Nickerson & Associates Creates Exposure Calculator in Misclassification Case; Parties Settle

Nickerson & Associates recently conducted an exposure analysis in an employee misclassification matter for a logistics brokerage. Our analysts stitched together payroll data from different formats and payroll systems to identify employees across a specific period of time who were allegedly owed additional overtime premiums. Intricacies of the case included allocating sales commissions and other bonuses back to the pay period in which they were earned to properly calculate an employee's regular rate, and calculating state-specific penalties depending on the location of employee activity. The resulting mediation tool equipped Counsel to retrieve accurate exposure estimates on the fly based on user-selected assumptions regarding the components of compensation, weekly hours worked, the liability period, and extrapolation factors. Nickerson & Associates was soon thereafter involved in finalizing essential quantitative details of the parties' settlement.

Dr. Nickerson Testifies in Breach of Contract Case Involving Losses to Maritime Insurance Provider

Dr. Nickerson was retained as an expert witness and testified in a recent jury trial as to the amount of economic loss sustained by a maritime insurer resulting from breach of contract. Nickerson & Associates' role was to accurately model the profit lost when formerly-employed brokers violated their contractual non-servicing agreements. Defendants had become brokers for a competing firm, and Plaintiff contended that they had prematurely contacted clients whose insurance business they previously handled as members of Plaintiff's firm. Estimating damages required a careful and thorough review of financial statements and business records reflective of the niche marine insurance industry. The evidence enabled Nickerson & Associates to model how brokers' client "retention rates" would most likely change given their adherence, or not, to their non-solicitation obligations, helping to quantify a final but-for damage amount. 

Nickerson & Associates Creates Exposure Calculator for Complex Wage and Hour Case; Parties Settle

Nickerson & Associates is often engaged to create calculators that analyze and report total exposure in a case for a wide variety of claims based on numerous sources of employment data. These user-friendly calculators feature custom toggles and input fields that allow clients to update overall exposure on the fly based on new assumptions or legal scenarios. In a recent complex wage and hour case involving timecard data, pay stubs, job tickets data, vehicle GPS data, and other employment records across multiple timekeeping systems, Nickerson & Associates created a robust exposure tool that turned seemingly intractable data into a clear and comprehensive timeline of employee shifts and potential violations. This exposure tool was used in mediation and played a key role in the parties reaching a settlement.​

Dr. Nickerson Submits Report on Flaws in Opposing Experts' Methodology; Case Settles

In a recent case involving alleged off-the-clock time due to pre-shift COVID-19 screening and testing, Dr. Nickerson was asked by the Defendant to review two opposing experts whose reports together suggested a means of arriving at an accurate estimate of off-the-clock time. One expert proposed a telephone survey to ask class members their average time spent screening, while Plaintiffs' other expert proposed a mathematical model to use the survey results in a calculation of potential damages. Dr. Nickerson’s report exposed a number of fundamental flaws in both reports, ranging from poor statistical methodology, dubious survey design, and invalid assumptions underpinning the proposed calculation methods. Other work in this case performed by Nickerson & Associates involved digitizing hundreds of paper records of COVID tests and running a statistical analysis of employee entry/exit data. The case has since settled.

Analysis of Opposing Expert Survey Results in the Survey’s Exclusion from The Case

Dr. Nickerson submitted an expert report assessing the validity of an opposing expert’s report in litigation between a commercial call center and its employees. Nickerson & Associates’ meticulous evaluation of the opposing report and underlying class member survey exposed numerous methodological issues, biases, and violations of established survey design standards. Dr. Nickerson’s ensuing rebuttal report and testimony played a pivotal role in the Court’s decision to exclude the opposing expert’s report entirely.  ​​

Nickerson’s Expert Report on Plaintiff’s Long-Term Wage Losses Results in Settlement

In a recently concluded case in Washington State, an individual Plaintiff sought damages against his employer for illegal no-poach and non-compete contracts that kept the Plaintiff from accepting a new job offer. Nickerson & Associates was tasked with quantifying the long-term economic impacts of these contracts on the Plaintiff’s earnings. The resulting report not only bolstered the credibility of the Plaintiff’s claim of harm but also played a pivotal role in achieving a settlement for the amount calculated.  ​​

​Dr. Peter Nickerson Testifies, Rebuts Opposing Expert in Import Restriction Dispute, Potentially Reducing Liability by over $270 Million

Nickerson & Associates Principal, Dr. Peter Nickerson, was retained as an expert witness by a government entity in an economic and import restriction dispute with a consortium of businesses. Throughout this ongoing case, business owners alleged substantial economic losses and detrimental impacts on their industry stemming from certain national import restrictions implemented in the 1980s initially designed to protect their industry. The Plaintiffs’ expert had initially estimated damages in excess of $340 million. Dr. Nickerson contributed a comprehensive rebuttal of the opposing expert’s report and testified before the Court on his findings. His review of their report revealed several mathematical and coding errors that reduced damages by over $90 million. Further critiques related to improper assumptions in the report, the opposing expert ignoring potential benefits of the regulation, and pivotal calculation parameters lacking sufficient basis in literature or statistical science. Dr. Nickerson ultimately concluded that Plaintiff’s assessment of damages was overinflated by nearly 500%, $270 million higher than the available data could support. ​
Nickerson & Associates, LLC