Worklife expectancy and the C-suite: why standard tables understate executive loss

The Skoog-Ciecka-Krueger worklife expectancy tables are the backbone of most forensic economic models in the United States. They are peer-reviewed, jurisdiction-accepted, and defensible. For the median plaintiff, they produce the right answer. For C-suite and senior executive plaintiffs, they frequently do not.

Why the tables understate

The SCK tables, like their predecessors, are built on Current Population Survey data representing labor force participation across the general working-age population. Executives are not represented proportionally in that sample. The working-age distribution of CEOs, general counsels, and chief medical officers skews older, with participation tails that extend well past the conventional retirement benchmarks baked into the average tables.

Two data realities drive this:

1. Executives retire later. Median age at C-suite departure across Fortune 1000 companies has drifted upward over the past two decades.
2. Executives reenter. Board positions, advisory relationships, and operating-partner roles at private-equity firms extend earnings tails past the date of formal separation from a principal role.

Applying a general-population worklife table to a 58-year-old general counsel truncates the loss period prematurely. The understatement is material.

When to extend

Extension is not automatic. It requires a factual predicate:

• Documented career trajectory showing intent and capacity to work beyond conventional retirement age.
• Sector evidence supporting an extended participation pattern for similarly situated professionals.
• Plaintiff-specific health, performance, and family planning facts that do not cut against extended worklife.

Where the predicate is present, the extension can be supported through occupation-specific tail adjustments drawn from Bureau of Labor Statistics sectoral data, combined with where appropriate, direct survey data from executive-search firms and board recruiting trackers.

How to present

Extensions are not presented as rebuttals of the SCK tables. They are presented as occupation-specific modifications to the default parameters, with the default figures shown alongside and the adjustment explicitly stated. The trier of fact deserves to see both.

The model presents:

• The SCK baseline, unmodified.
• The sectoral adjustment, with the sectoral data source cited.
• The plaintiff-specific factual adjustment, with the record citation.
• The final figure, clearly labeled as adjusted.

Opposing counsel can then attack any of the three layers specifically, rather than the composite. This discipline protects the entire model.

What this is not

It is not a license to extend worklife to suit the damages thesis. In many executive matters, extension is not warranted, or the facts cut the other way. A plaintiff was on a late-career slide, or had articulated a retirement plan prior to termination. The honest model says so.

The point is only this: the standard tables are a starting point. For a population they were not built to represent, they need thoughtful adjustment, supported by evidence. A single composite number without that supporting layer invites a straightforward cross.