Rebuttal analysis applied to wrongful termination litigation: methodology, deliverables, and case-specific considerations.
A wrongful termination report is tested on the front pay period, the treatment of replacement earnings, and the valuation of benefits, pensions, and equity. The economist checks the but-for compensation path against the employment agreement and pay history, the replacement earnings against the employee's records and tax returns, the front pay duration against the employee's age, occupation, and local market, and the pension and equity losses against the plan terms and vesting schedules. Each finding is ranked by its effect on the total, and the loss is shown under the alternative durations the record supports.
Critique of an opposing economic damages, valuation, or forensic accounting report for plaintiff or defense counsel. The review tests the assumptions, data sources, discount rates, worklife and life expectancy inputs, growth rates, mitigation treatment, and arithmetic behind the opposing number, identifies the errors that matter, and quantifies how the conclusion changes when they are corrected. The result supports cross-examination, a rebuttal report, or a motion directed at the reliability of the opinion.
The claim consists of back pay from the termination date to the date of analysis, front pay for the period needed to reach comparable employment, lost fringe benefits including retirement contributions, health coverage, and equity or bonus plans, and in some matters the loss of pension or deferred compensation that vesting would have delivered. The mitigation side of the ledger consists of actual replacement earnings and, where the employee is not working, the earnings a reasonable search would have produced. The drivers are the employment agreement, payroll and personnel records, benefit plan documents, tax returns, and the record of the job search and any replacement work.
We issue a rebuttal report where one is disclosed and provide deposition and trial testimony, cross-examination outlines, and support for motions directed at the opinion.
By applying the plan's benefit formula to the service and pay the employee would have accrued and comparing the result with the benefit actually vested, using the plan documents and benefit statements. Where the opposing report used a different formula or period, the review states the difference and its effect.
The review shows the loss with the replacement earnings credited from the date they began, which often reduces the claim to a documented back pay figure with small benefit differences, and states whether any ongoing gap the opposing report claims is supported.
Request a consultation on Rebuttal or call (201) 343-0700. Plaintiff and defense counsel.