Proving Pretext: Honest Belief v Denying Underlying Facts

There is much in a discrimination/retaliation decision the Sixth Circuit issued on Friday but the part that struck me was one that most employers don't think about at the time they are making an employment decision.  It is an important point, however, especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital.

The plaintiff in Bahma v. Mercy Hospital, worked as a Nuclear Medicine Technologist and, after he challenged at least one failure to promote him, was fired for engaging in unsanitary work practices an inappropriate patient care.  The incidences were documented and in many cases, the patient was the one who originally complained.  In ruling for the hospital on the retaliation claim, the court providing one of the best examples of the difference between supporting an employment action with an "honest belief" and the employee's denial of the underlying facts:

The evidence indisputably shows that Mercy received several patient complaints regarding Bhama’s infection-control procedures and professionalism in the months preceding his termination, including one stating that Bhama disposed of a blood-soaked cotton ball with his bare hands and immediately afterwards tried to administer an injection without washing up. Bhama never denied that Mercy received these complaints, he simply denied the truth of the allegations and dismissed them out of hand as inadmissible hearsay.

The message for employers should be pretty clear.  Before taking action, properly investigate and make sure employment action is supported by the facts.  If the employee disputes the facts, make sure the investigation fully explains why the employee's assertions are not accepted or believable.