In Welch v. Heart Truss & Engineering, the employer fired an employee it believed had spray-painted trusses with graffiti—including devil horns and cartoon boobs. (Yes, really.) The employee claimed the real reason for his firing was his disability and workers' comp history.
But the 6th Circuit didn't buy it. The employer's "honest belief" saved the day.
The honest belief rule shields an employer from discrimination and retaliation claims if it can show it reasonably relied on particularized facts in making the decision—even if those facts turn out to be wrong.
So how did Heart Truss get it right (legally speaking)? They:
✅ Took the graffiti complaints seriously
✅ Investigated quickly
✅ Interviewed employees
✅ Relied on a supervisor's report of a confession (did I bury the lede?)
✅ Had no reason to doubt the information
Yes, the investigation could have been more thorough. But as the court noted, the law doesn't require "an optimal investigation that left no stone unturned"—just one that's reasonably informed and considered.
To avail yourself of the honest belief rule, your investigation doesn't have to be perfect. It just needs to be fair, prompt, and based on facts that a reasonable person would find reliable.
What does this look like in practice?
- Promptly document complaints and allegations.
- Interview relevant witnesses (including the accused).
- Preserve records of the decision-making process.
- Avoid rubber-stamping a supervisor's version; verify it.
- Ensure the decision-maker doesn't have any bias or axe to grind.
- Avoid discriminatory treatment of comparables.
It's not about whether the employee actually did the thing. It's about whether you, as the employer, had a legitimate, fact-based reason to believe they did. In other words, honesty really is the best policy—especially when it comes to employee terminations.