The "Villain's" Reply: Judge Posner Defends His Experiment in Chambers

29 May 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

We last wrote about Mitchell v. JCG Industries, No. 13-2115 (7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2014), in mid-March, when one judge on the panel (all suspected Judge Posner) confirmed his “intuition” that plaintiffs in a donning-and-doffing case overstated the time that it took to don certain articles of protective clothing by conducting an experiment in his chambers, recording and timing his clerks as they put on the same articles that the plaintiffs donned daily at their employer’s poultry-processing plant.

Yesterday the Seventh Circuit denied rehearing en banc in the case by a 6-4 vote. Judge Williams wrote an opinion dissenting from the denial, joined by Chief Judge Wood (who dissented from the panel decision too) and Judges Rovner and Hamilton. Judge Posner wrote an opinion concurring in the denial–a move “virtually unheard of”–where he admitted that he and his clerks conducted the experiment (freeing Judge Kanne from any untoward suspicion) and where he further defended the experiment, denying that it was “evidence” or “appellate factfinding.”

Apparently the petitioners were not too happy with Judge Posner’s experiment. Judge Posner explains: “The petition denounces the experiment conducted by ‘unidentified members of the judiciary’ (these villains are my law clerks and I), which it states violates due process and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Judge Posner fired back at the petitioners, accusing them of having now conceded that donning the protective gear did not take 15 minutes, by virtue of their new arguments, not pursued previously on appeal after having forfeited them below, that the 15 minutes included other acts, such as storing the clothing and washing up. “Now they concede (maybe without realizing this) that no, those acts alone don’t add up to 10 to 15 minutes. It’s those acts plus additional ones that do.”

Judge Posner also was “puzzled” by the dissent’s belief that all this was an issue of fact for a jury. “My puzzle is: how is such a fact to be determined by a jury?” If one worker testifies that it takes 10 to 15 minutes to don and doff, and if another testifies that it is 2 minutes, “[h]ow is a jury to decide between them?”

“[T]he most accurate way to resolve the dispute would be, on the model of the criticized experiment by court staff, to videotape workers doffing and donning.” That model could be flawed, Judge Posner recognized, if the plaintiffs dawdle and if workers aligned with management rush. Left unsaid, of course, is the implication that he and his clerks could slake his curiosity in an unbiased way.

Judge Posner leaves his detractors with the unapologetic thought that all this “illustrates the important point that determining facts in litigation can be devilishly difficult if one thinks accuracy important.”

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
Data Processing Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit Finds Claims Eligible in KPN v. Gemalto
19 November 2019
IP Litigation Current
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA