With over 25 years of experience as an expert witness in discrimination cases, I combine prominence as a discrimination researcher with extensive knowledge of the legal system. I am adept at sifting through case evidence, writing compelling and insightful reports, and testifying in depositions. Further, although most cases settle before the court date, I have had valuable experience testifying in Federal Court, both in Chicago, for Metty v. Motorola, and in Boston, for Tuli v. Day. Few discrimination experts possess the same degree of skills, experience, and knowledge. I understand how to handle a deposition and how to speak effectively and clearly to a jury.
I provide social framework testimony that educates case decision-makers about the nuances of discrimination, alerting them to relevant case facts whose significance might otherwise be missed. Attorneys have found these reports extremely valuable.
As a highly experienced expert who knows where the legal lines are drawn, my testimony has consistently withstood motions to exclude. In Tuli v. Day (which resulted in a $1.6 million judgment for the Plaintiff), Judge Nancy Gertner (United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) excluded other experts, but upheld my testimony’s value as both scientifically grounded and going beyond common-sense knowledge.
Judge Gertner wrote that:
“Professor Glick’s opinion is based not simply on experience, but also social psychological testing of stereotyping and discrimination over the past thirty to forty years… [he] brings the insights of established scientific theory and social framework analysis, as to which he is an expert, to bear on the facts of this case. It is an area that the jury may well not have common knowledge”
Retaining an experienced expert provides important advantages. Few experts combine such a high degree of scholarly prominence with decades of expert witness experience giving social framework testimony.