How to investigate claims of harassment — when the accused is part of HR

Yesterday, we addressed the risks of not letting HR do its job by investigating sexual harassment complaints. Today, we’ll discuss a recent decision underscoring the importance of thoroughly investigating employee complaints.

Ironically, the subject of the investigation was an HR supervisor. One of her subordinates complained to the HR Supervisor’s direct supervisor that she “engaged in inappropriate and harassing behavior at the two leadership conferences.”

Oh, the irony.

This HR supervisor would later sue the company for sex discrimination. As part of her claim, she alleged that the company’s investigation was insufficient. By no means perfect, the court credited the company for doing more than enough to investigate.

To maintain neutrality, the company assigned an HR compliance supervisor from another department to investigate the complaint, avoiding having an investigator in a direct reporting line.

The complainant reported to the investigator several events that she witnessed at a hotel bar, including her supervisor drinking excessively, telling the complainant to “suck my d*ck” when she declined to imbibe, and yelling the word “p*ssy” repeatedly. Additionally, when a colleague made a hand gesture, the HR supervisor responded, “[y]ou must not know your way around a vagina if you think it looks like that,” later referring to that same colleague as “Big D*ck Joe” and “Big D*ck Daddy Joe.”

The complainant told the investigator that working relationships had been compromised due to her supervisor’s behavior.

Following this initial interview, the investigator identified the initial scope of the investigation, which included whether this HR supervisor violated the harassment policy or any of the company’s expectations for leaders.

Over a week, the investigator interviewed 14 witnesses, including the accused, who understood that she could provide additional information for the investigation. She claimed the complainant had targeted her out of jealousy over the accused’s promotion to HR supervisor. Several other employees provided information that corroborated many of the allegations against the HR supervisor, including the alcohol and foul language. They reported that the HR supervisor’s inappropriate behavior made them uncomfortable.

Following the interviews, the investigator prepared a draft report largely substantiating the allegations. The investigator did not find the HR supervisor’s denials credible. The following day, the company suspended the HR supervisor.

In response to the suspension, the HR supervisor claimed another employee engaged in inappropriate behavior at the hotel. So, the company reopened the investigation. The investigator reinterviewed the HR supervisor and others and drafted a new report, concluding that others did not violate the harassment policy.

Throughout the investigation, the investigator updated company leadership and the HR supervisor’s boss, who decided to terminate the HR supervisor for violating the harassment policy.

In her deposition, the plaintiff conceded that she had no evidence that the investigator or the decisionmaker was biased against women. She also testified that she had no reason to challenge the witness accounts in the final investigation report and agreed that the investigator followed standard HR protocols and procedures for investigation. Therefore, she could not show that the company did not honestly believe she violated company policy.

If your business needs help with workplace investigations or training, I know a guy who knows a thing or two about such things. Give a holler.