Learnovation is not two distinct values displayed together. It embodies one concept. It is our Firm’s promise to utilize the depth of our experience and creativity to constantly improve not just our own work, but our entire field.

In the legal world, everyone is held to the standard of behaving like a “reasonable person.” Can someone who always makes the best choices and always perceives the world in an accurate way really exist?

In its Guiding Principles, the Association of Workplace Investigators states “There are many different ways to effectively document an investigation. Whichever method is used, the investigator should take steps to ensure the reliability of the documentation.” Thus, an investigation may yield different reports – an oral report, executive summary, or a full investigative report. As with other decisions, there are pros and cons to each. The type of report best suited for a particular complaint, employer, or situation varies.

What follows is a brief overview of the types of reports and the pros and cons of each.

On December 7, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that Nestlé, USA Inc.’s handling of an internal workplace investigation violated the National Labor Relations Act. The case (1) revisits the issue of confidentiality admonitions; (2) flags a new concern about interim measures (administrative leave/suspension); and (3) cautions investigators against probing too deeply into a Complainant’s motives to fabricate without directly confronting the Complainant about those motives. After reciting the factual background, this blog highlights some the key lessons learned from this ruling. Thanks Nestlé, for reminding us to avoid making the same mistakes.

Asking key, tough questions in an investigative interview is not always easy, but it is unavoidable in the world of workplace investigations. Tough questions afford critical witnesses the opportunity to clarify, correct, or challenge inconsistent witness statements, contradictory documentary evidence, and matters that cast doubt on their credibility. This is vital to quality investigations.

To highlight the resilience of local businesses, we spoke with three San Diego business owners to learn how they handled COVID-19. Earlier this summer, Kelly Gemelli, Managing Partner of our San Diego office, and Susanna R. Matingou, Of Counsel in the firm’s San Diego office, had the pleasure of sitting down with Bob Walin, the owner of a couple restaurants, Peter Smith, who has a bike shop, and Elizabeth Wampler, who runs a non-profit.

Jurisdictions split over how much information to provide to public safety employees prior to follow-up investigative interviews. This blog post discusses how every investigator should consider the landscape of the jurisdiction in which they are conducting an investigation, particularly before any follow-up interviews involving public safety officers.

Biases – we all have them. But, as investigators, we have a responsibility to check our implicit biases at the door in order to conduct an impartial investigation. It’s important to challenge our own assumptions about parties who report, or are the subject of, claims of harassment or discrimination.

Imagine finding an anonymous thread on Reddit or Blind (the anonymous forum and community reporting app) stating that a manager in your company creates a hostile work environment. Everything about the post is anonymous, but there is just enough detail in the allegations to cause concern. What would you do?

When does texturism cross the line? Texturism, the devaluation of naturally textured, tightly coiled hair, has been at the forefront of many legal battles throughout the history of the US. The first notable one, Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance in 1976, upheld the workplace discrimination lawsuit brought against an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, allowing employees to wear afros. Again, in 1981, natural hair became the center of controversy when a New York district judge in the Rogers v. American Airlines case ruled that braided cornrows violated the company’s grooming policy.

In this article, you will meet Macey who decided to sport her natural hair at work—no chemical relaxer, no wigs and weaves—just her beautiful curls. But Macey wasn't expecting the reaction her hair was about to receive…

When does trash talk become workplace misconduct? What if the “workplace” is a football field, a media event, or a massage table? Who is responsible when fans act out? Savvy organizations recognize they need investigators with expertise in this domain. This article highlights some unique features of sports investigations and best practices for approaching them.

Van Dermyden Maddux has handled workplace investigations for various major league sports organizations, including the Sacramento Kings basketball team.

“Does the report need to be so long?” “Can you edit this down?” “Why are some of these paragraphs so long and confusing?” If you author workplace investigative reports for a living, chances are you have fielded these questions, whether from a client or a supervisor.

Learning to write concisely is not a skill mastered overnight. Nonetheless, there are a number of practical, commonsense ways to improve your writing. This blog discusses six tips you can employ right away.

In this controversial time, it can be hard for Americans to agree on anything. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States in October 2020 was no exception. As workplace investigators, however, we can all agree on the appropriateness of a decision authored by Justice Barrett while she was on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – Vega v. Chicago Park District.

Prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations are key to addressing workplace strife, such as ongoing harassment and discrimination.  In practice, however, many factors can prevent employers from promptly initiating investigations.  These factors include: the time it takes to assess a complaint and determine the appropriate investigator; insufficient information; voluminous complaints; insufficient resources and competing priorities; and, complying with complex policies. 

Every workplace investigator knows the feeling all too well: You spend hours preparing for an investigative interview, but when the interview begins, you quickly realize you are dealing with a witness who is unable, or unwilling, to answer your questions.  When faced with a challenging witness, it may feel as though you have been thrown an unhittable curve ball. 

Should you interview a non-employee witness who is free to disclose the details of your investigation to anyone they please?  What about a now-former employee witness who harbors well-known, negative feelings about your client?  The answer — it depends.  Interviewing non-employee witnesses in workplace investigation has upsides and downsides.

On July 28, 2020 the California Court of Appeal held that a U.S. Bank employee — Timothy King — was entitled to $17,179,392 in compensatory and punitive damages against his employer for defamation and wrongful termination.[1]  In making its ruling, the Court took aim at U.S. Bank’s internal workplace investigation — which the Court termed a “deliberate failure to investigate.”

It feels surreal we are still coping with COVID-19.  On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic.  On March 19, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued shut-down orders for the state.  Even though six months have now passed, things are not back to normal. 

A 2020 survey revealed approximately 8.3% of the United States’ population, more than 27 million Americans, self-identified as individuals who speak English “less than very well.”[1] With an increasingly diverse job landscape, odds are you have interviewed, or you will interview, a party or witness who is uncomfortable or unable to communicate in English.

Since the onset of the “Me Too” movement, and now during the nationwide fight for racial justice, those seeking an independent investigator have an even larger task in determining who is best qualified to conduct investigations into highly sensitive and political issues.