Investigation and Consistent Discipline

A recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals underscores the importance for an employer to properly investigate allegations that an employee engaged in wrongful behavior. In Sybrandt v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of the employer because the employer thoroughly investigated allegations that an employee violated a company policy regarding computer user-identification codes.

In Sybrandt, a 14-year employee had violated the retail employer's "no-self-service" policy on employee transactions. As part of the investigation, a loss-prevention manager and a human resources supervisor interviewed the employee. Their conclusion was that the employee had violated the policy even though there was no evidence that indicated that the employee gained any benefit from the violation. The investigators provided the information they gathered to one of the employer's employment practices managers who asked them to do more factfinding. After the investigators provided a written description of security-camera footage of the violation and provided witness statements, the employment practices manager recommended that the employer terminate the employee. The employer followed the employment practices manager's recommendation and terminated the employee for violating the "no-self-service" policy.

The employee then filed a lawsuit claiming that she was terminated on the basis of her sex, and that the employer's stated reason for the termination was a pretext used to hide sex-based discrimination. The Circuit Court rejected the employee's claims, finding that the employer had an honest belief in its stated nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. The Court based its finding upon the employer's thorough investigation. The Court also noted that the employment practices manager had consistently recommended termination for employees who violated the "no-self-service" policy.

Sybrandt provides valuable guidance to employers who are faced with the task of disciplining employees. The employment practices manager felt he did not have sufficient information or documentation to properly discipline an employee, so he ordered the investigators to continue their investigation. Even though there was no evidence that this long-term employee had acted dishonestly, the employer did not depart from its practice of terminating employees who have violated its policies. Furthermore, the employer was able to produce evidence of prior discipline of employees who violated its policies.

The two reasons why this employer won this case are: 1) the employer's thorough investigation of the allegations; and 2) the employer's consistent application of discipline. With the employer's investigation and consistent discipline, the employer was able to prevail because it was able to conclusively demonstrate that it had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination.