['Termination', 'Discrimination']
['At-Will Employment', 'Discrimination', 'Retaliation', 'Termination']
05/17/2022
Copyright 2024 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.
...
A court decision from California (Mendoza v. Western Medical Center, 2014) illustrates the importance of conducting an effective and thorough investigation of harassment complaints. An employee complained about his supervisor’s inappropriate sexual behavior. Upon questioning, the supervisor admitted to improper conduct, but then accused the employee of being the instigator. Since no one witnessed the incidents, the employer choose to believe the supervisor’s account and fired both the employee and the supervisor.
The employee sued for retaliation, claiming he would not have been terminated if not for his complaint. He won, but the employer appealed. The appeals court ordered a new trial (based on improper jury instructions) to determine if the employee was justifiably terminated, or if he was fired in retaliation.
The appeals court noted that the decision to fire a long-term employee with an exemplary record shortly after his complaint about a recently-hired supervisor could cause a jury to find retaliation. In particular, the appeals court noted that the “lack of a rigorous investigation” might suggest the employer wanted to whole situation to go away. The court noted that a more extensive and thorough investigation might not have turned up additional facts, but could have changed the employer’s evaluation of credibility.
Employers should know that claiming an “at will” termination is not a valid defense to a discrimination or retaliation claim. This case serves as a reminder that even claiming a “for cause” termination could result in liability if the employer cannot clearly establish that the decision was made for reasons other than a discriminatory or retaliatory motive. The court even warned that employers could not avoid liability by simply firing everyone involved.
In another case from Connecticut (Castelluccio v. International Business Machines, 2013) the court found that an investigation conducted by Human Resources may have treated the employee unfairly. The employee in this situation was claiming age discrimination, and the company looked into the accusation. However, the court noted that there was “reason to suspect that the purpose of the investigation was more to exonerate [the employer] than to determine if [the employee] was treated fairly.”
It may not always be necessary to contact outside counsel for assistance with an investigation, particularly for minor incidents such as complaints about occasional jokes. However, if an adverse action such as termination results in claims of discrimination or retaliation, the employer should address the matter with a full understanding of the potential liability.
There is no clear answer to how much investigation is enough, or when outside counsel should be involved. However, employers should investigate sufficiently to establish a reasonable belief that its decision was justified, and should investigate impartially to refute claims that the decision was based on incomplete information or the employer’s desire to “wash its hand” of the affair.
READ MORESHOW LESS
['Termination', 'Discrimination']
['At-Will Employment', 'Discrimination', 'Retaliation', 'Termination']
Load More
J. J. Keller is the trusted source for DOT / Transportation, OSHA / Workplace Safety, Human Resources, Construction Safety and Hazmat / Hazardous Materials regulation compliance products and services. J. J. Keller helps you increase safety awareness, reduce risk, follow best practices, improve safety training, and stay current with changing regulations.
Copyright 2024 J. J. Keller & Associate, Inc. For re-use options please contact copyright@jjkeller.com or call 800-558-5011.