When an employee complains about discrimination, it is best not to add fuel to the fire by conducting an investigation that looks unfair and biased.
Charmaine McGuffey was a longtime veteran of the Hamilton County, Ohio, Sheriff’s Office (HCSO). She served on the transition team when Jim Neil was elected as Sheriff in 2012, and Neil subsequently promoted her to Major of Jail and Court Services. She was the first woman to ever hold the rank of Major at the HCSO.
Sheriff Locks Up Harassment Claim
McGuffey seemed to perform well, with Neil describing her as his “favorite major” in her performance evaluation. Even so, McGuffey felt that female officers in the department were not respected or treated properly, and she complained to Neil about two male subordinates in particular whom she felt were not collaborating with her effectively. Neil reportedly responded that she just needed “to get along with these guys.”
In 2017, McGuffey’s administrative assistant filed a complaint against her for bullying and harsh language. Following an investigation that determined that McGuffey had created a hostile working environment, Neil offered McGuffey a demotion to a civilian post within the HCSO. When she declined, Neil fired her, prompting McGuffey to sue in federal court for sex and sexual orientation discrimination.
Fair Investigation is the Key
The HCSO filed a motion for summary judgement (early dismissal) claiming that their actions were based on the investigation and its reasonable conclusions about McGuffey’s management. The Court denied the motion, however, explaining that the “unusual nature” of the investigation meant that the jury should be allowed to decide whether the HCSO’s stated explanations for their actions were truthful of just pretext for illegally discriminatory motives. The judge noted in particular:
- The seven previous investigations into alleged hostile work environment all involved heterosexual men, and none of those complaints were sustained;
- The previous seven investigations only focused on a specific event in the complaint while the investigation of McGuffey looked at her entire tenure as a major;
- The previous investigations only involved a few witnesses each; more than 30 people were interviewed in McGuffey’s case;
- The investigators failed to interview or disregarded all of the witnesses that McGuffey identified;
- The investigative report in the previous matters were five pages or fewer while the report on the complaint about McGuffey covered 108 pages.
The judge concluded “The obvious differences in the way these investigations were conducted raise genuine issues of material fact as to pretext.” As a result, McGuffey’s claims will proceed to trial.
In an interesting twist, McGuffey is now the Democratic Party’s nominee for HCSO Sheriff in the November election, having trounced Neil in the primary last April.
Bottom Line
If an allegation regarding workplace conduct merits investigation, the process must be fair, impartial and thorough. The failure to conduct a proper investigation will very likely taint the results and influence a judge or jury to conclude that the complaints are justified.
In this case, it remains to be seen whether the employer will be able to explain away the differences that the judge observed between the McGuffey investigation and all of the others. Even so, if more attention had been paid to insuring a fair and equal process, perhaps that effort would not be necessary now.