Biases – we all have them. But, as investigators, we have a responsibility to check our implicit biases at the door in order to conduct an impartial investigation. It’s important to challenge our own assumptions about parties who report, or are the subject of, claims of harassment or discrimination.

Imagine finding an anonymous thread on Reddit or Blind (the anonymous forum and community reporting app) stating that a manager in your company creates a hostile work environment. Everything about the post is anonymous, but there is just enough detail in the allegations to cause concern. What would you do?

When does texturism cross the line? Texturism, the devaluation of naturally textured, tightly coiled hair, has been at the forefront of many legal battles throughout the history of the US. The first notable one, Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance in 1976, upheld the workplace discrimination lawsuit brought against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, allowing employees to wear afros. Again, in 1981, natural hair became the center of controversy when a New York district judge in the Rogers v. American Airlines case ruled that braided cornrows violated the company’s grooming policy.

In this article, you will meet Macey who decided to sport her natural hair at work—no chemical relaxer, no wigs and weaves—just her beautiful curls. But Macey wasn't expecting the reaction her hair was about to receive…

When does trash talk become workplace misconduct? What if the “workplace” is a football field, a media event, or a massage table? Who is responsible when fans act out? Savvy organizations recognize they need investigators with expertise in this domain. This article highlights some unique features of sports investigations and best practices for approaching them.

Van Dermyden Maddux has handled workplace investigations for various major league sports organizations, including the Sacramento Kings basketball team.

“Does the report need to be so long?” “Can you edit this down?” “Why are some of these paragraphs so long and confusing?” If you author workplace investigative reports for a living, chances are you have fielded these questions, whether from a client or a supervisor.

Learning to write concisely is not a skill mastered overnight. Nonetheless, there are a number of practical, commonsense ways to improve your writing. This blog discusses six tips you can employ right away.

In this controversial time, it can be hard for Americans to agree on anything. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States in October 2020 was no exception. As workplace investigators, however, we can all agree on the appropriateness of a decision authored by Justice Barrett while she was on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – Vega v. Chicago Park District.

Prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations are key to addressing workplace strife, such as ongoing harassment and discrimination.  In practice, however, many factors can prevent employers from promptly initiating investigations.  These factors include: the time it takes to assess a complaint and determine the appropriate investigator; insufficient information; voluminous complaints; insufficient resources and competing priorities; and, complying with complex policies. 

Every workplace investigator knows the feeling all too well: You spend hours preparing for an investigative interview, but when the interview begins, you quickly realize you are dealing with a witness who is unable, or unwilling, to answer your questions.  When faced with a challenging witness, it may feel as though you have been thrown an unhittable curve ball. 

Should you interview a non-employee witness who is free to disclose the details of your investigation to anyone they please?  What about a now-former employee witness who harbors well-known, negative feelings about your client?  The answer — it depends.  Interviewing non-employee witnesses in workplace investigation has upsides and downsides.

On July 28, 2020 the California Court of Appeal held that a U.S. Bank employee — Timothy King — was entitled to $17,179,392 in compensatory and punitive damages against his employer for defamation and wrongful termination.[1]  In making its ruling, the Court took aim at U.S. Bank’s internal workplace investigation — which the Court termed a “deliberate failure to investigate.”

It feels surreal we are still coping with COVID-19.  On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic.  On March 19, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued shut-down orders for the state.  Even though six months have now passed, things are not back to normal. 

A 2020 survey revealed approximately 8.3% of the United States’ population, more than 27 million Americans, self-identified as individuals who speak English “less than very well.”[1] With an increasingly diverse job landscape, odds are you have interviewed, or you will interview, a party or witness who is uncomfortable or unable to communicate in English.

Since the onset of the “Me Too” movement, and now during the nationwide fight for racial justice, those seeking an independent investigator have an even larger task in determining who is best qualified to conduct investigations into highly sensitive and political issues.

On July 16, 2020, the Washington Post published an expose about the Washington Redskins organization’s problematic workplace culture.  Fifteen female former employees told the Washington Post they were harassed during their time with the NFL football team.  The allegations cover the years 2006 to 2019.  According to the Post, the misconduct included sexual comments, verbal abuse, uninvited physical contact, flirting, and other improper conduct.

California was easing into the third stage of Governor Gavin Newson’s four-stage plan to gradually reopen the state amid the COVID-19 pandemic. However, on Monday July 13, 2020, Governor Newsom issued directives requiring the re-closure of restaurants, movie theaters, family entertainment centers, wineries, zoos and bars for indoor service. Additional sectors were closed in 31 counties.

Amongst workplace investigators, few topics are more heavily debated than whether it is best practice to record witness interviews.  Even the Association of Workplace Investigators (AWI) acknowledges the debate.  At AWI conferences, for instance, leadership often jokingly responds to participants’ questions about the topic by saying, “Let’s take up the topic at happy hour tonight!”

Workplace investigators are accustomed to writing. 50-page report? 75-page report? Not a problem. Writing detailed, comprehensive investigative reports is what we do. On the other hand, workplace investigators are less accustomed to providing findings to clients without a report – commonly referred to in our industry as “verbal findings” or “oral debriefs.”

As California continues on its path to reopening under the state’s four-stage plan, the workplace faces change and opportunity. Should employers permit employees to return to the workplace and, if so, under what guidelines? When is the appropriate time to ask employees to return to the workplace?

California is currently in the second stage of Governor Gavin Newsom’s four-stage plan to gradually reopen the state amid the COVID-19 pandemic. During this stage, lower risk workplaces, including business offices, may reopen with modifications to protect public health and safety.

On June 5, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that schools, day camps, bars, gyms, campgrounds and professional sports may begin reopening with modifications. This is another step towards reopening California amidst COVID-19. Nonetheless, the process is not complete. Many non-essential workers continue to work remotely fulltime.