Is An Employer’s Flawed Investigation Evidence Of A Discriminatory Termination?
In the context of employment discrimination litigation, our wrongful termination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida have learned that employers routinely argue the mere fact that an investigation was conducted before firing employee conclusively establishes that the employee was fired for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. Some employers, knowing the judiciary has been stacked for decades with employer-friendly judges vehemently hostile to employee rights, even claim the mere fact that an investigation was conducted before firing an employee should insulate the termination from judicial scrutiny. Thus, employers maintain that whether their investigation was reasonable, objective, or fair is entirely irrelevant—the mere fact that an investigation was conducted is enough by itself to defeat a discriminatory discharge claim.
In this article, our wrongful termination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida explain how the decision in Mastro v. Potomac Electric Power Company, 447 F.3d 843 (D.C. Cir. 2006) demonstrates that an employer’s flawed investigation is evidence of a discriminatory discharge.
Wrongful Termination Lawsuit
In that case, a man named Mastro brought a race discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Potomac Electric Power Company (“Pepco”), pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Title VII protects employees from race discrimination with respect to the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment. Mastro claims that he was fired because of his race in violation of Title VII.
Mastro worked for Pepco as an engineer. One of the employees Mastro supervised was an employee named Harsley. On February 17, 2002, Harsley was arrested and jailed for allegedly physically threatening an ex-girlfriend. As a result, he was absent from work beginning February 19 through February 22. Harsley returned to work on February 25.
The date Mastro learned that Harsley was actually in jail is the crux of the dispute that led to Mastro’s termination. Harsley claims he was always candid about his circumstances. He maintains that he left a phone message for Mastro on February 18 requesting two days of vacation because he was in jail. He also claims that he spoke to Mastro on February 19 and February 20, telling Mastro that he was in jail and needed more vacation time, which Mastro granted.
Mastro, in contrast, contends he was unaware Harsley was in jail until February 20 or February 21. According to Mastro, Harsley called him on February 19 and explained that he had been arrested for “family problems,” and needed time off to resolve the matter. Mastro says that although he approved Mastro’s request for vacation time, he did not know at the time that Harsley was in jail; he did not ask about it, nor did he have reason to suspect as much. He maintains he only learned of Harsley’s incarceration during another phone call with Harsley that took place on February 20 or February 21. During that subsequent call, Mastro, acting on workplace rumors, asked Harsley if he was in jail, which Harsley admitted. On February 21, Mastro then informed his supervisor that Harsley was in jail.
Employer’s Investigation
Pepco initially planned to fire Harsley for lying to Mastro, his supervisor, about his whereabouts when he asked for vacation time. At a meeting with Harsley in early April, however, company officials reconsidered after Harsley described his version of events and claimed that Mastro had always known Harsley’s whereabouts when he granted the vacation time.
Because the information revealed at the meeting appeared to contradict Mastro’s earlier representations, Pepco launched an internal investigation headed by the Senior Employee Relations Investigator, Durate. Durate spoke to Harsley, who stuck to his story that he had notified Mastro on February 18 that he was in jail and needed vacation time. Durate also spoke to an employee, Bryant, who kept the timesheets for Mastro’s team and who claimed that Mastro had asked him on February 19 to mark Harsley down for vacation because Harsley was in jail. Durate spoke to a third employee, Smith, who said that Mastro asked him on February 19 if he knew Harsley’s girlfriend’s phone number. According to Smith, Mastro explained that he needed to get in touch with her because he had received a phone message from Harsley indicating that Harsley was in jail, but he had no way to contact Harsley.
While Durate was conducting his investigation, Mastro’s supervisor held a meeting with Mastro, which Durate attended, to explain to Mastro the contradictory accounts and to hear Mastro’s side of the story. Mastro continued to insist that he was unaware of Harsley’s incarceration until February 20 or February 21 and, following the meeting, Mastro provided a written account of his version of events.
Pepco officials ultimately concluded that Mastro had not been truthful and terminated his employment.
Flawed & Unfair Investigation
The trial court dismissed Mastro’s race discrimination claim. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and reinstated Mastro’s race discrimination claim. In reversing the trial court, the D.C. Court of Appeals found that “Durate’s investigation, which was central to and culminated in Mastro’s termination was not just flawed but inexplicably unfair.”
In finding that Durate’s investigation “was not just flawed but inexplicably unfair,” the D.C. Circuit pointed to several “troubling flaws in Durate’s fact-gathering investigation.” First, the court of appeals observed, “Durante interviewed several individuals, but, curiously, not Mastro himself.” Although “Mastro was given an opportunity to offer his version of events, but only at a later date when management had already received the results of Durate’s investigation, putting Mastro on the defensive and depriving him of the same opportunity that was given to Harsley.” Second, the appellate court explained, “the investigation Durate did conduct prior to delivering his findings to management lacked the careful, systematic assessments of credibility one would expect in an inquiry on which an employee’s reputation and livelihood depended.” For example, the court of appeals noted, Durante did not “ask any of the individuals he interviewed whether they were friends with Harsley or if they had talked to each other about the incident prior to speaking with him, even though Durate himself acknowledged that the members of Mastro’s team were a ‘pretty close-knit group.’” Finally, the court of appeals reasoned, Durate and “Pepco management turned a blind eye to the issue of motive” as “Harsley had every reason to obscure his whereabouts when requesting vacation, for, as Durate testified, Harsley was on notice that incarceration could have serious consequences for a probationary employee.” In fact, Mastro’s supervisor “testified that Harsley would have been fired had he informed Mastro that he was unable to come to work due to incarceration.” “Mastro, on the other contrary, had no motive to untruthful regarding his knowledge of Harsley’s whereabouts.”
Having found that Pepco’s investigation “was not just flawed but inexplicably unfair,” the D.C. Circuit ruled that Mastro had “offered ample evidence” for a jury to reasonably conclude that discrimination motivated Pepco’s termination decision.
Citrus County, FL Wrongful Discharge Lawyers
Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our wrongful termination attorneys in Citrus County, Florida have litigated wrongful termination cases in Florida courts for more than two decades. If you have been wrongfully fired or have questions about your rights as a wrongful termination victim, please contact our office for a free consultation with our wrongful termination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes wrongful termination cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery, and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.
