A recent decision of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench has upheld the for-cause termination of a senior level employee who was found to have lied about his educational qualifications on his resume.

The Facts

In Tudor v Accurate Screen Ltd., the employer posted for a new Vice President of Business Development, considered an executive level position.  The job posting stated an undergraduate degree in Business Administration or a related field was required and that an applicant would ideally also posses an MBA.  The Plaintiff’s online application stated he was in the process of completing his MBA, set to be completed in November 2023, and that he possessed a certificate in business from an Alberta polytechnic institute.  While he did not misrepresent having an undergraduate degree, the Plaintiff had never enrolled in an MBA program nor taken an MBA class.

The Plaintiff was hired based, in part, on the representations made in his resume; however, during the course of his employment, the Plaintiff’s financial forecasting work was found to be subpar, especially for an individual who was supposedly enrolled in an MBA program, prompting the employer to make inquiries about the courses taken during his MBA.  The Plaintiff stated he took some MBA courses a “couple years ago” and was evasive when asked about what courses he took during his MBA.

The employer terminated his employment based on their belief that he had misled them on how many courses he had completed and how near he was to completing his MBA. It was later discovered that the Plaintiff had never taken any MBA courses.

In dismissing the Plaintiff’s wrongful dismissal Action, the Court held that the employer showed it had just cause to dismiss the Plaintiff from his employment.

The Argument

Among other things, the Plaintiff argued that he was not acting in bad faith when he indicated on his resume that his MBA studies were “currently ongoing”, and that that the representations made were merely an “error in judgment”, which was insufficient to establish dishonesty or fraud.  He further argued that the employer had a duty to inquire about his educational qualifications, if they were important; and that the job posting had only indicated that “ideally” he would have an MBA.

The Findings

The Court disagreed, finding that:

• Even though the Plaintiff did not represent that he had an MBA, he represented that he was in the process, which was not true (he had not even applied for entry into an MBA program), and that the Plaintiff’s representations amounted to intentional dishonesty in order to obtain employment.
• The burden is not on an employer to do a “deep dive” on a candidate’s qualifications during the hiring process. Rather, it is the duty of the candidate to provide accurate information in the first instance, as employers are entitled to rely on information provided by applicants and that it is unreasonable to require a “deep dive” into every candidate’s credentials.
• The Plaintiff’s misrepresentations pertained to a material fact in the hiring.
• The Plaintiff had knowingly falsified his employment application with the express intention of deceiving his soon-to-be employer, and had continued to be evasive when the Company started asking questions, including lying about having taken a couple of courses a couple of years before, which was not true.
• It “should seem obvious” that an employee holding an executive position is expected to exhibit trustworthiness and patent honesty.
• Although the employer did not present evidence of any actual harm suffered, it was sufficient that the Plaintiff’s misrepresentations had the potential to expose the employer to significant harm.

The Court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that he should have been given an opportunity to “correct” the issue, as there was no compelling way for him to “correct” the issue, other than being given an opportunity to completed a 4-year undergraduate degree or 2-year MBA program, and in any event the misrepresentation was sufficiently serious that “it strikes at the heart of the employment relationship”.

The Court found that dismissal for cause was an appropriate and proportionate response.

Impact on Employers

The Tudor decision reinforces that honesty, especially at the executive level, is essential to maintaining the trust required of the employment relationship, and that employers are generally entitled to rely on representations applicants make during the hiring process.

While misrepresenting educational qualifications can amount to just cause for dismissal, as it did in the Tudor case, not all misrepresentations in the hiring process will necessarily have the same impact.  It is important to consider the circumstances of the falsehood, the issues of proportionality and the nature and extent of the misconduct.

It is important to be cautious when terminating employment for cause as seemingly small variances in the circumstances of similar cases could result in differing determinations.  If you learn of an employee’s deception during the recruitment process, and wish to discuss what options may be available to you, or if you have any other questions or inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact any member of the Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark team.