In McGrory v. Applied Signal Technologies, Inc., Applied Signal ("AST") secured the dismissal of a former manager's claims that his termination was discriminatory and violated public policy and that AST defamed him, and a court of appeals upheld the dismissal.  AST fired plaintiff McGrory because, in AST's view, he was untruthful and uncooperative in the investigation of a complaint that he discriminated against and harassed a subordinate based on gender and sexual orientation.  The investigation also revealed he had participated in "off-color" jokes and commentary.

McGrory argued that his refusal to cooperate constituted "protected activity," thus rendering his termination unlawful.  The appellate court rejected this argument, noting that "refusing to participate in or cooperate with an investigation into a discrimination claim is not participation or assistance and is not a protected activity" under federal or California law or public policy.  The court further observed that McGrory presented "virtually no evidentiary support" to show the termination flowed from bias against men, and his "rank speculation" to the contrary could not sustain an inference of discrimination.  Finally, the court rejected McGrory's claim that AST defamed him when the Vice President of Human Resources allegedly informed McGrory's former coworker of the reason for his termination, because the communication was made without malice.

AST's victory serves as an important reminder for employers everywhere: employers have a right to demand cooperation during workplace investigations and an employee's refusal to coorporate may warrant discipline up to and including termination.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.