Richard King was a valued United Parcel Service (UPS) supervisor in Redding for more than 30 years, until he was fired for falsifying an employee’s timecard. King contended in a lawsuit that the real reason for his termination was disability bias. But now a California appeals court has dismissed King’s suit—and the case is a winning example of how conducting thorough workplace investigations can be vital to avoiding liability. The opinion also provides insight into the reasonable limits on an employer’s obligation to engage in an interactive process to find an accommodation for a disabled employee.
Timecard Falsified
Problems arose when King needed driver Jeff Lester to make some deliveries. He learned from his assistant, Leslie Allen, that Lester had already driven the maximum number of hours that week permitted under federal law. King and Lester disappeared into King’s office with Lester’s timecard, according to Allen. When they came out, King handed Allen a new timecard and told her to remove Lester’s previously submitted hours information from the computer system. Allen later found the original timecard in the trash can, she said.
An investigation ensued, and Lester said he falsified the timecard at King’s direction. UPS then confronted King, who initially denied wrongdoing—but when presented with the original timecard, he admitted the falsification and said, “You got me.” UPS fired King for violating the company’s integrity policy.
Disability Bias Suit Follows
All of this took place just two months after King had returned from a four-month medical leave because of a blood disorder. King turned around and sued for disability bias and breach of an implied contract that he would be terminated only for cause. He contended that the real reason for his discharge was his disability—and that when he returned to work, UPS failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation. (The need for a reasonable accommodation was unrelated to the falsified timecard incident.)
Case Dismissed
But now a California appeals court has dismissed the suit.1 First, the court found that King failed to show that UPS’s proffered reason for discharge was a subterfuge for disability bias. Instead, there was clear evidence that UPS decision makers honestly believed that King had either personally falsified a timecard or directed a driver to do so.
How To Survive an Employee Lawsuit: 10 Tips for Success
With lawsuits against employers becoming ever more common—and jury verdicts skyrocketing—your risk of getting sued has increased dramatically even if you’ve done all the right things. Learn how to protect yourself with our free White Paper, How To Survive an Employee Lawsuit: 10 Tips for Success.
Second, the court rejected King’s claim that the discharge violated an implied contract that he would be terminated only for cause. King contended UPS lacked good cause because he was innocent of the falsification charges. But, the court explained, what mattered was not whether King actually violated the integrity policy, but whether UPS, acting in good faith and following an appropriate investigation, had reasonable grounds for believing he had done so.
What’s more, any flaws in the investigation didn’t indicate bad faith. Courts will not compel employers to undertake a precise type of investigation as long as the employer’s process is inherently fair. Here, noted the court, neutral personnel investigated the facts and interviewed eyewitnesses, and King was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations—hallmarks of an adequate investigation.
No Accommodation Request
Finally, the court addressed King’s charge that UPS was required to provide him with a reasonable accommodation because his medical condition made it difficult for him to work a late shift that he normally worked. The court pointed out that the doctor’s release stated that King could perform “his regular duties and regular hours.” It was reasonable for UPS to assume that this meant King could go back to working his usual hours and shifts, rather than just daytime hours. Also, King never told his supervisors that it was hard for him to work the late shift, and he never requested a modified schedule, which would have triggered UPS’s accommodation duty.
Lessons Learned
This case offers a compelling example of the benefits of conducting thorough and neutral workplace investigations into allegations of employee misconduct before taking adverse action. UPS’s investigation helped it defeat King’s claim that the real reason for firing him was disability bias. What’s more, as the court stressed, a good-faith investigation is key to avoiding liability, even if the employer’s discharge decision ultimately proves wrong.
Second, the court made clear that you’re not required to be clairvoyant when it comes to an employee’s need for an accommodation. While employees are not required to use any particular words to request an accommodation, they also cannot remain silent, as occurred in this case.
1 King v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Calif. Court of Appeals (Dist. 3) No. C051657, 2007