A Biased Investigation Is Worse Than No Investigation At All!

Workplace investigations continue to be a hot issue for the courts.  On December 23, 2013, a Federal Court in Connecticut, in an age discrimination case against IBM, precluded evidence of an internal investigation that found IBM had treated the plaintiff fairly.  IBM wanted to show it did a fair investigation and that based on the investigation it acted properly in terminating the employee.  However the court found that the probative value of entering that investigation into evidence did not exceed its prejudicial effect, because it was one sided.  The court determined that the investigator was not neutral due to his failure to interview witnesses who might support the plaintiff’s contentions and due to the focus on plaintiff’s job performance, rather than his allegations of age discrimination. In conclusion, the court found that “There is also reason to suspect that the purpose was to exonerate IBM more than to determine if Mr. Castelluccio was treated fairly.”

When I review an investigation like this I have to wonder if the investigator thought he/she was being impartial.  Without a constant check on our own biases it is all too easy to work toward a foregone conclusion, and one that confirms what the employer thinks to begin with – this is what is meant by confirmation bias.  Only by truly looking at all sides, and carefully weighing that information, can an investigator come to a fair conclusion.  And it may mean delivering news an employer does not want to hear.  Perhaps, in this case, if the investigator had really considered the employee’s side of things, he would have come to the same conclusion.  But without his doing so and making that clear by whom he interviewed and what he considered in his report, this investigation made things worse, not better, for the employer.

This case underscores the need for employers to ensure that the investigations they are conducting are truly fair and unbiased. A biased investigation may come to the result the employer hopes for, but be more costly in the long run.  Employers should carefully consider bringing in an outsider when they do not have the internal resources to do a truly fair and unbiased internal investigation.

The case is Castelluccio v. International Business Machines Corporation, 2013 WL 6842895.

3 Comments on “A Biased Investigation Is Worse Than No Investigation At All!

  1. Biased interpretation is not restricted to emotionally significant topics. In another experiment, participants were told a story about a theft. They had to rate the evidential importance of statements arguing either for or against a particular character being responsible. When they hypothesized that character’s guilt, they rated statements supporting that hypothesis as more important than conflicting statements.

  2. There are a number of legal traps waiting for companies that conduct an improper investigation or fail to investigate at all. Generally, these traps come in the form of lawsuits brought either by an employee who was a victim of inappropriate behavior in the workplace or by an employee who was disciplined or fired after being accused of misconduct.

  3. We are a bunch of volunteers and starting a brand new scheme in our
    community. Your website provided us with useful information to
    work on. You have performed a formidable task and our entire neighborhood
    shall be thankful to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *