Labor-market antitrust economist
Expert class library · Antitrust · Plaintiff side
Analyzes whether no-poach or wage-fixing agreements suppressed compensation for a class of workers. Estimates wage suppression and common impact across job titles.
What this expert is retained to answer
- Did the challenged agreement suppress compensation across the whole class, or only for some employers or job titles?
- Does a rigid internal pay structure transmit the effect of the restraint to workers who were never directly affected by it?
- Is the sample of firms used in the regression random and representative of all class members' employers?
- Which job titles belong in the class, and can the selection be tied to objective sources such as shared compensation surveys?
- Does the conduct regression control for the variables that drive compensation, and does any omission bias the estimated undercharge?
Methods
- Compensation structure analysis
- Wage regression with conduct variables
- Monopsony power assessment
- Common impact across job families
How the testimony is attacked
- Unrepresentative sample of employers. Defendants argue that a regression built on a handful of firms cannot be extrapolated to the class. In Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine the court excluded the plaintiffs' economist because his three "switcher" agencies produced widely different effects and were self-selected rather than random.
- No showing that better data exists. Defendants attack promises that a model could be improved with more data. The Kamakahi court held the suggestion insufficient where the plaintiffs showed no such data was available.
- Rigid pay structure does not reach across firms. Defendants argue that internal pay rigidity at one employer says nothing about impact at other employers. Kamakahi rejected the plaintiffs' reliance on within-firm rigidity to prove market-wide impact, distinguishing the cold-calling theory accepted in In re High-Tech Employee.
- Subjective selection of class job titles. Defendants argue the economist's job title list rests on personal judgment rather than a replicable rule. In Nitsch v. DreamWorks the court held the criticism went to weight because the selection was guided by the compensation survey the defendants shared, and the expert corrected errors in an amended list.
- Omitted variables in the conduct regression. Defendants argue the model leaves out variables needed to isolate the effect of the agreements. In In re High-Tech Employee the court declined to reject the conduct regression on that basis and noted it had already found the economist's evidence not so flawed as to warrant exclusion.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, ("no-poach" OR "wage-fixing") AND regression AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 1 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 | Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine305 F.R.D. 164 | N.D. Cal. 2015 | The court excluded the plaintiffs' economist's regressions on capped egg donor compensation at class certification because the three agencies he studied showed sharply different effects and were not representative of the class. |
| Admitted | Nitsch v. DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc.315 F.R.D. 270 | N.D. Cal. 2016 | In a no-poach and wage-fixing class action, the court held that the defendants' Daubert challenge to the plaintiffs' economist's selection of class job titles went to weight, since the selection was guided by a shared compensation survey and corrected for contractor titles. |
| Admitted | In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation985 F. Supp. 2d 1167 | N.D. Cal. 2013 | In certifying a class of technical employees, the court relied on the plaintiffs' economist's conduct regression, noting it had already denied the defendants' Daubert motion because the evidence was not so methodologically flawed as to warrant exclusion. |
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
- Plaintiff common-impact economist
- Defense class-certification antitrust economist
- Wage-and-hour damages expert
Guides
- Common Impact and Pass-Through at Class Certification
- Amended Rule 702 After Nearly Three Years: What Courts Exclude
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.