Investigation Notice

Most employers assume that as long as they conduct an investigation, the process is legally defensible. That assumption breaks down fast when the accused employee was never told what they were being investigated for.

California law — reinforced by FEHA and applicable labor statutes — expects investigations to be both thorough and fair.

What adequate notice looks like depends on the workplace. In non-union private settings, notice can be provided during the investigative interview itself.

In unionized or public-sector workplaces, more robust advance notice is typically expected — and may be legally required.

Even when witness confidentiality is a concern, a respondent can be told what conduct is alleged, when it occurred, and which policy may have been violated. Sources do not need to be named.

Employers who build notice into their investigation protocols produce stronger records. Those records are harder to challenge and more defensible in litigation.

Has your investigation process ever been challenged because a respondent claimed they didn’t know what they were accused of?

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. This post may be attorney advertising.

Michael Trust Law, APC, 703 Pier Avenue, Ste. B367, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254: michaeltrustlaw.com