Occam's Razor

Vital to understanding employee's complaints and the extent of protection afforded by the law is the ability to think critically about the issues. When presented with employee complaints, witness reports, and employment records, it can be difficult to cut through the volume of material and hone in on the important issues. Even when the allegedly harmed employee is completely honest, emotions can often lead to erroneous conclusions -- there are as many ways to thwart logic as there are to support it.

For this reason, employers need a ready logical toolkit to parse the conjectural from the relevant. Almost like a crime-scene, the fresher the facts, the easier it is to find the smoking gun.

The first tool in the logical toolkit is Occam's Razor:

The simplest conclusion is that most likely true.

In Latin, William of Ockham wrote: pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, "plurality should not be posited without necessity," though it has been rewritten many ways.

In the context of factual investigations, this principle is essentially one of economy. When asked for the "facts" of  events they witnessed, people often embellish, explain, or remember things as they think they ought to have been. A good interviewer can, through questioning, focus on the actual complaint made, and eliminate non sequiturs. This is Occam's Razor at work: finding the correct (i.e. simplest) conclusion by building up a profile of the event in question.

As part of my practice, I regularly interview witnesses -- both adverse and friendly, both informally and under oath -- in employment discrimination, wage-and-hour, and trust fund contributions cases, as well as toward best employment practices.