with Roberts, Roberts told Duke that she had worked on her nephew’s account. Based on this information, Duke and Verstegen decided to terminate her. The investigation further revealed a violation of the Friends and Family policy by Sorenson. Sorenson admitted during her interview with Duke that she had worked on her sister’s account. As a result, Duke and Verstegen decided to also terminate her. During the course of the investigation, Ronette McColley, who was 45, admitted to Duke that she had accessed her brother-in-law’s account. Duke’s investigation revealed that McColley’s brother-in-law’s account had been closed for so many years that Duke could not even determine that McColley had access , 646 (8th Cir.1997)); Jordan v. Olsten Corp., 111 F.Supp.2d 227, 236 (W.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>). c. Hood’s comments Plaintiffs further point
holding that there is no constitutional duty to do a better investigation and that a decision not to conduct a more thorough investigation does not invade an accuseds rights holding that an isolated comment is not direct evidence of discrimination even if a plaintiff interpreted it as motivated by a discriminatory animus holding that employer was entitled to summary judgment even if it conducted a shoddy investigation and subsequently made a poorly informed decision to fire plaintiff so long as there was no evidence that it was  discriminatory animus that motivated the decision to conduct the investigation and terminate plaintiffs employment holding that statements made to internal investigator of employer were made in an investigation under this subchapter where investigation was pursuant to a charge filed with eeoc holding in title vii case that the span of time between an employers raciallycharged remarks and the decision to fire the plaintiff is relevant to a determination of whether discriminatory animus motivated the firing