Employers Need Not Engage in “Optimal” Decision-Making,


“so long as an employer honestly and reasonably believed the nondiscriminatory reason for its action,” according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

In Noumoff v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., the general manager of a restaurant complained of sex discrimination by her supervising District Manager to his direct manager, who was also the Employee Relations Manager. The ER Manager opened an investigation, but because the GM did not provide concrete instances of discriminatory treatment, the investigation was closed. Subsequently, several restaurant employees complained of missing wages. The ER Manager conducted an investigation by reviewing the electronic time records for the relevant days, cross-referencing the records against separate “punch card” modifications by the GM, and reviewing video footage that showed the employees working during the time in question. Based on this evidence, the ER Manager determined that the GM had manipulated the employees’ time in violation of company policy and the GM was terminated. She sued, claiming that her termination was in retaliation for her complaint of sex discrimination, and that the ER Manager’s determination was “uninformed” because she did not speak with the GM or the employees to determine if the GM’s time adjustment was intentional, rather than just a mistake.

The 6th Circuit rejected the employee’s claims, noting that where an employer demonstrates an honest belief in the reason for the termination decision, the argument that this reason is pretext for illegal retaliation fails. According to the 6th Circuit, in order to show an honest belief, the employer must provide evidence that it “made a reasonably informed and considered decision based on reasonable reliance on particularized facts” – and the employer did so here, through its review of the records, written modifications and videos. Although the employer could have conducted the additional interviews, the 6th Circuit held that “so long as an employer honestly and reasonably believed the nondiscriminatory reason for its action, the employer need not use an optimal decision-making process that leaves no stone unturned.”

Although many employers are cautious about taking disciplinary action against employees who have alleged discrimination or harassment for fear of a retaliation claim, this case demonstrates that such employees are not insulated from adverse employment decisions. Such decisions, however, must be based on legitimate business reasons, reasonably investigated and supported by concrete evidence, and consistent with how other (non-complaining) employees have been treated.