Skip to main content
Workplace Investigations Require Reasonableness, Not Perfection
Reasonableness, Not Perfection, Wins the Day
The Sixth Circuit recently reaffirmed that workplace investigations don’t have to be flawless—only reasonable. In a case involving a long-time delivery driver reassigned after a knee injury, the employer terminated him after credible reports linked him to graffiti found on customer trusses. The employee alleged disability discrimination and retaliation.
The court upheld summary judgment for the employer, applying the “honest-belief rule”: if an employer makes a reasonably informed and considered decision based on specific facts, courts won’t second-guess it, even if the employee disputes the outcome.
The manager’s actions—verifying the graffiti, narrowing the timeframe, and relying on a supervisor’s report of an employee’s admission—met that reasonableness standard. A claimed comparator who had defaced an internal forklift wasn’t similarly situated, and the retaliation claim failed because the termination decision predated the employee’s same-day medical visit.
Key Employer Takeaways
- Reasonableness beats perfection — Courts expect good-faith, fact-based decisions, not exhaustive investigations.
- Focus on facts, not formality — Identify and document what was done, when, and why.
- Match investigation depth to uncertainty — Straightforward facts require confirmation, not lengthy probing.
- Mind the timing — Preexisting termination decisions can’t be made retaliatory after the fact.
- Be consistent and decisive — Apply policies evenly and act promptly once facts are established.
Bottom Line
The court praised the employer’s informed judgment, not procedural perfection. By acting reasonably, documenting facts, and maintaining consistency, employers can defend their decisions successfully—even without a “picture-perfect” investigation.
We Can Help
Contact us today to schedule a consultation or to learn more about how to strengthen your investigation protocols and protect your organization.
FAQs
Q. Do workplace investigations need to follow a strict legal format?
A. No. Courts prioritize reasonableness over formality. As long as the investigation is fact-based, timely, and conducted in good faith, it doesn’t need to follow a rigid legal structure.
Q. What is the “honest-belief rule”?
A. This legal principle allows employers to make disciplinary decisions based on a reasonably informed belief, even if the employee disputes the facts. Courts won’t second-guess the decision if it was made in good faith and supported by credible evidence.
Q. How thorough does an investigation need to be?
A. It depends on the complexity of the issue. Straightforward cases may only require basic fact-checking, while more nuanced allegations might need deeper inquiry. The key is to match the depth of the investigation to the level of uncertainty.
Q. Can timing affect a retaliation claim?
A. Yes. If a termination decision was made before an employee engaged in a protected activity (like a medical visit or complaint), it’s unlikely to be considered retaliatory. Documenting decision timelines is critical.
Q. What if the employee claims others weren’t disciplined for similar conduct?
A. Comparators must be similarly situated in terms of role, conduct, and context. If the alleged comparator’s situation differs meaningfully, the comparison may not hold up legally.
Q. How can employers protect themselves during investigations?
A. Apply the following:
- Document everything: actions taken, facts gathered, and decision rationale.
- Act consistently: apply policies evenly across employees.
- Seek legal or HR guidance: especially for sensitive or high-risk matters.