---
name: workplace-investigation
description: Conduct workplace investigations including harassment claims, policy violations, conflict disputes, and whistleblower reports. Use when launching investigations, conducting interviews, gathering evidence, writing investigation reports, or determining outcomes and remedies. Triggers on phrases like "workplace investigation", "harassment investigation", "complaint investigation", "misconduct investigation", "investigation process", "witness interview", "evidence gathering", "investigation report", "disciplinary investigation", "complaint handling", "formal investigation", "HR investigation".
---

# Workplace Investigations

Conduct thorough, fair, and legally defensible workplace investigations.

## Workflow

1. Receive complaint: Document report, assess urgency, determine scope.
2. Plan investigation: Define scope, identify parties, select investigator, timeline.
3. Notify parties: Complainant acknowledgment, respondent notification, confidentiality request.
4. Gather evidence: Document review, system data, physical evidence, emails.
5. Conduct interviews: Complainant, respondent, witnesses (structured, documented).
6. Analyze findings: Evaluate credibility, weigh evidence, identify facts vs. allegations.
7. Determine outcome: Preponderance of evidence standard, policy violation determination.
8. Report and communicate: Written report, notify parties, recommend/disciplinary action.
9. Remediate and follow-up: Corrective action, monitor for retaliation, close case.
10. Document and archive: Complete record retention, lessons learned, policy updates.

## Investigation Framework

```
INVESTIGATION PLANNING
========================

STEP 1: INITIAL ASSESSMENT
  → Severity: Nature of allegation (harassment, discrimination, theft, conflict)
  → Urgency: Immediate risk to safety, ongoing harm, flight risk
  → Scope: Specific incident, pattern, systemic issue?
  → Credibility: Face validity of complaint (not determination of truth)
  → Conflicts: Investigator independence (no conflict of interest)
  → Resources: Internal vs. external investigator

STEP 2: INVESTIGATION TEAM
  → Lead investigator: Trained HR professional or external investigator
  → Note-taker: Documents interview summaries in real-time
  → Legal counsel: Advises on legal risks, privilege, process
  → Management liaison: Handles business continuity, not investigation substance

STEP 3: SCOPE DEFINITION
  → What: Specific allegations to investigate
  → Who: Complainant, respondent(s), potential witnesses
  → When: Time period under investigation
  → Where: Locations relevant to allegation
  → How: Investigation methods (interviews, document review, data analysis)
  → Timeline: Estimated completion date (communicate to complainant)

STEP 4: INTERIM MEASURES (if needed)
  → Work reassignment: Temporary (not punitive) to reduce contact
  → Leave: Voluntary or administrative leave for respondent
  → Communication restrictions: No contact between parties
  → Workplace monitoring: Increased supervision in area
  → Safety measures: Security, escort, workspace change (if safety concern)
  → Important: Interim measures are NOT a determination of guilt
```

## Interview Process

```
INVESTIGATION INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
==================================

INTERVIEW ORDER:
  1. Complainant (detailed initial interview)
  2. Witnesses (corroborating or contextual information)
  3. Respondent (present allegations, allow response)
  4. Additional witnesses (as needed based on initial interviews)
  5. Follow-up interviews (clarification, new information)

COMPLAINANT INTERVIEW:
  → Private, comfortable setting
  → Explain process: Scope, timeline, confidentiality, no retaliation
  → Open-ended: "Tell me what happened" (allow full narrative)
  → Follow-up: Specific details (dates, times, locations, witnesses, impact)
  → Evidence: Ask about supporting evidence (emails, texts, witnesses)
  → History: Has this happened before? Reported before?
  → Impact: How has this affected you? What do you want to happen?
  → Documentation: Detailed notes; summary reviewed for accuracy
  → Reassurance: No retaliation policy, progress updates (within confidentiality)

WITNESS INTERVIEWS:
  → Identify: Who may have relevant information (from complainant and records)
  → Prepare: Specific questions based on allegation and timeline
  → Conduct: Private setting, explain purpose (general, not detailed to protect confidentiality)
  → Questions:
      → "Have you observed anything relevant to [general area]?"
      → "Can you describe what you saw/heard on [date]?"
      → "Has this happened before?"
      → "Do you have any documentation of this?"
  → Documentation: Detailed notes; avoid leading questions
  → Caution: Don't reveal complainant identity without permission

RESPONDENT INTERVIEW:
  → Notify: Specific allegations under investigation (sufficient detail to respond)
  → Rights: Right to accompany person (if company policy; legal counsel if potential termination)
  → Present: Specific allegations with details (dates, times, descriptions)
  → Allow: Full response to each allegation
  → Follow-up: Clarifying questions, explore inconsistencies
  → Evidence: Ask about supporting evidence or witnesses
  → Documentation: Detailed notes; summary reviewed for accuracy
  → Caution: Not accusatory; give full opportunity to respond

INTERVIEW BEST PRACTICES:
  → Neutral language: Avoid loaded or leading questions
  → Active listening: Allow silence, don't interrupt
  → Note-taking: Detailed, contemporaneous notes
  → Consistency: Same process for all parties
  → Documentation: Interview summaries signed by interviewee (optional but recommended)
  → Recording: Check local laws; inform if recording
```

## Analysis and Reporting

```
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
============================

EVIDENCE EVALUATION:

  STANDARD OF PROOF:
    → Preponderance of evidence (most common in workplace investigations)
       → "More likely than not" (51% threshold)
    → Clear and convincing (some organizations for severe allegations)
       → Higher than preponderance, lower than beyond reasonable doubt

  CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT:
    → Internal consistency: Does the account hold together?
    → External consistency: Corroborated by evidence or other witnesses?
    → Motive to fabricate: Any reason to lie?
    → Character: History of honesty, prior complaints/responses
    → Specificity: Detailed accounts typically more credible than vague
    → Emotional response: Appropriate emotional response (but not required)

  FACT FINDINGS:
    → Supported: Allegation substantiated by evidence
    → Not supported: Insufficient evidence to substantiate (not "proven false")
    → Inconclusive: Conflicting evidence; cannot determine
    → Partially supported: Some elements substantiated, others not

INVESTIGATION REPORT:

  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
    → Complaint received: [Date], [general nature]
    → Investigation conducted: [Dates], [methods]
    → Scope: [What was investigated]
    → Overall finding: [Substantiated / Not substantiated / Partially substantiated]

  ALLEGATIONS:
    → Detailed description of each allegation
    → Relevant policy violated (if applicable)

  INVESTIGATION PROCESS:
    → Documents reviewed
    → Individuals interviewed (roles, not necessarily names in shared versions)
    → Evidence collected

  FINDINGS:
    → Allegation 1: [Finding] — [Evidence summary]
    → Allegation 2: [Finding] — [Evidence summary]
    → Allegation 3: [Finding] — [Evidence summary]

  CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS:
    → Rationale for credibility assessments
    → How conflicting accounts were resolved

  RECOMMENDATIONS:
    → Disciplinary action (if policy violation confirmed)
    → Process improvements
    → Training needs
    → Policy updates
    → Follow-up monitoring

APPROVAL:
  → Report reviewed by: Legal counsel, CHRO
  → Determination approved by: [Designated executive, not respondent's manager]
```

## Outcomes and Remediation

```
POST-INVESTIGATION ACTIONS
=============================

IF SUBSTANTIATED:
  → Disciplinary action: Proportional to violation severity
      → Verbal warning (minor, first offense)
      → Written warning (moderate or repeated minor)
      → Suspension (significant violation)
      → Demotion (loss of leadership role, if leader)
      → Termination (severe violation, repeated offenses, pattern)
  → Remediation for complainant:
      → Restoration: Return to original role/conditions if changed
      → Accommodation: Workspace change, schedule adjustment
      → Support: EAP, counseling, additional leave
      → Monitoring: Ensure no retaliation, follow-up check-ins
  → Communication:
      → Complainant: Outcome (without disciplinary details of respondent)
      → Respondent: Finding, disciplinary action, appeal rights
      → Manager: What they need to know (without violating confidentiality)
      → Team: General reminder of policies (without specifics)

IF NOT SUBSTANTIATED:
  → No disciplinary action against respondent
  → Communicate to complainant: Finding (without revealing investigation details)
  → Address any underlying issues (even if allegation not substantiated)
  → Monitor: Ensure no retaliation against complainant
  → Review: Was the investigation thorough? Were all angles explored?

RETALIATION PREVENTION:
  → Explicit anti-retaliation communication to respondent and manager
  → Monitoring: Check in with complainant regularly for 6–12 months
  → Manager coaching: "Watch for and address any retaliatory behavior"
  → Reporting channel: "If you experience retaliation, report to [specific person]"
  → Consequences: Retaliation is separate violation; disciplined separately

CASE CLOSURE:
  → Final communication to all parties
  → Documentation: Complete file assembled and secured
  → Retention: Maintain per legal requirements (typically 3–7 years)
  → Lessons learned: Policy gaps, training needs, process improvements
  → Trend analysis: Add to aggregate data for pattern identification
```

## Integration Points

- Legal counsel: Privileged consultation, risk assessment, regulatory guidance
- HRIS: Case documentation, action tracking, disciplinary records
- Security: Physical evidence preservation, access logs, surveillance footage
- IT: Email/data preservation, system access logs, digital evidence
- EAP: Support for complainant and respondent
- Code of conduct: Policy reference, violation classification
- Compliance management: Regulatory reporting (if required)
- Training systems: Post-investigation training updates

## Edge Cases

- **Retaliation claims**: Separate investigation; often higher legal risk than original complaint
- **Mutual allegations**: Both parties make complaints; separate but coordinated investigations
- **Executive respondent**: Higher stakes; external investigator often warranted; board notification
- **Remote incidents**: Digital evidence reliance; chat logs, video recordings, system data
- **Third-party harassment**: Customer, vendor, or contractor harasses employee
- **Statute of limitations**: Time-sensitive claims; accelerated investigation timeline
- **Criminal overlap**: Potential criminal conduct; legal guidance on parallel proceedings
- **Confidentiality limits**: Need-to-know basis; manage "office grapevine" without confirming specifics