Failing to disclose information to your employer can sometimes be regarded as dishonesty, allowing your employer to fire you even if discovered many years later. Two recent news stories provide cautionary examples at the highest levels.
The recent resignation of Birju Dattani from his appointment to chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, after it was revealed that he omitted critical background information, highlights the broader risks of employee resume fraud.
An investigation revealed that Mr. Dattani intentionally omitted key details about his background during the vetting process, including the use of an alias while engaging in controversial academic work that criticized Israel. Mr. Dattani’s omissions about his academic past were seen as compromising his credibility, leading to the public perception that he could not perform his role as head of the federal Human Rights Commission with neutrality. As a result, Mr. Dattani was compelled to resign before even starting the job.
In the leading Canadian case on resume fraud, an employer successfully demonstrated that an employee who falsely claimed to hold a doctorate would never have been hired had it not been for this misrepresentation. In that case, the court confirmed that because the employee’s deception was a crucial factor in the hiring decision, his termination many years later was completely justified.
I have seen many instances where job seekers provide false narratives, explaining why they left their last job or manipulate their background and qualifications when seeking employment or negotiating better pay.
Omissions or exaggerations during the hiring process can be viewed as serious dishonesty, particularly if that information, had it surfaced, would have affected the hiring decision. Therefore, if deception undermines the core of the employment relationship, it can justify dismissal without severance, even many years later.
For professionals, senior employees or executives, the obligation to be forthright and completely honest during the vetting process becomes even more important. For these employees, there is a heightened standard of transparency that is expected that even may extend to alerting your potential employer to the possibility of any information, which if publicly exposed, may bring you or the company into disrepute.
In the other case, the Royal Bank of Canada recently made headlines when it fired its former chief financial officer Nadine Ahn for allegedly engaging in an undisclosed relationship with a subordinate employee. In this case, RBC claims that Ms. Ahn violated the Bank’s code of conduct by concealing a close and allegedly intimate relationship with another employee. As part of a wrongful dismissal lawsuit against RBC, Ms. Ahn has denied that her relationship with her colleague was inappropriate. However, she is alleged to have misused her authority as the Bank’s CFO to benefit her colleague through compensation increases and preferential treatment. RBC argues that, as a named executive, she had an onus to disclose information that could be viewed as problematic.
The duty to disclose personal relationships at work can be tricky.
I am often consulted by executives and other employees who want to understand their obligations to their employers when they start dating subordinates at work. The majority of these cases are men who choose to date their assistants or other, more junior employees. They all worry that it may end badly, which is precisely what prompts them to consult with me in the first place.
By itself, office romances between consenting colleagues are not grounds for dismissal without severance. However, because of the potential for both real and threatened liability that workplace relationships may bring about, many employers no longer turn a blind eye and have decided to monitor these relationships very closely, or in some cases outlaw them altogether. This is especially true where one employee reports to the other. Therefore, in certain situations, company policies may mandate the disclosure of personal relationships to your employer and the failure to comply with that policy can lead to dismissal.
In other situations, such as the case with senior employees, executives or those in publicly facing positions (often referred to as fiduciary employees), even in the absence of a specific policy, there is generally an obligation to report the existence of any potential conflict of interest. This allows your employer to take steps to mitigate the potential fallout. Failing to disclose relevant information, such as an intimate relationship (even a brief one) with a more junior employee can also justify dismissal without severance.
In situations of both potential resume fraud or an alleged code of conduct violation, the key is that once your company becomes aware of the issue, it has to address it. Otherwise, it becomes significantly more difficult – if not impossible – for it to later claim you acted improperly.
In today’s connected world, where information is easily verified and digital footprints are nearly impossible to erase, honesty and integrity in the hiring process and throughout your employment are more important than ever.
Daniel A. Lublin is a founding partner at Whitten & Lublin employment lawyers, representing both employers and employees in workplace legal disputes. He can be reached at Dan@canadaemploymentlawyer.com.