Every once in a while, I read a case where my first reaction is: “how does someone like this ever hold a job?” That was my reaction when I read the Court’s April 10, 2015 decision in Sharp v. Best Buy Co., Inc. out of the United States District Court for Western District of Kentucky.
In Sharp, the plaintiff was an auto technician who suffered from narcolepsy and cataplexy. Best Buy accommodated his conditions by excusing him from shift work, and he was promoted to Lead Auto Technician. According to the court’s decision, Best Buy’s accommodations allowed Sharp to come to work so he could make shockingly offensive remarks to his coworkers, such as:
- “you’re late because you had a guy six inches down your throat?”
- “you need bungee cords to hold [your breasts] up;”
- he told a co-worker she had a “huge [breasts]” and a “big ass;”
- he tried to place a post-it note on a woman’s backside while simulating masturbation; and
- he told a co-worker she looked good “on her knees, looking up while she gives head.”
After getting a complaint of sexual harassment on its Human Resources Hotline, Best Buy promptly investigated Sharp’s conduct and, not surprisingly, decided to fire him. Sharp responded by suing for disability discrimination and retaliation.
Best Buy moved for summary judgment, and the Court granted the motion and dismissed the case. While Sharp claimed his coworkers fabricated the allegations of harassment, the Court nevertheless found Sharp’s suspicion insufficient to defeat summary judgment. In so doing, the Court relied upon the “business judgment” rule, whereby courts refuse to second guess an employer’s personnel decision so long as it is supported by an honest belief of a non-discriminatory reason for the action. As stated by the Court:
“The key inquiry in assessing whether an employer holds such an honest belief is “whether the employer made a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking” the complained-of action. An employer has an honest belief in its rationale when it “reasonably relied on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made.” “[W]e do not require that the decisional process used by the employer be optimal or that it left no stone unturned.”
Employers need to keep in mind that the business judgment rule allows them to make personnel decisions based upon an objective and well-done investigation. This means that employers need not conclusively establish whether an alleged wrongdoer is or is not “guilty.” Rather, the employer need only show that it had an honest and well-founded belief to support its actions, at which point “it is inappropriate for the judiciary to substitute its judgment for that of management.” Saulsberry v. Fed. Express Corp., 552 F. App’x 424, 430 (6th Cir. 2014).