People, it doesn't work.
There was a court decision last week from my home state of North Carolina that left me shaking my head.
A social worker sued her ex-employer, a non-profit, claiming (among other things) that she was fired for complaining that the employer didn't comply with requirements of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In addition to denying those allegations, the employer counterclaimed against her, alleging that she was stealing gift cards intended for HUD clients.
As the case progressed, the plaintiff's attorney threatened to go after the employer for sanctions. In support, she produced an email supposedly from her supervisor authorizing the plaintiff to provide the gift cards to HUD clients but also to assemble 300 pandemic relief kits that included gift cards. Which, I guess, would have explained all the missing gift cards. The email was dated March 27, 2020.
The employer did some sleuthing. The supervisor denied having ever sent the email. (Sure.) The IT guy looked on the server and couldn't find the email anywhere. (Probably not looking that hard.) The employer then hired a computer forensic expert with whom it had no prior relationship. The forensic guy monitored the IT guy as he searched for the email and confirmed that the email really was nowhere to be found. (Hmmm.)
The IT guy also found some emails that were sent by the same supervisor around the same time, and her signature block on those emails didn't match the signature block on the March 27 email. (HMMMM.) And the March 27 email had a 50th anniversary logo on it that the employer had not started using until August of that year. (Ding! Ding! Ding!)
Apart from those little discrepancies, the March 27 email seemed to be perfectly legit.
The employer presented all of this to the judge and asked him to dismiss the plaintiff's claims and grant a default judgment on its counterclaims. The judge didn't go quite that far, but he did do this:
- Granted default judgment to the employer on its counterclaims.
- Struck the plaintiff's request for punitive, liquidated, and treble damages.
- Ruled that the plaintiff could not use the March 27 email in support of her case.
- Ruled that the employer could use the March 27 email to attack the plaintiff's credibility and that the plaintiff was "estopped" (prohibited) from claiming that the email was authentic.
- Awarded attorneys' fees to the employer.
What a great idea to fabricate that email! You go, girl!
Fabricating emails or text messages -- whether it's to save one's behind or sabotage a rival -- is dishonest and immoral. But besides that, it's stupid. I am sure there are skilled fakers out there who know how to do the job right. (Not an endorsement.) But amateur fakers mess up in ways that almost anyone can spot.
I've had a couple of cases with fake evidence, although neither went as far as this one did. In one case, an employee claimed that she had performed a work-related task on a certain date, and forwarded a "contemporaneous" email as proof. The only problem was, the email was dated in the future. (When the employee pasted in the header from another email, she forgot to backdate the year.)
The other case involved sabotage. An anonymous employee sent texts to an executive claiming that she'd been sexually harassed by the CEO. The client suspected that the messages were really coming from the executive, who had been passed over for the CEO position. In that case, the things that made us all go "hmm" were (1) the CEO was a genuinely good guy who was unlikely to have behaved in such a way, (2) the executive had a motive, and (3) in his other written communications, this executive made the same unique spelling errors as the "anonymous employee." Thus began an investigation, and with the help of a computer forensics expert we were able to determine that the "anonymous employee" and the executive were one and the same person.
(You'll be glad to know that the executive/"anonymous employee" was -- were? -- fired.)
So, plaintiffs, don't try to win your case this way. You will get caught. Even if your lawsuit isn't tossed immediately, you'll only persuade the court and a jury that your employer was right to fire you.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010