• For “harassment” allegations (allegations of sexually charged misconduct):

  • Though Roger Smith denies Lucy Warren’s allegations, the evidence strongly suggests that Smith engaged in the behavior described. The witness testimony is consistent with Warren’s recollection of events and the documentary evidence also substantiates her allegations. Therefore, it is more likely than not that the behavior occurred and by engaging in this behavior Smith fell below our company’s behavioral expectation.

• For allegations involving a negative employment action (“discrimination”):

  The totality of the evidence suggests that Joe Garcia took Marcie Daley’s gender into consideration when making decisions about her employment. For example, Garcia admits he wondered whether Daley would be able to “handle” the duties associated with the director position for which she applied. Garcia admits he assumed that Daley, a single mother, may have been limited in her ability to perform the duties required since she has many time commitments outside of work. Additionally, Garcia admits he became angry after Daley applied for stress leave as a result of her belief that he (Garcia) was engaging in inappropriate behavior. Garcia says he suspended Daley a few hours after learning of her application for stress leave. As such, the evidence indicates that Garcia’s decisions about Daley were infected with bias and that his actions to suspend her were vengeful and done in response to Daley’s reasonable request to take time off.

• For “harassment” allegations:

  Although Jerri McKay alleges that Jason Cameron has engaged in sexually charged and demeaning conduct on numerous occasions (verbally and in writing), the evidence (witness testimony and documentary evidence) shows that their communication was professional and appropriate and that Cameron treated McKay respectfully and professionally (in meetings, during one-on-one interaction, and in written communication). The evidence is therefore insufficient to prove Cameron behaved inappropriately towards McKay (or any other employee).

• For allegations involving a negative employment action:

  While Charlie Kuo alleges that he was not promoted to manager of his department because Kristen Shaw, his department director, took his race into consideration, the evidence suggests otherwise. For example, though it is true that Shaw criticized Kuo’s writing skills, the evidence shows that Shaw was equally critical of other employees with poor writing skills. Additionally, the evidence validates Shaw’s testimony that in Kuo’s position (HR supervisor), it is imperative that his writing be clear and concise. Finally, the evidence indicates Kuo often drafted documents with many factual errors—a deficiency Shaw says in unacceptable in any position, but particularly in Kuo’s position, which often involves drafting letters to attorneys and governmental entities involving intricate details that must be recited accurately.

• For “harassment” allegations:

  Although there is insufficient evidence to substantiate all of Carol Smith’s allegations of harassment against Bill Thompson (particularly the most egregious allegation of inappropriate physical touching) there is sufficient evidence, based on the testimony of several witnesses as well as a review of the email traffic between the two, to support Smith’s allegations that Thompson has behaved inappropriately on several occasions (discussing details of his own and his subordinates’ personal lives, forwarding emails with off-color [though not wholly inappropriate] content, for example). Thompson displayed poor judgment by engaging in this behavior and fell below the standards of conduct expected of someone in his position. While he may not have violated the letter of the harassment policy, he did violate the spirit of it. [This last sentence should only be included if your practice is to make a determination about whether a company policy was violated.]

• For allegations involving a negative employment action:

  Annie Sampson says that the decision to demote her (which occurred 10 days after her complaint of harassment against her coworker) was made in retaliation for her complaint. The evidence suggests that Sampson’s performance issues (failing to meet quotas, failing to meet deadlines, failure to keep clients informed) had been informally discussed with her on numerous occasions before the demotion, and the documentary evidence shows the decision to demote was made by an independent committee two weeks before Sampson lodged her complaint. Despite this, Sampson’s supervisor, George Glass, should have engaged in more formal and straightforward efforts to not only provide Sampson with clear feedback about her performance deficiencies, but also with a clear warning that failure to meet these expectations could lead to a demotion. Although the evidence does not suggest that anyone behaved in a vengeful manner, Sampson’s perceptions of inappropriateness could have been avoided if Glass had implemented better HR practices related to performance evaluations.

• For “harassment” allegations:

  Despite the numerous witnesses interviewed and documents reviewed, there is insufficient evidence to reach a definitive conclusion with respect to Sally Johnson’s allegations of sexually charged misconduct against Trevor Jones. There are no witnesses who can corroborate Johnson’s claims that Jones tried to kiss her after a company-sponsored event. The one witness who might have witnessed the incident is no longer with the company and could not be found, despite repeated attempts to do so. Therefore, I am unable to reach a definitive conclusion on the specific allegations. However, there are some important general observations and learning lessons that have been uncovered as a result of the investigation.

• For allegations involving a negative employment action:

  After a careful review and analysis of the witness testimony and documentary evidence (described in detail earlier in this report), there is insufficient evidence to reach a definitive conclusion regarding Randy Garcia’s allegations of racial bias. Jae Chang, whom Garcia says engaged in the biased behavior, denies the allegation and there is insufficient evidence to make a determination in terms of the specific allegation. That said, the investigation did uncover reasons why Garcia might have perceived unfairness and those are covered in this report.

Regardless of the conclusion, almost all investigations present facts or circumstances that provide some learning lessons. Investigators should not be afraid to point out ways in which behavior, policies, or practices could be improved. For example, in some instances, even if there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations, individuals may benefit from coaching/training, or the business might benefit from the implementation of procedures to improve effectiveness and/efficiency or the company might benefit from the implementation of new or improved policies. Incorporating forward-looking accountability is a key way to keep drama out of the workplace. (For more on the concept of forward-looking accountability, see Chapter 5.)

• For “harassment” allegations:

  In addition to substantiating Katie Catan’s allegations against Billy Jordan, the evidence uncovered during this investigation also shows that the culture in the accounting department is often too casual. The perception created is that employees are free to talk about sexually explicit topics, drink heavily at company events, and treat each other in an unprofessional manner as long as “everyone is okay with it.” The employees in this department would likely benefit from additional training and additional monitoring to ensure that they understand that while it acceptable to have a light environment, they must always exhibit professionalism and appropriateness, both on site and off site.

  For allegations involving a negative employment action:

  The investigation uncovered several missteps that might have avoided a perception of unfairness, including HR’s failure to adequately review performance evaluation ratings for “inflation” and consistency, and the department managers’ own inconsistent practices related to evaluations and discipline. Both of these problems provide some big-picture learning lessons regarding the importance of open and honest communication, including always providing timely and accurate performance feedback.