## Facts

- Peter Biondo sued the City of Chicago, alleging racial discrimination connected to the City’s firefighter examination.
- The case proceeded to a trial on damages.
- The City sought to call Daniel Garcia to testify as a witness in economics.
- Garcia intended to present opinions about the additional money firefighters would have earned if the exam results had been race-standardized.
- Garcia held a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and had taken coursework in mathematics and econometrics, including courses applying statistics to labor-market questions.
- Garcia’s doctoral thesis addressed the Argentinian labor market.
- Garcia had not published work on statistics and had not previously been qualified as an expert witness.
- The dispute centered on whether Garcia’s background and proposed testimony satisfied the requirements for admission of opinion testimony from a qualified witness under the federal evidentiary standards.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the court’s gatekeeping function, the City’s proposed economics witness was qualified to offer opinion testimony on damages tied to a race-standardized exam scenario.

## Decision

- The court found that Garcia had sufficient academic training in economics and quantitative methods to testify as an economics witness on the damages question presented.
- The court permitted Garcia to offer opinion testimony, treating objections based on his lack of publications or prior expert-witness history as matters for cross-examination and weight rather than a basis for exclusion.

## Legal Principles

- A witness may be qualified to give opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 based on knowledge, skill, training, or education; prior courtroom appearances or publication history are not required.
- In assessing admissibility, the court acts as a gatekeeper to screen for minimum qualifications and a reliable foundation, but it does not decide which side’s economic view is more convincing.
- Limits in a proposed witness’s background ordinarily affect the weight of the testimony, not admissibility, when the witness has relevant education and methodological training and the testimony will assist the factfinder.

## Conclusion

In *Biondo v. City of Chicago*, the court addressed an evidentiary challenge to the City’s proposed economics witness and allowed Daniel Garcia to testify about damages associated with a race-standardized exam theory, concluding that his academic training was enough to meet Rule 702 and that remaining objections were for cross-examination and the jury’s evaluation.


Biondo v. City of Chicago, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9816 (2002)