It requires consideration of both complainant's and respondent's evidence and a thorough investigation and evaluation of conflicting evidence. It exists when FHEO can conclude based on all relevant evidence, viewed not as an advocate for either complainant or respondent but rather objectively in light of the Act's prohibitionary language and case law, that a violation may have occurred. In the event of a conflicting yet reasonable believed evidence after a full investigation, the evidence may be construed in favor of complainant. If the evidence appears to support complainant and respondent equally, a reasonable cause finding also may be made. This is consistent with the standard that an agency must meet under the Equal Access to Justice Act to avoid paying attorney's fees after it loses a case.
Conflicting evidence is likely to involve credibility issues.
Since a determination of reasonable cause could not be based solely on one party's statement or version of events, and no presumption could be made in favor of either party, evidence would need to be gathered and evaluated to show whether complainant's version of the events reasonable could be believed. The Act requires the Department to conduct an investigation. One proposal for a reasonable cause standard would contain a requirement that a finding of reasonable cause not be made for an improper purpose such as harassment, delay or increased costs to respondent. Though a determination or a charge may not be issued for such purposes, including this factor in the reasonable cause standard would appear to be unnecessary, since no reason exists to conclude that that has or ever would occur.