Overview: In the event of litigation, an effective employee investigation can be extremely persuasive to fact finders like judges and juries. If the employer can show its investigation was prompt, thorough and impartial, it can reduce the employer's exposure. A proper investigation should demonstrate the employer's sincerity in addressing employee complaints, its wherewithal in fixing problems, and its objectivity in assessing the weight of evidence gathered from witnesses.
Employers should take prompt action in preparing for and during the course of investigations to ensure completeness and objectivity. It can accomplish these goals by quickly nominating the correct employee(s) to oversee various aspects of the investigation including interviewing key witnesses and making the final decision when the investigation is complete.
Trends: Employers often take measures to restrict employee activities during the course of investigations. In some cases, those restrictions are appropriate and relevant to the goal of the investigation. For example, if an employer directs employees not to discuss the details of an investigation, it may be justified in issuing such a restriction if it is important to maintain the confidentiality of the complaining witness(es).
However, employers may not issue unnecessary or overly broad restrictions that do not truly advance the goals of conducting the investigation. These types of restrictions undermine the objectivity of the investigation and may also run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) even if the employer does not have a unionized workforce.
Author: Michael Jacobson, JD, Legal Editor
XpertHR's High-Tech Resource Center for HR helps high-tech employers handle their most challenging employment issues by bringing relevant resources together in one place for easy access.
Over time, HR has evolved from a task-based role to one as an employer's strategic business partner. This section highlights different ways an HR professional can become a strategic business partner, such as by developing and implementing work rules, conducting internal audits, and understanding statutory recordkeeping and posting requirements.
Arbitration is a dispute resolution process that is preferred by many employers because it is quicker and cheaper than litigation. This section reviews the enforceability of arbitration agreements, arbitration programs, the arbitration process, labor arbitration, rights arbitration and interest arbitration.
In-depth review of the spectrum of federal legal requirements HR must follow when handling external investigations.
Before disciplining employees, employers need to implement policies and procedures that enforce rules of conduct and communicate those policies to employees. This section reviews the discipline process, different discipline types, alternatives to discipline and special discipline situations, including attendance, theft, substance abuse and whistleblowers.
A New York federal court has ruled that employers may have a defense to defamation claims when their employees include hyperlinks to reliable sources in their social media posts. The ruling is significant for employers given the increasing use of social media in the workplace, particularly where employees use social media at the direction of employers or within the scope of their employment.
Employers are required by law to conduct internal investigations when they learn of certain types of misconduct in the workplace, including sexual harassment, unsafe work practices or violations of federal, state or local laws. This section assists HR professionals in selecting the right investigator, interviewing witnesses, documenting the investigation and concluding the investigation.
In-depth review of the spectrum of California employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to workers' compensation.
This checklist is designed to walk employers through the process of responding to a complaint or allegations before actually launching an internal investigation. Employers are obligated to take quick, effective and reasonable action in responding to workplace complaints, even before they conduct investigations or collect the results of investigations, in order to guard against liability and to protect employees from misconduct.
While the Supreme Court's ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act has drawn the most attention, other key opinions from the 2012-2013 term also affect HR. In a new podcast, our editorial team examines a pair of wins for employers in cases involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act--Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar and Vance v. Ball State - plus much more.
HR guidance on the importance of conducting thorough and objective investigations as a tool to guard against and/or defeat litigation.