Something We Can All Agree on – Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Workplace Investigations – The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ Decision In Vega v. Chicago Park District
In this controversial time, it can be hard for Americans to agree on anything. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States in October 2020 was no exception. As workplace investigators, however, we can all agree on the appropriateness of a decision authored by Justice Barrett while she was on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – Vega v. Chicago Park District.
Through the opinion in Vega, Justice Barrett made it clear her court will object to investigations with “flagrant inaccuracies.” Moreover, employers will be held accountable for terminating employees based on their investigator’s biased efforts—even if the employer is not biased itself. Whether or not you agree with Justice Barrett’s other policies and political leanings, we can agree shoddy investigations are not fair to employees or helpful to employers.
This blog explores the most important aspects of the Vega decision, and highlights key takeaways for all workplace investigators.
Lydia Vega, a Hispanic woman, was a Chicago Park District employee from 1987 to 2012. In late 2011, the District received two anonymous calls accusing Vega of “theft of time.” The District initiated two simultaneous, but separate, investigations. Based on the investigator’s report, the District terminated Vega’s employment. Vega later sued for wrongful termination and prevailed after a 7-day jury trial. The District appealed part of the decision, which made its way up to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020.
In her appellate review of Vega’s discrimination suit, Justice Barrett described the investigation as beset with “flagrant inaccuracies.” She wrote, “[The investigation was a] determined effort to build a case against Vega rather than a neutral effort to discover the truth.” Ultimately, Justice Barrett agreed the District fired Vega due to her Hispanic national origin, and upheld $300,000 of damages awarded by the trial court jury.
Through the opinion, Justice Barrett described several ways the investigators failed to provide a fair and neutral investigation. For example, a Caucasian park supervisor was also accused of time theft. When the District investigated Vega, they surveilled her at work 252 times. In contrast, investigators surveilled the Caucasian employee three times. Further, when the District concluded both employees engaged in time theft, it fired Vega but did not punish the Caucasian employee. Additionally, Justice Barrett determined the investigators had “no interest” in evaluating Vega’s defense of her actions. For example, Justice Barrett described how the investigators relied on the fact they did not observe Vega’s vehicle at her work station on one occasion. However, they did not consider her explanation – that she was in another part of the park because she found a dead body on the premises. As an overall matter, Justice Barrett decided these investigative errors reasonably showed the investigators did not intend to conduct a neutral inquiry, but rather, sought to discriminate against Vega.
Additionally, Justice Barrett agreed the District itself was liable for discrimination, even though Vega only brought evidence in court showing the investigators were biased. The District argued its Human Resources Manager fired Vega, not the biased investigators. As such, the District argued it did not “personally discriminate” against Vega. Justice Barrett rejected this argument. She pointed out the District fired Vega based upon the report from the investigators. Further, the Human Resources Manager admitted he only read the first three pages of the report, showing he relied wholly upon the biased investigators. Thus, Justice Barrett agreed bias was the “proximate cause” of Vega’s termination.
Three important lessons should be gleaned from this decision. The first takeaway is easy to identify—ensure your workplace investigations are as unbiased and consistent as possible, and avoid “flagrant inaccuracies.” Equally important, give the respondent a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations – and then give appropriate weight to the evidence they provide. The final point is less intuitive, but equally important. That is, workplace investigators must remember their clients rely upon them to provide unbiased, reliable findings. It is of utmost importance to have a good faith process free from bias so you can reach reasoned conclusions upon which the employer can rely. If a client cannot trust you to be unbiased, they cannot trust you enough to rely on your investigative reports.
Katherine Guilford is an Associate Attorney with Van Dermyden Maddux Law Corporation. Her practice focuses on conducting workplace and Title IX campus investigations.
[1] See: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/19-1939/19-1939-2020-04-07.pdf?ts=1586273420
