A New Era in Legal Journalism and Expertise
Q&A
Workplace investigations can be complex and challenging, requiring a delicate balance of objectivity and sensitivity. This article explores expert-backed approaches to maintaining neutrality and fairness in sensitive employee matters. From trauma-informed techniques to data-driven strategies, discover how professionals navigate the intricacies of impartial investigations to ensure justice and maintain workplace harmony.
Eric Nathan; Kathie Allen; Steven Rodemer; Patty Hickok, SPHR, GPHR, SHRM-SCP; Kalim Khan
Note: I am not a lawyer, but as the owner of a licensed private investigation agency in Florida with experience in workplace investigations, I wanted to submit my input for consideration.
One of the most challenging workplace investigations I've handled involved multiple allegations of harassment and retaliation within a small company, where the accused and accuser had overlapping personal and professional relationships. The situation was highly sensitive, and many employees were reluctant to speak openly due to fear of retaliation or being pulled into the conflict.
To maintain objectivity, I focused strictly on verifiable facts—timelines, digital communication records, and consistent interview protocols. All interviews were conducted in a neutral setting, and I made it a point to approach each interaction professionally and without bias, ensuring fairness for all parties involved. Maintaining emotional neutrality while still showing respect and empathy was key to preserving the integrity of the investigation.
If I had to recommend one approach for handling sensitive employee matters, it would be this: establish a clear, consistent, and confidential investigative process from the beginning. When employees trust the process, they are far more likely to participate honestly and constructively. Bringing in a qualified third-party investigator can be crucial in preserving that trust and ensuring impartiality, especially when internal dynamics are complicated or legal risk is involved.
Kathie AllenPrivate Investigator, Allen Morris InvestigationsMy most challenging investigation involved a student-athlete who was romantically involved with her married faculty member coach. The coach's spouse also worked at the college. I interviewed the spouse, which ultimately led to the dissolution of their marriage. I have no regrets about this outcome. The coach had a documented history of inappropriate behavior with minor-aged students at another school. I maintained my objectivity because I did not know all sides of the story until the end of the investigation. It is my duty to maintain objectivity and not determine whether a policy was violated until I complete the investigation.
My recommended approach for handling sensitive employee matters is to have training in trauma-informed interviews. My goal is to create a safe and supportive environment, avoid retraumatization, talk less, and allow the interviewee to tell their story in their own way, which may appear convoluted to others.
Steven RodemerOwner and Attorney, Law Office of Rodemer & Kane DUI And Criminal Defense AttorneyWhen I transitioned from prosecutor to defense work, one case stood out. It involved reviewing an investigation where the state had overlooked key mitigating evidence. The challenge was setting aside prior habits and looking at the file from a defense perspective.
Objectivity came from consciously checking my own assumptions. I asked myself at every stage whether I was leaning on past experiences or the facts in front of me. That mental discipline ensured the client received an impartial and thorough defense.
If I had to recommend one approach, it would be active listening. In sensitive situations, people often reveal critical details if you give them space and avoid rushing to judgment. Listening first, questioning second, always leads to better decisions.
Patty Hickok, SPHR, GPHR, SHRM-SCPSr. Director Employee Relations, HRIS & HR Operations, NANA North, LLCThe most challenging investigations often arise when personalities or the surrounding stories—whether positively or negatively—create bias and make it difficult to remain objective. I try to take a step back and focus on the data points, a process I call "bullet-pointing" a case. Looking at the situation this way allows me to filter out the noise and see it more clearly. It's also invaluable to involve others, bringing multiple perspectives to ensure a fair and balanced outcome. While I can't share specific situations due to confidentiality, these principles guide every investigation I handle.
Kalim KhanCo-founder & Senior Partner, Affinity LawThe most challenging investigation I handled involved our top personal injury attorney being accused of inappropriate behavior with a junior associate. I had to balance protecting the firm while being fair to both employees. At AffinityLawyers.ca, this senior lawyer generated over 60 percent of our revenue, but the allegations were serious enough that I couldn't simply ignore them or hope they would disappear without proper investigation.
I believe that maintaining objectivity was nearly impossible because my initial reaction was to protect the rainmaker who kept our firm profitable. However, I forced myself to treat it like any other employment issue and brought in an outside investigator to avoid conflicts of interest. The approach that proved invaluable was documenting every conversation and decision so that whatever outcome we reached could be defended later if either party decided to take legal action.
The investigation revealed that while no laws were broken, the senior lawyer had created an uncomfortable work environment through inappropriate comments and favoritism that violated our firm policies. The outcome was mandatory training and closer supervision rather than termination, which preserved our revenue while addressing the associate's concerns.
My recommendation for sensitive matters is to always use external investigators when senior employees or significant financial interests are involved. This is because internal bias is inevitable, and an outside perspective protects everyone from claims that the process was biased from the start.
