As Long As We Get to the Right Answer, How We Investigate Doesn’t Matter
Many employers treat a workplace investigation as a means to an end. Gather the facts, reach a conclusion, move on. As long as the conclusion is right, the thinking goes, the process doesn’t much matter.
Recent litigation says otherwise.
Employees have challenged investigation procedures directly in court, alleging investigator bias, inconsistent treatment of the parties, insufficient thoroughness, or missing documentation. Those challenges target the process itself, separate from whether the ultimate conclusion was correct.
Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1), (k), an employer has an affirmative duty to conduct a prompt, thorough, and fair investigation into complaints of discrimination or harassment. A reasonable, good-faith investigation is also a recognized defense to a wrongful termination claim in California.
That defense only holds up if the investigation can withstand scrutiny on its own terms. A neutral investigator who isn’t also advising the accuser or the accused. Consistent decisions about who gets interviewed and why. Documentation of the reasoning behind key calls. Interview questions that gather facts rather than confirm assumptions.
An investigation that reaches the correct conclusion but can’t show its work is still a liability if it’s ever challenged. By then, the investigator may not remember the details, and may no longer even work for the company.
The fix isn’t a more talented investigator. It’s a process built to document itself as it goes.
Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation. The facts determine what needs to be addressed — and how much of a conversation that takes.
This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts — no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.