How To Conduct An Effective Workplace Investigation

July 10, 2024

A Road Map to Fairness

By Elaine Reall, Esq.

Managers, supervisors, and overworked HR professionals all face the specter of a sensitive workplace investigation from time to time. Allegations of illegal discriminatory behavior, workplace harassment and/or bullying, hostile-workplace assertions, or just straightforward favoritism based on a workplace romance between employees all regularly confront employers.


When to Investigate


The first question that employers need to ask is, does a formal or informal investigation need to take place? Not all workplace gripes or groans warrant an investigatory response.


For example, mandatory overtime in understaffed healthcare facilities is the subject of numerous complaints. And while it makes good employee relations sense to address such an issue, nothing in such a scenario rises to the level of warranting an investigation. However, if a formal or internal complaint indicates the possibility or probability of illegal discrimination, physical or emotional abuse, criminal misconduct, retaliation for whistleblowing, or OSHA-related safety or health issues, an employer would be wise to seriously consider initiating an investigation.


If an actual complaint exists (as opposed to vague rumors), prompt investigatory action is best practice, as it preserves evidence, prevents fading of witness memories, and demonstrates employer credibility. Yet, in a situation where only rumors and secondhand observations abound, an employer must weigh the pros and cons of pursuing an investigation without an actual complaint serving as an investigatory road map.


Who Should Investigate


Employers should begin by assessing the experience and background of managers and HR professionals working for the organization. Do such individuals have training and experience with internal workplace investigations? How critical is the confidentiality of information? Is there a high likelihood of legal action?


When considering inside versus outside investigators, consider this quick checklist:


• Do legal issues of document protection and privilege exist?

• Will the workplace benefit from a factual/credibility determination by a disinterested party?

• Evaluate the need for a general versus detailed findings/report.

• What is the likelihood of administrate agency (MCAD, etc.) or court action?

• Consider the need for professional demeanor.

• What is the value of inside managers/HR professionals being trusted in sensitive situations?

As a general rule of thumb, an experienced investigator (regardless of internal or external status) will be the most cost-effective.


Timing of Investigation


Prompt investigations are better investigations. Hoping that issues will simply go away is a surefire way for an employer to torpedo a strong result. Timely investigations deal efficiently with issues such as fresh witness memories, existing documentation, and lack of employee turnover. Investigatory urgency also lends a certain energy to the findings or report.


Unfortunately, employees often delay reporting serious issues and incidents to an employer for a variety of reasons. Often, the first evidence of a pattern of sustained harassment comes from information gathered during employee exit interviews. The best way to avoid this result is to actively encourage employees to report problems or concerns while they are still small (and fixable). The use of IT tools to make reporting of employee concerns simple and non-confrontational is a great adjunct to the traditional open-door complaint process used by many organizations.


Strategy, Strategy, Strategy


Nothing is more vital than extensive planning before starting a formal workplace investigation. Take all, or most, of the following actions:


• Gather and review relevant workplace documents;

• Read personnel files of potential witnesses and ‘suspects’;

• Do a deep Google dive on relevant parties;

• Do initial assessment of the nature of the complaint;

• Obtain legal advice about whether the subject matter may be legally privileged; and

• Outline the who, where, and why of the investigation (best investigator, best location for interviews, format for witness statements).


Limit Scope of Investigation


Finally, the workplace is not a judicial setting. Narrow the scope of your investigation to factual determinations. Examples: did X do/ask/physically touch, etc.? Did X violate employer policy? Do not introduce legal jargon or conclusions into the investigation. Example: don’t ask if someone created a hostile work environment.


Written Reports


Where a written report is appropriate or necessary, plain but detailed language is best for an investigator’s notes. Witness answers plus the investigator’s impressions and observations (example: tone of witness, loudness of response, marked body language) should be detailed.


Include specifics in the notes and in the final report. Outside third parties will view such detail as evidence of due diligence on the part of an employer. And, lastly, don’t depersonalize the report’s language; include actual names and identifying information (dates and times, locations, witnesses, and interview format [in-person versus Zoom]).


Written Versus Oral Report


If it has been a significant investigation, an employer needs to create a separate, stand-alone written report. Tip: do not file such a report in a regular employee personnel file. A distinct investigation file should be created. Written reports should not attempt to draw legal conclusions.


Consider notifying the complainant(s) and accused party of the general outcome of the investigation. Failure to do this almost always leads to such parties looking for answers outside the workplace, including talking with a lawyer.


Last, but never least, strive for a proper investigatory behavior and demeanor:


• Learn the value of silence and open-ended pauses;

• Don’t rush through questions;

• Ask a question and then actively listen;

• Remember to include open-ended questions to encourage witnesses to talk;

• Maintain a detached demeanor (avoid emotionally charged statements); and

• Absolutely avoid promises or guarantees.


Conclusion


Following the guidelines outlined above will help you create a solid investigatory road map. If you have any questions or concerns about the above policies, it is prudent to contact a labor and employment attorney so that the best investigatory practices can be followed and you can, hopefully, avoid unnecessary litigation.


This article was published in the most recent edition of BusinessWest. Click the link here.

September 25, 2025
Starbucks is facing a new wave of litigation, in this instance over its workplace dress code. Employees in California, Colorado, and Illinois allege that the Company’s updated policy forced them to purchase clothing items out-of-pocket without reimbursement, raising questions about employer obligations under state expense reimbursement laws. The Lawsuits On September 17, 2025, employees in Illinois and Colorado filed class-action lawsuits, while workers in California submitted complaints to the State’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency. If the Agency declines to act, those workers intend to pursue their own civil claims. The lawsuits are backed by the union organizing Starbucks workers, and plaintiffs argue that requiring employees to buy specific uniform items without full reimbursement violates the states’ statutes. Under laws in California, Colorado, and Illinois, employers must cover necessary business expenses, which can include uniforms or clothing mandated by a dress code. What the Dress Code Requires The revised policy, implemented in May 2025, requires employees to wear a solid black shirt (short or long sleeves, but not sleeveless or midriff-bearing) underneath their signature green apron. Pants must be khaki, black, or denim, and shoes must be in muted tones such as black, gray, navy, brown, tan, or white. The policy also forbids “theatrical makeup” and visible face tattoos, prohibits nail polish and tongue piercings, and limits workers to one (1) facial piercing. In an effort to offset the change, Starbucks provided two shirts free of charge to each employee. Workers contend this was not enough, since multiple additional items were required to comply with the policy. Court documents show that some employees who failed to follow the dress code were subject to verbal warnings or sent home before starting their shifts. Worker Claims One plaintiff, Shay Mannik, a shift supervisor in Colorado, reported purchasing four black T-shirts, compliant shoes, and jeans to meet the dress code requirements. Despite these costs, Mannik claims they were never reimbursed. “It’s unfair that a billion-dollar company puts this burden on workers already struggling with unpredictable hours and understaffed stores,” Mannik stated through attorneys. Starbucks’ Response Starbucks defended the policy as a way to “deliver a more consistent coffeehouse experience to our customers and provide our partners with simpler and clearer dress code guidance.” The Company emphasized that it issued two free shirts to employees to prepare for the change. Key Considerations for Employers The Starbucks litigation underscores several important lessons for businesses:  Uniform Policies May Trigger Reimbursement Duties. Even when employers provide some clothing, state laws may still require reimbursement if employees must make additional purchases. State Laws Differ. California, Colorado, and Illinois all impose expense reimbursement obligations, but requirements vary, and enforcement can be aggressive. Here in Massachusetts, an employer does not need to pay for or reimburse an employee for general clothing, such as khakis, a black shirt, and black shoes, since these are ordinary items that can be worn outside of work. If the employer requires a specific style, brand, or logo (making the clothing a true uniform) then the employer must provide or reimburse for it and cover the cost of maintenance if special cleaning is needed. The only exception for ordinary clothing is if the cost would reduce the employee’s pay below minimum wage. Policy Rollouts Should Weigh Legal Risks. Employers introducing or revising appearance standards should carefully evaluate potential compliance costs, both financial and reputational. Takeaway The lawsuits against Starbucks will test the boundaries of state reimbursement laws and may influence how courts interpret employer obligations regarding dress codes. For companies, this case highlights the need to review policies proactively and ensure expense reimbursement practices comply with applicable state requirements. At The Royal Law Firm, we advise businesses on preventive compliance and represent employers when disputes arise. Our team’s focus on business defense ensures that policies are both operationally effective and legally sound. The Royal Law Firm LLP is a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
September 24, 2025
The Royal Law Firm is proud to announce that we have been ranked in the inaugural Chambers Spotlight Massachusetts Guide, which is a prestigious recognition from the internationally renowned legal research company Chambers and Partners! We are honored to be recognized for our exceptional expertise in Labor & Employment law. This ranking reflects our unwavering commitment to delivering top-tier legal counsel to businesses throughout the Commonwealth and beyond. Only 2% of attorneys are ranked by Chambers. The Royal Law Firm is the only Labor & Employment firm ranked in Springfield, MA. This award highlights small and mid-sized firms with a proven record of excellence and partner-level attention to client matters. Chambers Spotlight is a new guide designed to showcase the very best boutique and mid-sized firms across key U.S. legal markets, focusing on firms that combine regional insight, national impact, and client-focused service. About The Royal Law Firm The Royal Law Firm is a New England-based, women-owned law firm that exclusively represents businesses. Our attorneys are known for their aggressive litigation strategy, proactive employment law counseling, and commitment to understanding every client’s unique business model and goals. We are proud to be certified as a Women-Owned Business through state and national organizations including WBENC, NAMWOLF, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office. The Royal Law Firm was founded by Amy Royal in 2008 with a mission to promote diversity in the legal field, serve businesses exclusively, and give back to her hometown community. As a seasoned trial lawyer with over 25 years of civil litigation experience representing companies, Amy specializes in employer-side employment law, business tort defense, labor law, and corporate transactions. She has successfully defended clients in individual and class action cases involving wage and hour issues, discrimination, harassment, FMLA, OSHA, ERISA, and more. Amy also advises on union matters, HR policies, workplace investigations, and affirmative action compliance. Her commercial litigation work spans business torts, unfair competition, and contract disputes, while her transactional practice includes drafting employment agreements, vendor contracts, and regulatory compliance strategies. Our recognition in the Chambers Spotlight Guide reflects the dedication and excellence of our entire team. Thank you to our clients, peers, and community for your continued trust and support. We look forward to continuing to serve you with excellence.