Under state and federal law companies are mandated by law to perform
impartial investigations into certain claims made in the workplace. Rather
than attempting to do these investigations in-house, it is often the best
option is to hire an outside firm, such as OIG, to meet these requirements.

When we are hired to do these investigations, the attorneys do them in the
role of an attorney who is specifically retained and trained to be
impartial. Our retention agreement sets forth that the scope of our work is
limited to doing impartial factfinding, and we are ethically bound to be truly
impartial. Our attorneys typically investigate complaints brought by
employees against other employees, as opposed to claims against the
employer institution. The employer brings us in to determine whether the
alleged conduct happened and what motivations may be behind it. We do
not advise the institution that hires us what to do as a result of our findings,
and we do not represent the institution in the event of litigation. We take our
duty to be impartial very seriously.

For those initiating a complaint, it is helpful for the investigator if you can provide specific examples of the conduct at the center of your complaint, including key dates, potential witnesses, and any relevant documents that support your claim.

For witnesses, there is no need to prepare for your investigative interview in advance. Our investigators may ask questions about your work experience, working relationships with other employees, and observations in the workplace, depending on relevancy. They will invite you to share whatever information you know and can recall related to the scope of the investigation.

For respondents (the subject of the investigation), there is no need to prepare in advance. The investigator will provide details regarding the allegations during the interview and will give you an opportunity to respond. If, based on these questions, you need to find a document or other information, we can schedule a follow-up interview.

If you recall additional information after the interview, you can always send that information along to the investigator at a later date, so long as it is done within a specified timeframe.

Most investigative interviews take place one-on-one with just the investigator and interviewee present. However, under some circumstances a complainant, witness, or respondent may have a representative accompany them during their interview, as long as that individual is not someone who might be/become a potential witness in the investigation. To minimize distractions and make sure the interviewee feels comfortable speaking candidly with the investigator, it is ideal that only one representative accompany the interviewee. This representative might be a union representative, a lawyer, or just a trusted advisor. Their role is not to speak for the person being interviewed but rather to be available to advise them.

Sometimes a party to an investigation is not a fluent English-language speaker. Some of OIG’s investigators are fluent in second languages, so a translator is not always necessary. In other cases, it may be appropriate to have a third-party interpreter in the room to help with the interview. When this is necessary, OIG will provide an interpreter to assist with the interview.

There is generally not anyone in the room from the employer.

At times, the investigator may have another OIG employee (either another investigator or a staff writer) join them for the interview, to take notes and help write the investigative report.

If you are the respondent, you will be given enough information during the interview to meaningfully respond to the complaint. If you need additional time to meaningfully respond, a second interview can be arranged. The information necessary for a meaningful response does not necessarily include who brought the complaint, potential witnesses, or every detail of the complaint. The investigator’s role is to be fair to all and to protect confidentiality to the extent possible. Therefore, if a fair and thorough investigation can take place without revealing certain information, it will be kept private.

Witnesses are not entitled to know the identities of the involved parties or the details of the complaint. Again, this is to protect the privacy of those directly involved. Often, the person bringing the complaint does not want others to know they complained or what the complaint is about. The person bringing the complaint may be someone who is the target of the behavior in question or a witness to the behavior. In addition, the subject of the complaint (the respondent) usually does not want their co-workers to know they were the subject of an investigation. OIG’s approach is to respect the privacy of all parties to the greatest extent possible.

The investigator will introduce themselves, explain their role and set forth the expectations concerning confidentiality and against retaliation. They will get some background information and then ask more specific questions focused on issues within the scope of the investigation.

The interviews are informal, and the person being questioned is welcome to ask questions about the process. It is fine to take breaks, as needed. The interviews may be recorded, depending on the employer’s policies and practices. If the interview is going to be recorded, the interviewee will be informed of that before the recording begins.

Once the investigation is complete, the organization that retained OIG is responsible for determining how much information pertaining to the results to disclose to the parties to the investigation. It is not our role to report back to the parties on our findings, and, in fact, it would be improper for us to discuss the matter with anyone, including parties to the investigation

Typically, employers notify each party of the outcome, either verbally or in writing. Sometimes the parties involved are provided with the reason for the finding(s). They are rarely shown a full report or told the details of the investigation, including who said what. Again, this is to preserve confidentiality.

Witnesses are not usually informed of the outcome of an investigation.

How much you can discuss the investigation depends on your role in the organization and in the complaint. In order to preserve the integrity of the investigation, we recommend parties and witnesses not discuss it while the investigation is pending. Also, discussing the investigation could be harmful to the people involved. However, there are times that such discussions might make sense. If you have questions or concerns about this, please bring them up with the investigator.

Because we are attorney investigators, nearly all our investigations are conducted under the protection of the attorney-client privilege. The report of our investigation and our findings are protected by this privilege. This helps protect the privacy of the individuals involved. The privilege belongs to the organization, not OIG or our attorney investigators. As such, it is up to the organization that retained OIG to decide whether to waive the privilege and release the report.

It is understandable that not everyone will be pleased with the results of an investigation, as people often have different perspectives on issues in the workplace. Our investigators take seriously their legal and ethical obligation to provide a fair and consistent process to all parties involved, including making sure their findings are based strictly on the facts and evidence gathered. OIG has built checks and balances into our investigative process to make sure our investigations are fair and accurate.

If a party disagrees with the investigation results or has a concern about the investigation, they should report those issues internally to Human Resources or the administrator(s) who acted as a liaison to OIG during the investigation.

After our investigators provide findings to the institution that retained us, the institution is in charge of reporting back to the parties. It is up to the institution to decide if and what corrective action should be taken. Because corrective actions are confidential personnel matters, the reporting party who brought the complaint may not learn how the subject of the investigation was disciplined.

If the behavior at the center of the complaint continues or escalates, this does not necessarily mean the institution did not address the problem. Rather, this may indicate the need for an additional complaint to be filed or for additional action to be taken against an individual.

Once the investigation has concluded, OIG’s engagement with the organization ends. If a party has additional information or concerns, they should contact their employer’s Human Resources department or their contact person within the organization directly.