It happens. An employee is accused of sexual harassment and an investigation follows. Word spreads. Initial findings appear to support the claim, but later evidence emerges – voicemail messages of the accuser telling the accused they couldn’t wait to meet at their usual motel, explicit sexts from the accuser to the accused, or even on-the-record, sworn admissions by the accuser that the relationship was consensual and the allegations were false.

What recourse does the accused have in this situation? In a rare case, an employee of Fujitec America, Inc., an elevator manufacturing, installation, and service company headquartered in Mason, Ohio, faced just this scenario. The company’s Chief Legal Officer, Mitchell, was fired for alleged sexual harassment, among other reasons, and subsequently sued Fujitec and the accuser for defamation. Defamation is an intentional tort, which means punitive damages could be awarded – often significantly higher than actual damages.

McKenzie, the accuser, claimed that Gibson, the Chief Financial Officer, sexually harassed her. Mitchell, as legal counsel, investigated McKenzie’s claim. He asked McKenzie if she wanted to file a formal complaint, and she declined. Later, another incident occurred, and Mitchell considered taking disciplinary action against Gibson, but McKenzie again declined, citing fear of retaliation. Eventually, a formal complaint was filed.

However, Mitchell never interviewed Gibson. Instead, he wrote up the complaint and had Gibson fired. The only part of the investigation involved speaking with McKenzie. Had he interviewed Gibson, he would have learned that some of the alleged recent complaints actually occurred in 2013 – about five years before McKenzie’s more recent claims.

After Gibson’s termination, McKenzie became dissatisfied with Mitchell, despite their prior friendly relationship. She accused him of inappropriate conduct, including repeated propositions for a romantic relationship between 2015 and 2018, asking her to be his “mistress,” and once grabbing her waist in the breakroom. Outside counsel was brought in and confirmed parts of McKenzie’s allegations. The attorney reported that Mitchell admitted to having a “flirtatious” relationship with McKenzie and acknowledged that some of her allegations were factually accurate but mischaracterized.

The President of Fujitec’s U.S. operations then sent an email to the company’s top officer in Japan, stating that the allegations of harassment were “partially substantiated” and recommending that Mitchell’s employment be terminated for several reasons, including the alleged harassment. Mitchell was subsequently fired.

Mitchell’s defamation claim was partly based on these communications to Japanese management. However, the court ruled against him, finding that the communications were based on the attorney’s investigation and were made to individuals within the company with a legitimate need to know. There was no evidence that the President acted improperly by sharing information about the allegations.

The key takeaway for HR: thorough investigations are essential. When an employer conducts a careful, good-faith investigation, the organization is generally protected when taking action based on that investigation, even if the allegations later prove to be false.

Source:  Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP 10/24/25, Mitchell v. Fujitec America Inc., No. 1:20-cv-363 (U.S. Court District Court of Southern District of Ohio 10/10/25