Two recent federal court rulings highlight the importance of training supervisors to handle discrimination complaints, and of gathering accurate first-hand information about employee problems. An impartial internal investigation or a well-trained supervisor can make or break the company’s case in a discrimination suit.
In Thompson v. Memorial Hospital of Carbondale, the hospital oversaw emergency medical operations for the Southern Illinois region. Archie Thompson was the only black paramedic in the region. Paula Bierman, a female middle manager at the hospital repeatedly stated that “one black paramedic was one too many” and stated her belief that African American employees did not have the same abilities as Caucasian employees.
After saving the life of a diabetic patient, paramedic Thompson was verbally reprimanded by his on-duty supervisor for not reporting a certain procedure. Following an investigation, the supervisor concluded that the paramedics had not been trained in the protocol and that none of them, including Thompson, had been following the proper procedure. The next day, after reviving another diabetic patient, Thompson did follow the correct call-in procedure.
When manager Paula Bierman learned of the initial lapse, she requested permission from the hospital administrator to put paramedic Thompson on probation. Under questioning, Bierman lied, claiming that the other paramedics were following the procedure, and that Thompson had been trained in it.
Bierman also claimed that Thompson had received lower scores than other paramedics on an extremely difficult pop quiz that she gave.
If the hospital administrator had interviewed other paramedics or the on-duty supervisor, he would have learned that Bierman was creating a trumped-up case against Thompson due to his race. In fact, the paramedics routinely failed to follow the diabetic protocol because the policy had not been publicized. Bierman had not saved the written quiz for any paramedic except Thompson, making it impossible to show that his score was better or worse than any other paramedic’s.
Thompson was put on probation, and sued the hospital for illegal discrimination. The 7th Circuit court upheld the jury decision, awarding him $250,000. By seeking information only from one manager, the hospital created a situation where a racist manager could railroad an employee.
If the hospital administrator had conducted his own investigation, rather than getting all his information from Bierman, the conclusions would have been very different. The administrator would have learned that Paramedic Thompson’s performance was very similar to other employees, and Bierman simply wanted an excuse to fire him.
By contrast, in Alvarez v Des Moines Bolt Supply Inc, the 8th Circuit Court ruled that because HR investigated the issue thoroughly, and took quick corrective action, the employee had no discrimination case.
Veronica Alvarez was an employee for the Midwestern company producing industrial fasteners. She alleged that her Iowa coworkers were sexually harassing her. In November 2005, Alvarez reported sexually inappropriate actions by coworker Brad Nurnberg, including slapping her on the butt. The company Human Resources officer investigated, speaking with Nurnberg, Alvarez and witnesses. He determined that Nurnberg was sexually harassing Alvarez, and suspended Nurnberg. When Nurnberg returned from suspension, he was reassigned to a similar job away from Alvarez.
In May 2006, Alvarez resigned, claiming that the sexual harassment had continued. However, she had not filed any complaints of sexual harassment with the company since Nurnberg’s suspension. The courts ruled that the employer had taken swift, effective action to end the one incident they were aware of, and that was sufficient.
The court noted that in order to prove sexual harassment, the plaintiff must show that the employer was aware of, or should have been aware of, discriminatory actions. In this case, an impartial investigation by HR and swift action spared the company many thousands of dollars.
