Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trial Consulting and Discrimination Law: An Untapped Opportunity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Trial Consulting

Abstract

The intention of this interdisciplinary discussion is to review the logic of the fundamental legal models of discrimination, especially employment discrimination, and identify places in the law where trial consultants can be useful to attorneys who litigate these types of cases. We present to trial consultants the basic outline of employment discrimination and offer to attorneys new ways to think about using trial consultants in discrimination proceedings. This chapter identifies some new and interesting ways in which psychologists can assist attorneys in discrimination proceedings. We distinguish between efforts that are substantive in their contributions, that is, those that may include expert witnesses and those in which social scientists act as more traditional trial consultants. Examples showing how social scientists did act or could have acted as consultants appear within the discussion of each type of discrimination model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

       The ADEA considers individuals 40 years of age or older members of the protected class.

  2. 2.

     In its 2009 term, the US Supreme Court took a case in which a 54-year-old claims administrator working for the FBL Financial Services relied on a mixed-motive theory in an age discrimination case that he brought under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967. FBL demoted the older worker assigning his responsibilities to another who was ostensibly more capable of carrying out his old duties. The new worker was younger than the complainant and prior to this action, the complainant had supervised his replacement. Although there was no loss of wages for the plaintiff, his job involved less responsibility and status. A jury receiving a mixed-motive instruction returned a verdict in favor of the older worker. The company’s appeals eventually reached the US Supreme Court, which pointed out that when Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1991, it codified the burden switching model of mixed-motive cases for Title VII litigation but when it amended the ADEA it did not include similar language. The Court held that because the language in the ADEA still reads, “[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age” (italics included by the Court), the ADEA does not provide for the switching burdens that Title VII allows in a mixed-motive case (Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 2009, p. _____ ). As any intervention from Congress is absent, the ADEA as currently written and interpreted by the US Supreme Court considers causality in age-based disparate treatment cases to be “but for causality,” and, therefore, requires that the plaintiff must show that age was the cause of the adverse impact and not simply a contributing factor. In summary, the mixed-motive model and jury instruction is currently not available in age discrimination suits but is still a viable theory in sex, race, ethnicity, and religion cases.

References

  • Adams v. Ameritech, Services Inc 231 F.3d 414 (7th Cir. 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alloy, L.B., & Tabachnik, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information. Psychological Review, 91, 112–149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, N.L. (2005). Feminist psychology goes to court. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, P., Monaco, G., Schmeling, J., Schartz, H., & Blanck, P. (2005). Disability as diversity in fortune 100 companies. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 97–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, L.A., & Andrade, J. (2006). Hidden covariation detection produces faster, not slower, social judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 636–641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., DeWall, C.N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 167–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bazemore v. Friday, 478 US 385 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisom-Rapp, S., Stockdale, M.S., & Crosby, F.J. (2007). A critical look at organizational responses to and remedies for sex discrimination. In F.J. Crosby, M.S. Stockdale, & S.A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 273–293). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A.P. (Ed.). (2008). Diversity at work. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A.P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R.R., Pugh, S.D., & Vaslow, J.B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, R.M.J., Segura, S., Culhane, R., Tasso, A., & Berrocal, P. (2000). The temporality effect in counterfactual thinking about what might have been. Memory & Cognition, 28, 264–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I., & Nisbett, R.E. (1998). Situational salience and cultural differences in the correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 949–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chugh, D., & Brief, A.P. (2008). Was not that long ago: A story of gateways and pathways. In A.P. Brief (Ed.), Diversity at work (pp. 318–340). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S 440 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, F.J. (2008). Sex discrimination at work. In J.C. Chrisler, C. Golden, & P.D. Rozee (Eds.), Lectures on the psychology of women (4th ed., pp. 43–57). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deane v. Pocono Medical Center, 142 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilbeck v. Whirlpool Corporation, U.S. District Court (Southern District of Indiana) EV 06-0150-C (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., Savitsky, K., & Gilovich, T. (2002). Empathy neglect: Reconciling the spotlight effect and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 300–312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1164–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S.T., Bersoff, D.N., Borgida, E., Deauz, K., & Heilma, M.E. (1991). Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 10, 1049–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S.T., & Lee, T.L. (2008). Stereotypes and prejudice create workplace discrimination. In A.P. Brief (Ed.), Diversity at work (pp. 13–52). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gavanski, I., & Wells, G.L. (1989). Counterfactual processing of normal and exceptional events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 314–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D.T., Brown, R.P., Pinel, E.C., & Wilson, T.D. (2000). The illusion of external agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 690–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D.T., & Malone, P.S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover, I., & Branine, M. (2003). Review of ageism in work and employment. Personnel Psychology, 56, 265–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (WL No. 08-441) (June, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S 17 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 133 Fed. Appx. p. 288 (6th Cir. 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattori, M., & Oaksford, M. (2007). Adaptive non-interventional heuristics for covariation detection in causal induction: Model comparison and rational analysis. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 31, 765–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, G.A., Sorrentino, R.M., Olson, J.M., Szeto, A.C.H., Wirkki, J.S., & O’Connor, M.C. (2007). The effects of temporal framing on counterfactual thinking and self-appraisal: An individual differences perspective. Social Cognition, 25, 339–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedge, J.W., Borman, W.C., & Lammlein, S.E. (2006). The aging workforce: Realities, myths, and implications for organizations. Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers (Reprinted 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson v. Nashville and Davidson County. (2008). Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, et al., Defendants. Nos. 3:07-0979, 3:08-0031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E.E., & Davis, K.E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juslin, P., Fiedler, K., & Chater, N. (2006). Less is more in covariation detection – Or is it? In K. Fiedler & P. Juslin (Eds.), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 92–123). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Miller, D.T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H.H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1967(15), 192–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H.H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. General Learning Press: Morristown, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krull, D.S., Loy, M.H., Lin, J., Wang, C., Chen, S., & Zhao, X. (1999). The fundamental attribution error: Correspondence bias in individualist and collectivist cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1208–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 181 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2162 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J.S., & Tiedens, L.Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 115–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, D.R. (2003). Judgment dissociation theory: An analysis of differences in causal, counterfactual and covariational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 419–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel, D.R., & Lehman, D.R. (1996). Counterfactual thinking and ascriptions of cause and preventability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 450–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. (2007). Who regrets more after choosing a non-status-quo option? Post decisional regret under need for cognitive closure. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 186–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, L.A. (1972). The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrea, S.M. (2008). Self-handicapping, excuse making, and counterfactual thinking: Consequences for self-esteem and future motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 274–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mcdonnell Douglas Corp. V. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin, J.A., & Shuey, K. M. (2006). Ageing, disability and workplace accommodations. Ageing & Society, 26, 831–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meritor Savings Bank v. Vincent, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D.T., & McFarland, C. (1986). Counterfactual thinking and victim compensation: A test of norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 513–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R.E., Krantz, D.H., Jepson, C., & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 339–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S 228 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves V. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roese, N.J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133–148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roese, N.J., & Olson, J.M. (Eds.). (1995). What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricci v. DeStefano 129 S.Ct. 2658 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanna, L.J., Carter, S.E., & Small, E.M. (2006). The road not taken: Counterfactual thinking over time. In L.J. Sanna & E.C. Chang (Eds.), Judgments over time: The interplay of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (pp. 163–181). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schartz, H.A., Hendricks, D.J., & Blanck, P. (2006). Workplace accommodations: Evidence based outcomes. Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 27, 345–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seelau, E.P., Seelau, S.M., Wells, G.L., & Windschitl, P.D. (1995). Counterfactual constraints. In N. J. Roese & J. M. Olson (Eds.), What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking (pp. 57–79). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S 502 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • US Airways, Inc. V. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers v. Fairfield Medical Center, 453 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, C.R., & Byrne, R.M.J. (2004). Counterfactual thinking: The temporal order effect. Memory & Cognition, 32, 369–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1986). Attribution, emotion, and action. In R.M. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 281–312). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G.L., & Gavanski, I. (1989). Mental simulation of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G.L., Taylor, B.R., & Turtle, J.W. (1987). The undoing of scenarios. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 421–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R.L., Gaborit, M., Pritchard, C.C., McDonough, E.M., Staebler, C.R., Wiley, D.C. (1994). Counterfactual thinking in mock juror assessments of negligence: A preliminary investigation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R.L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., Rauch, S., Seib, H., Warren, L., et al. (2002). The fit and implementation of sexual harassment law to workplace evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 747–764.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R.L., & Hurt, L.E. (2000). How do people evaluate social-sexual conduct: A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R.L., & Pritchard, C.C. (1994). Negligence law and mental mutation: A social inference model of apportioning fault. In L. Heath, R.S. Tindale, J. Edwards, E.J. Posavac, F.B. Bryant, et al. (Eds.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (pp. 117–136). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R.L., & Winter, R.J. (2007). Totality of circumstances in sexual harassment decisions: A decision-making model. In R.L. Wiener, B.H. Bornstein, R. Schopp, & S. Willborn (Eds.), Social consciousness in legal decision making: Psychological perspectives (pp. 171–196). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, R.L., Winter, R., Rogers, M., & Arnot, L. (2004). The effects of prior workplace behavior on subsequent sexual harassment judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 47–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S., & Vargas, P.T. (2005). When “what might have been” leads to what isn’t best: Dysfunctional counterfactual thinking in consumer affect and cognition. In F.R. Kardes, P.M. Herr, & J. Nantel (Eds.), Applying social cognition to consumer-focused strategy (pp. 331–352). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W.W., van der Pligt, J., Manstead, A.S.R., van Empelen, P., & Reinderman, D. (1998). Emotional reactions to the outcomes of decisions: The role of counterfactual thought in the experience of regret and disappointment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 117–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska/Lincoln, 338 Burnett Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA

    Richard L. Wiener

Authors
  1. Richard L. Wiener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard L. Wiener .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska/Lincoln, Burnett Hall 338, Lincoln, 68588-9296, Nebraska, USA

    Richard L. Wiener

  2. Dept. Psychology, University of Nebraska, Burnett Hall 335, Lincoln, 68588-0308, Nebraska, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wiener, R.L. (2011). Trial Consulting and Discrimination Law: An Untapped Opportunity. In: Wiener, R., Bornstein, B. (eds) Handbook of Trial Consulting. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7569-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation