Supplemental materials for LEAP 2025 session Investigations: Getting It Wrong Is Not an Option
Courts will generally honor employer decisions that seem to have been made in good faith. That includes decisions concerning who was telling the truth about a workplace incident.
In this case, the court concluded the employer acted in good faith when it decided bystanders were more credible than an employee who was being disciplined.
Recent case: Ahmad, age 66, was a team leader at Volvo’s Mississippi warehouse. Management received a complaint that Ahmad became aggressive and screamed at a subordinate who made a mistake.
HR investigated, interviewing the subordinate, Ahmad and three uninvolved co-workers who were nearby at the time of the incident. According to Ahmad and the subordinate, nothing happened. But the bystanders said Ahmad screamed, was combative and used profanity. Each said Ahmad did this regularly, saying it was just the way he was. Volvo fired Ahmad for violating its code of conduct.
Ahmad sued for age discrimination. He denied he ever acted inappropriately, citing his subordinate’s interview. But the court said Volvo acted in good faith when it believed the bystanders over Ahmad and the subordinate. It tossed out Ahmad’s lawsuit. (Rafee v. Volvo, 6th Cir., 2022)
Advice: When investigating incidents involving conflicting accounts of what happened, interview all witnesses. Document the process, summarizing why you believed one account over another. Those reasons can include giving more weight to bystander accounts of what happened based on their lack of a personal stake in the outcome. Your explanations may help a judge see that you were acting in good faith.
Interested in joining HR Employment Law Advisor? For a limited time, LEAP 2025 attendees can get an annual membership at 30% off at https://www.hremploymentlawadvisor.com/leap30.
