Social framework testimony in employment discrimination cases

Abstract

The use of social framework testimony by social psychologists in employment discrimination cases is expanding. After reviewing the legal background of this type of testimony, we describe its content and discuss an important Title VII case of sex discrimination where the testimony played a critical role. We also distinguish social framework testimony from other types of expert testimony by psychologists.

Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins..

“…Her assessment was grounded in decades of research. Moreover, the use of such "social framework" testimony is likely to continue in various areas of psychology (Goodman & Croyle, 1989). How broad and deep does the database have to be for psychologists to render expert opinions?…”

Civil Forensic Evaluation in Psychological Injury and Law: Legal, Professional, and Ethical Considerations

“…The psychologist might be asked to explain the reasons for the plaintiff's failure to report recurring sexual harassment (Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995). The latter function of an assessor comprises scientific framework testimony, which is designed to assist the trier of fact by providing educative specialized knowledge gleaned from psychological research (Faigman, Monahan, & Slobogin, 2014;Faust, Grimm, Ahern, & Sokolik, 2010;Goodman & Croyle, 1989).…”

“…As a general rule, these restrictions do not limit the provision of scientific framework expert testimony (Goodman & Croyle, 1989) that relates the scientific research on a topic to the case before the court or related tribunal. In general in these types of cases, the expert avoids rendering an opinion about the parties in the case.…”

Evaluating psychological expertise on questions of social fact: The case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins..

“…Expert testimony which includes components of both specific and general information, such as that proffered by Dr. Fiske, has been designated “social framework” testimony (Monahan & Walker, 1988). Increasingly, courts are willing to admit testimony at the trial level from an expert who relies on general conclusions from social science research to assist the fact-finder in determining factual issues in a specific case (Goodman & Croyle, 1989; Monahan & Walker, 1991; Vidmar & Schuller, 1989). Accordingly, some scholars have argued that the traditional distinction between legislative facts and adjudicative facts has outlived its usefulness and propose that the term social authority be adopted to replace legislative authority when dealing with social facts, such as those presented by Dr. Fiske to assist the fact-finder.…”