Workplace investigations: The devil is in the details

We frequently get questions about how to conduct a proper investigation of a claim of workplace discrimination or harassment. Of course, we have suggestions (basing questioning around the five Ws: who, what, when, where, and witnesses; getting the complaint’s story committed to writing; etc.). But sometimes lessons can best be learned from the carnage of an investigation gone awry. And things went horribly wrong in a case coming out of Philadelphia. The investigation was truly a house of horrors!

Cautionary tale

Here’s the scary campfire story:

Two police officers working for the city of Philadelphia alleged sexual harassment and sexual assault by their supervisor.

One officer claimed she was sexually assaulted in the supervisor’s police car. An inspection of the car found physical evidence that some sexual activity had occurred, and when confronted, the supervisor admitted he had engaged in sexual activity in the car with a “civilian woman” but not the complaining police officer. The city took the supervisor’s word for it and never asked for the name of the civilian. The investigator never followed up to ask the “civilian” whether the supervisor’s recounting of his extracurricular activities with her was, in fact, true.