U.S Bank v. Timothy King – A Cautionary Tale for Workplace Investigators
On July 28, 2020 the California Court of Appeal held that a U.S. Bank employee — Timothy King — was entitled to $17,179,392 in compensatory and punitive damages against his employer for defamation and wrongful termination.[1] In making its ruling, the Court took aim at U.S. Bank’s internal workplace investigation — which the Court termed a “deliberate failure to investigate.”
In this case, King was the subject of allegations by two of his direct reports, Thakur and Flinn. The complainants alleged King engaged in gender discrimination and harassment. Upon receiving these allegations, U.S. Bank charged their Human Resources Generalist with investigating the allegations against King. Ultimately, the investigator sustained the allegations, and U.S. Bank terminated King’s employment. As a result of the ensuing lawsuit, the Court found that the investigator who conducted the investigation failed to conduct a thorough, unbiased investigation and ultimately defamed King in making her findings. She also did so as a representative of U.S. Bank, making it liable for her mistakes.
This blog post discusses the three pivotal errors the Court pointed to in making its ruling. It also highlights the lessons we can learn from those errors. We live by the adage that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. If you are a workplace investigator, the case is a stark, cautionary tale.
1. The Investigator Did Not Interview the Respondent
The Court pointed out a most glaring error — the investigator did not speak to its own employee, King, and confront him with the allegations. Instead, the investigator received multiple accounts from witnesses, all of whom shared negative perspectives about King. As such, the investigator determined she had enough information to sustain the allegations. However, none of the witnesses had direct knowledge of, or opportunity to observe, any instances of misconduct. Plus, had he been interviewed, King would have asserted he had legitimate business reasons for the decisions he made as a supervisor. As such, the Court found the investigator’s failure to interview King unacceptable: “[The investigator] did not know if King had any facts, documents, or witnesses to refute the allegations, and she did not care if he had any such contradictory evidence.”
We note the Association of Workplace Investigators (AWI), in its Guiding Principles, highlights interviewing the respondent as a key component of an investigation.[2]
2. The Investigator Did Not Consider Witness Credibility
The Court also criticized the investigator for failing to objectively evaluate the credibility of key witnesses. The investigator relied heavily upon what she learned from two witnesses, Thakur and Flinn, during their investigative interviews. Because both Thakur and Flinn corroborated what the other had said about King, the investigator sustained the allegations against King. However, she failed to properly weigh the credibility of Thakur and Flinn. For example, Thakur told the investigator that King was part of “the mob.” The investigator doubted the believability of this statement. Nonetheless, she did not think to question Thakur’s credibility for making the claim. For example, the investigator ignored the fact that King had documented performance concerns about both Thakur and Flinn. This should have prompted the investigator to question whether Thakur and Flinn were biased and motivated to speak ill of King. On the whole, even though these aspects of the record suggest Thakur and Flinn may have been unreliable witnesses, the investigator made a blanket statement that she could not identify any reason to believe either witness would fabricate their statements.
3. The Investigator Did Not Gather Critical Evidence
The Court claimed the investigator failed to understand relevant U.S. Bank policies and procedures, preventing her from objectively evaluating evidence. For instance, witness Thakur alleged King instructed her to fabricate dates for initiative meetings that did not happen, and then to input them into the company’s files. The investigator ultimately found King had instructed Thakur to input 20 such fraudulent entries. However, the investigator did not make any effort to understand the company system or typical procedures for data entries. Instead, the investigator merely reviewed Thakur’s entries and discovered King had instructed Thakur to input blocks of meetings, rather than input them individually and directly after each meeting. From this, the investigator concluded that because King had several entries with different dates inputted at the same time, he must have chosen random dates for imaginary meetings. The Court did not think the investigator’s logic was sound. In particular, the investigator failed to consider that U.S. Bank did not customarily require King, or other supervisors in his position, to input initiative meetings immediately after they were conducted. Likewise, the investigator failed to realize there was no timeframe in which King had to input meetings, and it was customary to input groups of meetings well after they had occurred. In other words, the investigator based her finding purely on the fact that King did not instruct Thakur to record initiative meetings immediately after they happened — an instruction that was neither required nor customary for U.S. Bank.
Final Thoughts
Ultimately, the Court determined U.S. Bank was liable for defaming King. The Court stated the investigator made false claims about King in her investigative report. Additionally, it found she made this statement with malice, meaning she “lacked reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the publication and acted in reckless disregard of [King’s] rights.” This goes to show how incredibly important it is to ensure your findings are backed by a strong and reasonable analysis. Above all else, this case highlights the importance of conducting a fair and thorough workplace investigation. Remember, a workplace investigation does not need to be perfect, but at the very least, it must be prompt, thorough, and unbiased. This investigator did not meet this threshold, leading the Court to find the investigation was a “deliberate failure.”
Katherine Guilford is an Associate Attorney with Van Dermyden Maddux Law Corporation. Her practice focuses on conducting workplace and Title IX campus investigations.
[1] https://aboutblaw.com/SgB. Also, see: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/u-s-bank-owes-17-million-for-firing-executive-to-avoid-bonus
The foregoing is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor should it be construed as such.
