Opinion ID: 2816854
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Honest Belief Doctrine

Text: ConMed asserts that it had an “honest belief” in its nondiscriminatory reason for firing Yazdian, namely that Yazdian had “breached ConMed’s conduct policy.” Appellee Br. at 41– 43. ConMed may “avoid a finding that its claimed nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual” if it establishes that it “reasonabl[y] reli[ed] on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made,” even if evidence later shows that the reason was baseless. Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ConMed must show that it “made a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking an adverse employment action.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ConMed does not enjoy this protection, however, if Yazdian produces evidence sufficient to allow a jury to conclude reasonably “that the employer failed to make a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking its adverse employment action . . . .” Id. (citation omitted). Yazdian argues that we should not pay credence to ConMed’s asserted “honest belief” because ConMed did not conduct an investigation into Sweatt’s stated reason for the decision to terminate Yazdian or Yazdian’s discrimination claim. We agree. The record suggests that ConMed chose to terminate Yazdian based solely on Sweatt’s account of events. Hebbard did not interview Yazdian, his co-workers, or past managers to determine the basis of Sweatt’s allegations before drafting the warning letter. In addition, on July 13, 2010, after Yazdian spoke with Sweatt about the warning letter, Yazdian contacted Jackson, Sweatt, and Hebbard to let them know that he wanted an opportunity to present his side of the story with respect to the contents of the letter. Yazdian also said that he wanted to file a complaint against Sweatt with Human Resources. On July 26, 2010, ConMed made the decision to terminate Yazdian before even reading Yazdian’s rebuttal letter, which he had submitted on July 18. ConMed could not have been fully informed about the circumstances surrounding Yazdian’s termination if it did not even take the time to read Yazdian’s response. No. 14-3745 Yazdian v. ConMed Endoscopic Tech, Inc. Page 23 Moreover, if we take the facts in the light most favorable to Yazdian, as we must, then there is evidence in the record that ConMed did not afford Yazdian the opportunity to file a discrimination complaint even though it was aware that he planned to file one. Yazdian testified that Hebbard told him that he could not complain about Sweatt when she called him to discuss his allegations of discrimination, and therefore he did not address his discrimination claims during the phone call. This is particularly problematic because the record indicates that Sweatt was the person most instrumental in the decision to terminate Yazdian. Indeed, ConMed appears to have made the decision to terminate Yazdian entirely based on Sweatt’s description of the phone call with Yazdian. “One conversation [does] not establish sufficient particularized facts about the truth behind [Sweatt’s] statements, let alone [his] motive.” Shazor, 744 F.3d at 961. Thus, a reasonable jury could find that ConMed’s belief in the reason for Yazdian’s termination was not honestly held because ConMed did not investigate Yazdian’s discrimination complaint and blindly followed Sweatt’s recommendation to terminate Yazdian.