Workplace Harassment Investigations

Workplace harassment investigations are conducted by both large and small organizations.  Even though the objectives and scope may vary widely, the principle purpose is that of objective fact-finding. Workplace harassment investigations are laden with liability that could be financially ruinous for the organization involved.  This includes presentation an investigation with biased roots.

The fact finder who generally is a private investigator should be skilled in these types of investigations.   The investigator must be experienced in and have an understanding of criminal, civil and employment law. Additionally, the investigator must be proficient at gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, suspects and victims, and uncovering the truth.

The investigator and decision maker (business owner / HR manager) should not be one in the same.  This is a safeguard to ensure fairness and impartiality during the investigation.  Additionally, outside counsel should be used if possible.

During the course of the investigation the investigator should not provide recommendations on the outcome of the investigation.  The investigator should be impartial and provide all information that is uncovered during the investigation.  This will ensure that the investigator does not influence the decision maker and the efforts are focused and reasonable for the situation.

The following are some safeguards that should be put in place in order to protect and ensure that the investigation impartial.

• The investigation is driven by established policies and procedures, not personal agenda’s.
• The investigators role is clearly defined and the parameters are set by the decision maker.  The investigators limits of authority are defined and set before the investigation begins.
• The entire investigative effort must be overseen by a designated higher authority (usually outside counsel).  The investigator is responsible to that higher authority, providing updates and requesting direction when necessary.

1. From the on-set of the investigation the investigative effort is driven by clearly articulated and well-defined processes and objectives.  These objectives and processes should be defined by the decision makers as well as counsel.
2. The decision maker is bound to a standard of proof that must be established before the investigation begins.

Setting objectives, carefully articulating direction and implementing safeguards will substantially contribute to defending the investigative process as well as its outcome should it be challenged.  If the offending party can show that the employer’s investigative process is biased, the investigation may become further insult to injury.