The Report That Wrote Itself
You are asked to investigate a workplace harassment complaint. You interview the complainant and two witnesses. The respondent declines to be interviewed but sends a 12-page written statement. You draft a report concluding that the respondent 'more likely than not' harassed the complainant. Your draft relies heavily on the complainant's account, does not mention the respondent's statement, and states that a witness 'confirmed' the complainant's version when the witness actually said she 'did not see anything but heard raised voices.' The client's HR director asks you to remove a paragraph noting that the complainant delayed reporting for eight months, saying it 'isn't helpful.'
1. Identify the problems with the draft report and the HR director's request.
Read the worked answer
Omission of the respondent's statement. A fair investigation report must consider and address the respondent's account. Ignoring a 12-page statement undermines the report's reliability and fairness, and it exposes the client to challenge.
Overstating a witness. Saying a witness 'confirmed' the complainant when she said she heard raised voices but saw nothing is a mischaracterisation. It inflates the evidence and is a serious accuracy failure. The report should quote or accurately summarise what each witness said.
The eight-month delay. The HR director wants a relevant fact removed because it is unhelpful. That is a request to suppress evidence. You should decline. The delay may be relevant to credibility or context, and the report should note it and explain its significance (or lack of it) rather than hide it.
Conclusion language. 'More likely than not' is a civil standard; make sure the report explains the standard applied and the reasoning. Do not overstate certainty.
2. Rewrite the approach: what should the final report contain, and how do you handle the HR director?
Read the worked answer
Report contents. Scope and mandate; methodology (who was interviewed, when, how, and who declined); a balanced summary of all evidence, including the respondent's written statement; accurate witness summaries with direct quotes where possible; an assessment of credibility and any inconsistencies (including the delay in reporting); findings on each allegation with reasons; limitations; and recommendations. Keep fact and inference distinct.
Handling the HR director. Explain, in writing, that removing relevant facts would compromise the integrity of the report and could mislead the client. Offer to add context explaining the delay if that is fair. If the client insists on suppression, document the request and your refusal. Your professional obligation is to an accurate report, not to a preferred outcome.
3. What ethical duties are engaged, and what would you do if the client overrode you?
Read the worked answer
The duties engaged are objectivity, independence, accuracy, fairness to the respondent, confidentiality, and candour with the client. An investigator is not an advocate for the complainant or the employer.
If the client overrides you and publishes a report you believe is misleading, you should: put your concerns in writing; decline to sign or endorse the altered version; keep your own accurate record; and consider whether to withdraw from the engagement. You may also need to consider your obligations if the matter proceeds to a tribunal or court and your evidence is misrepresented. Document everything. The licence depends on your own conduct, and 'the client told me to' is not a defence.