and stock options and their underrepresentation in top-level managerial jobs” (Reskin Report ¶¶ 2.1, 2.5). In addition, Dr. Reskin concluded that Allstate’s employment practices fail to check the biases that discretion permits (id. ¶ 2.4). Allstate has filed a motion to strike Dr. Reskin’s report under Daubert (doc. # 207). We need not decide that question because, even assuming that Dr. Reskin’s report passes muster under Daubert, we do not find it persuasive on the issue of commonality. Most of Dr. Reskin’s opinion relies on laboratory studies, “experimental research,” and various historical trends and ideas which lead her to the conclusion that subjective decision-making is inherently flawed: a conclusion that flies in the face of the governing ease law. See Blise, 409 F.3d at 868 (<HOLDING>). Based on this improper assumption, Dr.
holding that intent plays no role in the application of the doctrine of equivalents holding that a doctors reliance on properly discounted subjective complaints is a specific legitimate reason holding that disparate impact analysis may be applied to subjective employment practices in employment discrimination actions holding that plaintiffs evidence of statistical disparities in hiring promotion and compensation was sufficient to support claim of intentional discrimination where the employment decisions were based on completely subjective criteria holding that subjective decisionmaking plays an important and legitimate role in employment decisions