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
Google has announced it will soon end its practice of requiring employees to resolve employment disputes through arbitration as a condition of employment.
This podcast features tips from long-time workplace investigator Michael W. Johnson about how HR professionals can make their investigations into suspected wrongdoing more effective when interviewing witnesses.
Updated to reflect amended OSHA electronic reporting requirements as a result of its final rule, issued January 24, 2019.
The Supreme Court has handed a rare victory to workers in a case involving a mandatory arbitration provision, ruling unanimously that a court's authority to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act does not extend to all private employment contracts.
The monetary value of class action case settlements dropped in 2018 despite an increase in the number of workplace class action certifications.
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that when a contract delegates an arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract even if the court thinks the arbitrability claim is groundless.
Google recently announced significant changes to its sexual harassment policies in response to a one-day walkout by employees around the world protesting the company made payments at termination to employees accused of sexual harasserment.
A new Supreme Court case asks whether workers may bring employment claims in a class arbitration if an arbitration agreement does not explicitly bar class actions. In prior cases, the justices have generally interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act in favor of employers.
A new Kentucky Supreme Court ruling bans employers from requiring job applicants or employees to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition of their employment.
HR guidance on the importance of conducting thorough and objective investigations as a tool to guard against and/or defeat litigation.