USA Law and Practice Contributed by: Christina Hynes Mesco, Chad Ayers, Kristen Prinz and Amit Bindra, The Prinz Law Firm
investigations. Failure to comply can result in unfair labour practice charges. Anti-Retaliation Protections Employers must ensure that employees who partici - pate in investigations are protected from retaliation under federal statutes such as Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, the FMLA, the OSHA and various whistle-blow - er laws. If an employer fails to institute or enforce anti- retaliation safeguards, it may face significant liability. Potential Consequences of Failing to Follow Appropriate Procedures Failure to observe the principles above can lead to substantial risk for employers, including but not lim - ited to the following: • Compromised credibility of the investigation, which may be used as evidence of pretext in discrimina - tion or retaliation litigation. • Unlawful discrimination or retaliation claims if inconsistencies in process suggest unequal treat - ment. • Unfair labour practice charges (NLRA) for violating Weingarten rights or imposing overly broad confi - dentiality rules. • ADA violations if the employer fails to provide rea - sonable accommodations during the investigative process. • Evidentiary sanctions or adverse inferences if the employer fails to preserve investigative records subject to litigation holds. • Loss of defences in harassment cases, as poor investigative practices can undermine the employ - er’s ability to rely on the FaragherEllerth affirmative defence. (This defence is a legal doctrine devel - oped by the US Supreme Court in two companion cases: Faragher v City of Boca Raton and Burling‑ ton Industries, Inc. v Ellerth . It is applicable in Title VII harassment cases where a supervisor is alleged to have created a hostile work environment, but no tangible employment action (such as firing, demo - tion or a pay cut) was taken against the employee. Through this defence, an employer can avoid liability if it can demonstrate that it took reasonable care to prevent (eg, through relevant anti-harass - ment policies) and promptly correct any harassing behaviour, and that the employee unreasonably
failed to report the behaviours or utilise internal complaint procedures. A prompt, neutral and well- documented investigation is the primary mecha - nism for proving the “reasonable care” necessary to satisfy this legal standard.) • Reputational risk and diminished employee trust, which can weaken reporting cultures and increase the likelihood that misconduct goes unreported. 5.2 Internal Regulations Employers may adopt internal investigation proce - dures that go beyond what the law requires. Although these policies do not, by themselves, create new legal obligations, failure to follow them can still create sig - nificant risk. Inconsistent application of established procedures can call the fairness and reliability of the investigation into question and may be used as evidence of dis - crimination, retaliation or pretext if a matter progress - es to litigation. In some cases – such as when policies are written in mandatory terms or incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement – deviations may also create contract-related issues. For these reasons, employers should strive to apply their internal pro - cedures consistently, even when those procedures In internal investigations in private workplaces in the United States, there is generally no formal legal burden of proof placed on either the employer or the employee. Instead, the employer is responsible for evaluating the available evidence and reaching a rea - sonable, good-faith determination. exceed baseline legal requirements. 5.3 Burden and Degree of Proof Most employers (and most legal and regulatory bodies) apply the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, which asks whether it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred. This standard is recommended by the EEOC, used in Title VII civil cases, required in Title IX investigations in educa - tional settings, and applied by most federal agencies. Courts also reference this standard when assessing the adequacy of employer investigations, including in the context of the Faragher / Ellerth defence (see 5.1 Requirements ), constructive discharge claims and punitive damages analyses.
429 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook