“Workplace investigations just keep becoming more important.  I have always said that you don’t want your doctor treating you before she diagnoses what is wrong.  It is the same thing with workplace issues.  Taking action against an employee before knowing the whole story can lead to big problems.  This just came up in a case decided on March 1, 2011 by the United States Supreme Court, Staub v. Proctor Hospital.

In Staub, an employee was terminated for attendance issues.  What the employer did not know was that the employee’s supervisor had been making it difficult for Staub to take time off to fulfill his obligations to the United States Army Reserve, due to the supervisor’s anti-military bias.

The court held that an employer may be liable for the discriminatory motives of a supervisor who influences the ultimate employment decision, stating:  “If a supervisor performs an act motivated by animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable.” Thus, the biases of those who make, cause, or influence the employment decisions are relevant and can be considered when determining employer liability.

In Staub, the court found that an independent investigation did not preclude a claim, stating: . . . if the independent investigation relies on facts provided by the biased superiors . . . then the employer  . . will have effectively delegated the factfinding portion of the investigation to the biased supervisor.

This confirms that good human resource practice dictates that the decision maker conduct a truly independent investigation to confirm that there is a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for an adverse employment action, before that action is taken.”

Both myself and Amy conduct workplace investigations and happily provide this service to any organization for whom we don’t also provide ongoing employment counseling.