Conducting Appropriate Investigations

What is an appropriate workplace investigation? The answer can be as flexible as the word appropriate – suitable or proper under the circumstances, however, there are some gold standards. The Association of Workplace Investigators (AWI) is a professional membership association for attorneys, human resource professionals, private investigators and others who conduct, manage, or have a professional interest in workplace investigations. It published its first version of Guiding Principles for Investigations (the “Principles”) in 2012 and has updated it periodically since then.

The Principles were developed to assist investigators and enhance the quality of workplace investigations. They are considered the “Gold Standard” in investigations. AWI notes, however, that because every investigation presents different circumstances, it may be necessary or desirable in any given investigation for an investigator to deviate from the identified principles or key factors. Accordingly, any such deviation or decision not to adhere to an identified principle or key factor does not necessarily render an investigation inadequate.

In the case of Vandegrift v. City of Philadelphia, the quality and appropriateness of the City’s investigation into an allegation of sexual harassment raised enough red flags to deny the City’s motion for summary judgment. Vandegrift, a female police officer, sued the City alleging a sexually hostile work environment under Title VI and other statutes. At the summary judgment phase, the district court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding that, inter alia, the Plaintiff officer presented evidence of a sexually hostile work environment, and there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the City properly responded to the harassment allegations and whether it exercised reasonable care to correct the alleged harassment.

In denying the motion for summary judgment, the district court cited to Plaintiff’s expert on workplace investigations, who reported many deficiencies in the City’s investigation, including:

• The investigators failed to investigate all claims, including Ms. Vandegrift’s’ retaliation complaints;
• The investigators failed to interview or investigate, or attempt to interview or investigate, anyone not currently employed by the Philadelphia Police Department;
• The investigators’ questioning methods were unreasonably brief and shallow;
• The investigation should have been conducted by a single investigator;
• The investigators failed to review or consider background information about the alleged harassers; and
• The investigators failed to judge the credibility of Ms. Vandegrift, the witnesses, and the alleged harassers.

At Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky, our Independent Investigations team consists of attorneys and paralegals from a variety of legal backgrounds, including a former Assistant District Attorney who now handles criminal defense and crime victim representation, and civil attorneys with experience in employment, municipal, and school matters. Attorneys in our practice group are members of AWI.

Reach out to SMGG for assistance with an issue that requires an independent eye. Contact Gretchen Moore at Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky to discuss your options.

Back to News & Resources