposition testimony for the United States Department of Labor regarding alleged breach of fiduciary responsibility under ERISA United Farmers Agents Association, Inc. v Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al. and Thomas J. Vinson, et al. v Farmers Insurance Exchange, et al. – Affidavit and deposition testimony for plaintiffs regarding antitrust liability Anthony Brown, et al. v Pro Football, Inc. – Testimony for defendants, the member clubs of the NFL, at jury trial regarding antitrust damages

Robert E. Connor, et al. v. Harris County, et al. – Deposition testimony and a written declaration for plaintiffs, members of a class of job applicants, regarding a cost defense for allegedly discriminatory employment practices Laura Kelber against Forest Electric Corp. and Forest Datacom – Affidavit in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgement in a sex discrimination suit

Selected Consulting Matters

Ernst & Young/ KPMG – Antitrust consulting regarding potential consolidation NASCAR Souvenirs – Consulting for defendants concerning class certification in an antitrust matter First Databank – Antitrust consulting regarding acquisition of Medi-Span Inc. Metal Supermarkets – Consulting for plaintiff regarding commercial damages arising from legal malpractice Vulcan – Antitrust consulting regarding the acquisition of an Atlanta quarry Brodus v. Children’s National Medical Center – Consulting regarding damages in a wrongful termination suit International Paper – Antitrust consulting regarding photographic paper and other photographic material


Selected Consulting Matters (continued) St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission v. National Football League, et al. – Antitrust consulting regarding franchise relocation The Baltimore City Paper – Consulting regarding commercial damages allegedly arising from libel Allied Domecq – Consulting for liquor supplier regarding terminated dealer’s lost profits National Football League – Consulting regarding trademark and antitrust issues in suits between the Dallas Cowboys and its affiliates and the NFL IndyCar Racing – Antitrust consulting Albertson’s – Antitrust consulting for potential plaintiff in a price-fixing matter New Orleans Hospitals – Antitrust consulting regarding joint venture among New Orleans hospitals General Dynamics – Consulting for plaintiff regarding damages in commercial litigation Telecom Technical Services, et al. v. ROLM – Consulting for plaintiffs in antitrust litigation The Boston Herald – Consulting regarding damages allegedly caused by publication of a news story Automotive Dismantlers and Recyclers Association v. ADP Claims Solutions Group, Inc. – Antitrust consulting regarding used automobile parts databases Mercy/St. Vincent – Consulting regarding the merger of two hospital systems in Toledo, Ohio Kalium/IMC – Consulting regarding the merger of Kalium and IMC Agricultural Chemicals Antitrust Litigation – Antitrust consulting for defendants, Zeneca Corp., Helena Corp. and Terra Corp. in an RPM class action suit The Clorox Company v. Sterling Winthrop, Inc., et al. – Antitrust consulting for plaintiffs in litigation alleging misuse of trademark protections for anticompetitive gain



Selected Consulting Matters (continued) Chittenden Corporation – Antitrust consulting regarding a bank holding company’s acquisition plans National Basketball Association – Damage estimation for the NBA in antitrust suit brought against it by Independent Entertainment Group Incorporated

Magic Line Inc. – Merger of ATM networks Home Shopping Network – Ex-post valuation of contingent contract concerning software and consulting services Lenfest Group, Comcast Corporation and Telecommunications Incorporated – Consultation regarding Delaware Public Service Commission rules to implement the Telecommunications Technology Investment Act

Worthen Financial Corporation – Acquisition of Union National Bank of Arkansas Intrust Bank – Merger with Kansas State Bank & Trust Iowa National Bankshares – Merger with MidAmerica Savings Banks First National Bank of Kerrville – Acquisition of Bank of Kerrville Peoples Heritage Financial Group – Acquisitions of Mid Maine Savings Bank, Bank of New Hampshire, CFX, and certain branches of Fleet Bank of Maine Potash Antitrust Litigation – Antitrust consulting for defendants in a class action suit alleging price fixing in the potash industry R&D Business Systems, et al. v. Xerox Corporation – Antitrust consulting for plaintiffs in a class action suit alleging tying and monopolization in the copier and printer industries Society Corp. – Acquisition of Ameritrust VDDE Holm, Voest Alpina, Bohler – Antitrust consulting in connection with the merger of two European steel manufacturers McNeil, et al. v. NFL – Estimation of damages resulting from player reservation system U.S Department of Justice v. City of Alhambra, California – Analysis of evidence of discriminatory hiring practice


Selected Consulting Matters (continued)

Christiana Mortgage Brokers, et al. v. Delaware Trust, et al. – Estimation of damages resulting from tortious interference in the mortgage brokerage industry in New Castle County, Delaware

Merger of Two Savings and Loan Assns. – Antitrust consulting in connection with the merger of two thrift institutions Mid Atlantic Coca-Cola – Analysis of evidence of price fixing and estimation of resulting damages

Professional Societies

American Economic Association American Bar Association Industrial Organization Society Western Economics Association American Law and Economics Association Society of Labor Economics

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN ... · a CTU member should be found to have...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN ... · a CTU member should be found to have...