An "Honest Belief" Remains a Viable Defense Option

28 May 2013 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

Termination and other adverse employment actions often give rise to claims of intentional discrimination and other litigation. In many cases, the issues will boil down to an assertion that the facts supporting the employer’s case are not accurate. Whether or not the employer was right on the facts, it still may have a defense based on the “honest belief” rule, which focuses not on the accuracy of the underlying facts asserted by an employer, but rather on what a decision-maker honestly believed the facts to be and whether that belief provides a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for an employment decision.

The “honest belief” doctrine has been under attack by employee advocates, with some claiming it insulates employers from liability where a supervisor or manager lies to a decision-maker about the allegedly true reasons for an adverse employment decision. However, for those legal jurisdictions where the “honest belief” doctrine has gained traction, it appears that the defense will remain a viable option. Early last week, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition by a fired college employee in Ohio who sought to review a federal appellate court’s decision in Blizzard v. Marion Technical, et al., where the appellate court found that the employee lacked an Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim because his employer had an “honest belief” in its asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging the employee. The court thus found that the employer had shown substantial evidence that it had a reasonable basis to be dissatisfied with the employer’s performance, and upheld the ruling in favor of the employer.

While the continued availability of an “honest belief” defense is welcome news to employers, establishing the “honest belief” defense is not always simple, and an employer will be in a stronger position if it does not have to rely exclusively on such a defense. Thus, if an employee is terminated for work performance problems, the employer should still seek to ensure that it has thoroughly documented these problems throughout the employee’s employment and not merely the termination incident. Employers should also pay particular attention to their own policies and ensure that all employees are consistently disciplined according to those policies. Evidence of disparate discipline or of a failure to follow the disciplinary steps set forth in the employer’s own policies could result in a finding of pretext that, depending on the facts, may not be overcome by an “honest belief” defense.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services