Finding the Facts - Disciplinary and Harassment Investigation

O THER C ASES

Employee’s Dismissal was Proper Because, Even if Employee Had Not Committed Sexual Harassment, Employer Had Reasonable Grounds for Believing That He Did

The California Supreme Court has held that the termination of a private sector employee for committing sexual harassment did not require the employer to prove that the harassment occurred. Rather, the termination was appropriate because at the time the decision to terminate was made, the employer had reasonable cause to believe the employee had sexually harassed co-workers. Ralph Cotran worked for Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc.. Rollins fired Cotran after an investigation revealed that he had exposed himself to two female employees, masturbated in their presence more than once and made repeated obscene telephone calls to them at home. In meetings with high-level management, Cotran never revealed he had consensual sexual relations with the accusers, nor did he offer any explanation regarding the complaints about his behavior. Based on its investigation, which included interviews with over 20 witnesses, Rollins fired Cotran. He sued for breach of contract. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that Rollins had the burden to prove Cotran committed the acts that led to his termination. As the jury believed that Rollins did not meet its burden, it awarded Cotran $1.78 million; Rollins appealed. After the Court of Appeal reversed, Cotran appealed to the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal. The Court held that Rollins’ defense depended not on whether Cotran had in fact sexually harassed other employees, but whether, at the time that Rollins decided to fire him, it acted in good faith following an investigation that was appropriate under the circumstances—that it had reasonable grounds to believe he had committed sexual harassment. The Court held further that “good cause” in this context meant a reasoned conclusion, supported by substantial evidence gathered through an adequate investigation that included notice of the claimed misconduct and a chance for the employee to respond. Note: This was a private sector case for damages. While the Court’s holding would in all likelihood be applicable to a public sector wrongful termination action for damages by an at-will employee, in the case of public sector property interest employees, the action would normally be in the form of a writ of mandate seeking reinstatement, and the district would then have the burden of establishing that the employee had, in fact, engaged in the charged misconduct. 225 Initiating An Investigation Could Constitute an Adverse Employment Action Defeating Summary Judgment for Employee’s First Amendment Retaliation Claims In Thomas v. County of Riverside (9th Cir. 2014) 763 F. 3d 1167, Plaintiff Wendy Thomas and her labor union filed suit against the County of Riverside and its employees claiming she was retaliated against for exercising her First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary

Disciplinary and Harassment Investigations ©2019 (e) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 132