Instilling Confidentiality during Workplace Investigations

It is vital to exercise caution to protect the reporter's identity by restricting the number of individuals aware.

FREMONT, CA: When faced with sensitive circumstances, reporters may hesitate to pursue or provide further details about their allegations. As an investigator, it is crucial to empathize with their concerns and devise creative strategies to make them feel more comfortable participating. This can be achieved by offering appropriate reassurances regarding anonymity and non-retaliation.

Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.

However, it's essential to recognize that some reporters, particularly those vulnerable, may have concerns that cannot be easily alleviated. Age, family circumstances, past experiences, and immigration status can amplify these concerns. Additionally, certain foreign jurisdictions have local laws that expose reporters to additional risks. Investigating the matter becomes challenging, and you may have to proceed with limited information. When questioning witnesses, refrain from directly referring to the named individual and instead state, "Evidence has come to light." In cases where witness evidence is absent or insufficient, consider whether there is any physical evidence that can contribute to the investigation.

Reporters should be informed that their lack of participation may restrict the scope of the investigation and potentially impact its outcome. Managing their expectations from the outset is crucial. In some instances, interviewing former employees or third parties could prove beneficial. These individuals may feel more at ease speaking openly than your staff, as they are not directly reporting to or associated with the reporter or subject of the investigation.

When approaching former employees and third parties who are reluctant to participate, carefully consider the best course of action. Third parties generally have no obligation to participate. Former employees may have ongoing obligations to assist in such processes under their employment contracts or settlement agreements, but their cooperation is often limited. Reluctant witnesses tend to need to be more cooperative and willing to provide open and honest information. In sensitive investigations that rely on conflicting accounts, character witnesses can offer valuable evidence regarding an individual's typical conduct, behavior, and integrity. Assess the relationship between the subject and the witness. Determine if the witness has a vested interest in protecting the subject or if they are part of the subject's "inner circle" and potentially complicit in the alleged behavior. In sexual harassment or assault allegations, carefully evaluate the witness's ability to provide insights into the likelihood of the subject engaging in such conduct. A witness with a favorable opinion of the subject does not negate the possibility of their involvement. Similarly, a witness with a negative opinion of the subject for unrelated reasons does not automatically imply a higher likelihood of misconduct.

Maintain a balanced approach by interviewing witnesses with differing perspectives, both those who may view the subject favorably and those who may hold a less favorable view. To ensure consistency, when speaking to character witnesses for the subject, it is crucial to engage with the reporter's character witnesses. Several considerations come into play when deciding the timing of the subject's interview. Conducting the interview last allows all concerns and evidence to be presented in one session. Conversely, an earlier interview may be preferred to mitigate the risk of leaks, such as witnesses informing the subject about the ongoing investigation. Ideally, the subject should be interviewed once to minimize stress and provide an opportunity to respond comprehensively to all evidence. However, new evidence may emerge that requires further clarification or confirmation, depending on the case. This approach enhances the investigation's credibility, as the subject can address all evidence before the findings are finalized.

There may be instances where witnesses provide comments that deviate from what was initially stated during the investigation. In such cases, the interview notes should indicate which changes were made and distinguish between amendments that accurately reflect the meeting and those that represent the individual's current position upon reflection. If a particular point is a material, consider requesting clarification from the witness regarding whether their amendment aligns with their original statement or represents a revised position. Some witnesses may candidly explain that their amendment reflects what they meant rather than what they admit to saying during the meeting.