There is an interesting decision from the federal court of appeals in St. Louis discussing the theory that selective investigations of employees who are in protected groups can provide evidence of pretext. The idea behind the theory is that investigating a member of the protected group but not non-members shows the decision maker is searching for a reason to impose discipline.
To give an example, one cited in the decision, evidence that an employer required more extensive documentation of pregnant employee’s medical appointments than those of non-pregnant employees, in addition to employer’s comments, supports the jury’s finding of pregnancy discrimination.
The employer in the appeal, however, avoided harm. The allegedly selective enforcement was the viewing of a store's surveillance video shortly after the employee (the store supervisor) requested not to work a shift due to her pregnancy. The evidence showed that area managers regularly reviewed surveillance videos. In addition, the court further held that any question about why the manager reviewed the surveillance video was not material given the sound reasons for the supervisor's discharge (which the manager consistently enforced).
The decision whether to investigate often can't be objectively defined (though here, a showing of a standard practice helped). The factual scenarios are simply to varied. Even so, employers should nevertheless consistently investigate reports of misconduct once it comes to their attention.
Here is a link to the pregnancy discrimination decision in Weirman v. Casey's General Stores
No comments:
Post a Comment