Workplace Investigations: Avoiding the Defamation Trap

Workplace investigations are among HR’s most difficult tasks, especially when harassment allegations are involved.

Yet one serious risk often goes unnoticed: The risk of a defamation claim from the accused employee.

A decision from a federal court in Ohio offers a good example of the danger that exists – and how employers can avoid liability for defamation.

Harassment Complaint Leads to Defamation Issue

Darryl Mitchell held the position of chief legal officer at Fujitec America, a manufacturer and service provider of service elevators. His job duties included overseeing human resources. That meant he was responsible for responding to complaints of sexual harassment.

In 2018, employee Shawnez McKenzie told Mitchell that her supervisor was “hitting on” her and commenting on her appearance. She declined to file a complaint at that time. But after other alleged incidents involving improper behavior by the supervisor, Mitchell recommended that he be terminated.

Then, as the court’s decision put it, “the story [took] a somewhat strange turn” after the supervisor was let go.

Accuser Raises New Allegations

Specifically, McKenzie accused Mitchell of sexually harassing her. She told the company’s president and controller that Mitchell had propositioned her, asked her to be his “mistress,” grabbed her waist and rubbed against her backside.

The company responded by hiring an outside employment attorney to investigate. Based on the results of that workplace investigation, the company placed Mitchell on leave and then terminated his employment.

Mitchell sued Fujitec, asserting race discrimination, defamation and contract-related claims against it. He also asserted a defamation claim against McKenzie. The court considered defense motions for summary judgment.

The court rejected Mitchell’s defamation claims against the company and its president, which were based on the allegation that the company’s president improperly relayed McKenzie’s allegations against Mitchell to other Fujitec employees.

Outside Investigator Conducted Workplace Investigation

The court said that even if the company president discussed the allegations against Mitchell with other employees – and even if those allegations were false – the company president did not act with the requisite degree of fault to show defamation. Instead, he relied in good faith on the outside attorney’s investigative report.

The court also rejected Mitchell’s claims related to alleged promises to increase his salary and pay him a bonus.

In addition, it ruled against Mitchell on his claim of race discrimination, which was premised on an alleged lack of adequate compensation, a reduction in his job responsibilities, and an allegedly biased and incomplete investigation of McKenzie’s complaint against him.

A reduction in job responsibilities is not an adverse job action, the court noted, and Mitchell did not identify similarly situated employees outside his protected class who were treated more favorably with respect to pay.

Nor could Mitchell prove unlawful retaliation, the court said, because he did not engage in any protected activity. The court granted judgment for the company and its president.

Defamation Claim Against Employee Is Preserved

It also preserved Mitchell’s defamation claim against McKenzie. She did not contest Mitchell’s assertion that her allegations against him were false, the court noted.

In addition, there was a question of whether her statements against him caused him to suffer harm. As a result, Mitchell’s defamation claim against her could go forward, the court said.

Avoiding Defamation Liability: 6 Keys

When conducting workplace investigations into alleged harassment, here are some important things to keep in mind that will show respect to employees and protect the company.

• Workplace investigations into allegations of sexual harassment must be prompt, objective and thorough.
• Provide information regarding workplace investigations on an as-needed basis only. The investigation and its findings should be disclosed only to parties who have a legitimate need to know of its existence and details.
• Document your response to the investigation, and take prompt remedial action as needed based on your findings.
• Remember that it is reasonable to rely on the findings of an outside investigator in good faith; doing so will help keep a defamation claim against you at bay.
• Have clear policies in place regarding sexual harassment and the handling of complaints.
• Provide regular training to supervisors and managers.

For more, check out How to Conduct Workplace Investigations: 10 Important Steps.

Mitchell v. Fujitec America, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-363 (S.D. Ohio 10/10/25).