James Castelluccio, a former IBM vice president, was given $4.1 million in July 2014 by a national judge after a jury in Connecticut found that the then-61-year-old employee was wrongly terminated because of his age.
Before the trial and afterward, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas P. Smith severely criticized IBM’s internal management of an age-discrimination complaint that Castelluccio had taken to HR before he was let go.
While the HR, carrying out the workplace investigation, had concluded that the executive was handled fairly, the judge said the HR report was one sided and blocked IBM from submitting it as evidence at trial. Specifically, he noted that the HR report didn't include evidence advantageous to Castelluccio.
The judge wrote he guessed “the reason for the investigation was more to exonerate IBM than to decide if Mr. Castelluccio was handled fairly.”
The judgement has been appealed by iBM.
The opinion is one case of the way in which a badly conducted internal workplace investigation can cost a company fiscally and damage its reputation, as well as the reputations of the HR professionals tasked with managing this type of probe.
The IBM case should serve as a wake-up call to HR managers over America,” says Lorene Schaefer, an employment lawyer and workplace researcher in Atlanta. “In today’s world, having the ability to conduct a powerful internal investigation which will withstand legal scrutiny is a core competency for HR professionals.
“The people and workers as well as your jury members anticipate more now. They sophisticated,” says Schaefer, creator of Win-Win Resoluteness, which gives training in workplace investigations.
On the flip side, a correctly conducted investigation—one that's prompt, thorough and fair —can help should a lawsuit be filed afterwards protect a company. By ensuring an honest investigative process, HR professionals also can help build trust and morale among employees.
Before the trial and afterward, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas P. Smith severely criticized IBM’s internal management of an age-discrimination complaint that Castelluccio had taken to HR before he was let go.
While the HR, carrying out the workplace investigation, had concluded that the executive was handled fairly, the judge said the HR report was one sided and blocked IBM from submitting it as evidence at trial. Specifically, he noted that the HR report didn't include evidence advantageous to Castelluccio.
The judge wrote he guessed “the reason for the investigation was more to exonerate IBM than to decide if Mr. Castelluccio was handled fairly.”
The judgement has been appealed by iBM.
The opinion is one case of the way in which a badly conducted internal workplace investigation can cost a company fiscally and damage its reputation, as well as the reputations of the HR professionals tasked with managing this type of probe.
The IBM case should serve as a wake-up call to HR managers over America,” says Lorene Schaefer, an employment lawyer and workplace researcher in Atlanta. “In today’s world, having the ability to conduct a powerful internal investigation which will withstand legal scrutiny is a core competency for HR professionals.
“The people and workers as well as your jury members anticipate more now. They sophisticated,” says Schaefer, creator of Win-Win Resoluteness, which gives training in workplace investigations.
On the flip side, a correctly conducted investigation—one that's prompt, thorough and fair —can help should a lawsuit be filed afterwards protect a company. By ensuring an honest investigative process, HR professionals also can help build trust and morale among employees.