Industrial-organizational psychologist
Expert class library · Employment · Either side
Evaluates whether tests and selection procedures are valid and job-related, and how organizational practices affect decisions. Addresses validation under the Uniform Guidelines.
What this expert is retained to answer
- Are the employer's performance evaluation, promotion, and pay processes reliable, with clear standards and accountability, under accepted industrial-organizational psychology practice?
- Do the employer's hiring materials and screening traits reflect the worker requirements of the jobs at issue?
- Can external job information such as O*NET substitute for a local job analysis when assessing whether a selection procedure is job related?
- Does the evidence the expert reviewed fairly represent the employer's actual practices across locations and decision makers?
- Does the employer's practice bear on business necessity or job relatedness if a disparate impact is shown?
Methods
- Test validation study
- Job analysis
- Uniform Guidelines compliance review
- Adverse impact ratio
How the testimony is attacked
- Opinions built on documents chosen by counsel. Employers argue the psychologist reviewed only a small, attorney-selected record. In Campbell v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. the court excluded the plaintiffs' industrial-organizational psychologist because he did not review sufficient facts to support company-specific opinions, and a rebuttal report citing literature did not cure the gap.
- General principles not applied to the case. Opponents argue that abstract testimony about subjectivity and bias does not help the court. The Campbell court found the plaintiffs had not shown how general industrial-organizational psychology testimony, untethered to the facts, would assist the class certification inquiry.
- No causal link between process flaws and disparities. Employers argue that criticizing evaluation processes without tying them to the pay gap is irrelevant. In Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs the court admitted the plaintiffs' psychologist anyway because his critique bore on the business necessity defense and other experts addressed causation.
- No local job analysis. Plaintiffs argue a job-relatedness opinion requires a local job analysis, which the expert's own writings endorse. In EEOC v. Texas Roadhouse the court held that relying on O*NET data and a multi-step comparison instead went to weight, not admissibility.
- Comparisons a lay juror could make. Opponents argue that matching job titles or trait lists needs no expertise. The Texas Roadhouse court rejected this because the analysis drew on personality research and adjective-rating methods outside lay knowledge.
- Unsound best-practices meta-analysis. Plaintiffs attack a defense psychologist's literature review used to certify an employer's practices as valid. The Chen-Oster court found such challenges went to the merits and denied the motion at class certification.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, "industrial organizational" AND validation AND "job-related" AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 3 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 2, 2026; broader searches return more. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded | Campbell v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.311 F. Supp. 3d 281 | D.D.C. 2018 | The court excluded the plaintiffs' industrial-organizational psychologist because his opinions on the employer's hiring, promotion, and discipline practices rested on a narrow set of materials selected by counsel rather than sufficient facts. |
| Admitted | Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.114 F. Supp. 3d 110 | S.D.N.Y. 2015 | At class certification, the court denied motions to exclude both the plaintiffs' and the employer's industrial-organizational psychologists, holding that critiques of the evaluation processes were relevant to business necessity and that challenges to the defense literature review went to the merits. |
| Admitted | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc.215 F. Supp. 3d 140 | D. Mass. 2016 | The court denied the EEOC's motion to strike the employer's industrial-organizational psychologist, holding that his use of O*NET data in place of a local job analysis and his trait comparisons were matters for cross-examination. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Under amended Rule 702
Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Last reviewed October 2, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.