This year has seen a continuation of a broader trend of substantial jury awards in workplace discrimination and retaliation cases. For example, in January 2026, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia awarded an employee $5.5 million in a sexual harassment and retaliation case, and a jury in Utah awarded a former human resources worker more than $5 million after finding that her employer retaliated against her for raising workplace concern.[1] These awards serve as a stark reminder of the financial and legal consequences of failing to properly respond to and investigate workplace complaints.
From harassment allegations to whistleblower complaints, employers need to know how to respond to avoid costly litigation, reputational harm, damage to company culture, or regulatory scrutiny. It is vital to understand the complexity and sensitivity of these matters and engage guidance to navigate these most sensitive matters.
Key Considerations for Effective Workplace Investigations
Workplace investigations can arise from any number of scenarios. For instance, an employer may choose to conduct an internal investigation following complaints of harassment, discrimination or a company policy violation. Regardless of the type of misconduct, an employer’s ability to conduct fair and efficient investigations is critical to protecting its business and maintaining a productive, healthy work environment.
Alleged misconduct may have the potential for civil or even criminal exposure. As such, employers need to be prepared and able to respond to complaints promptly and appropriately. When and how to conduct a workplace investigation is essential. A well-planned and executed investigation provides an employer with not only legal protections but also helps preserve, or even improve, company culture by demonstrating that the employer takes employee concerns seriously.
Workplace investigations come with their own unique challenges. The ability to successfully anticipate, meet, and overcome these challenges is key to any investigation.
Tips and Best Practices
The following steps set out key considerations employers should keep in mind when considering whether to, or how to, begin a workplace investigation:
- When to Initiate an Investigation: The start of any investigation is knowing when an investigation is actually necessary. In a workplace, complaints may come from a variety of sources and employers should be sure to take all complaints seriously. For example, employers may become aware of possible infractions from whistleblower complaints, direct employee complaints, such as those submitted to human resources or through a hotline, and tips from supervisors. Employers should carefully review each complaint for the severity of the offense and determine if an investigation is necessary. This determination should be made promptly on a case-by-case basis, considering the severity of the allegation, the potential policies and/or laws implicated, and the parties involved.
- Potential Liability: At the outset of any investigation, it is important to determine whether the alleged conduct is likely to result in any potential liability for the employer. Some employment misconduct may result in criminal, civil or administrative exposure for companies. Analyzing potential exposure at the beginning can help determine the scope of an investigation, as well as whether any particular policies or procedures need to be followed.
- Internal or External Investigations: When initiating an investigation, an employer has the choice of conducting the investigation internally, often through a human resources department, or retaining an external, third-party investigator. There are a number of factors that may be relevant to this decision, including the severity of the alleged conduct, the accused party, a potential conflict of interest or heightened need for objectivity, and the scope of the employer’s internal resources.
- Document Collection and Preservation: A key part of the investigative process will be the review of documents, potentially including emails, text messages, and communications on internal platforms like Slack or Teams. In order to make sure that these documents are available for review, employers should consider implementing document preservation strategies, including, when appropriate, issuing litigation hold letters to potentially involved personnel and removing any automatic deletion policies in place for company email and documents. In addition, employers should make efforts to ensure the litigation hold and document collection covers the full universe of potentially relevant documents, including on employees’ work phones and other work-issued devices. In order to do so, employers need to understand the relevant time period, key search terms and custodians, and the devices and platforms that may be implicated.
- Confidentiality: Throughout an investigation, employers should be cognizant of who receives information regarding the alleged misconduct or the investigation. Sharing details beyond necessary individuals may compromise the rights of the accused or raise retaliation concerns. It may also compromise the investigation, such as by prompting potential witnesses to amend their testimony or even delete relevant documents. Employers should be sure to consult their internal policies and applicable laws regarding confidentiality requirements.
- Privilege: Although many clients often assume that attorney-conducted investigations are privileged, this is not always correct. Although there are certain steps that may be taken to increase the likelihood that an investigation, or portions thereof, may be considered privileged, employers should be aware that investigation materials may later be subject to discovery in future litigation. Employers and counsel must keep this in mind when determining how to structure the investigation, how to document the investigation, and how to share the outcomes.
- Retaliation: Some employment investigations may implicate complaints for which there are legal protections against retaliation. For example, whistleblowers are often protected from employment retaliation based upon their disclosures. Employers should take steps, even before an investigation occurs, to ensure that their internal policies appropriately protect against retaliation, including by enacting appropriate interim measures, as well as to ensure that these policies are followed throughout, and following, an investigation.
- The Final Product: Employers should consider, at the outset of an investigation, what format any findings or recommendations will take. In some instances, a written report may be warranted, while in other situations an oral report may be more appropriate. Similarly, employers may also consider who will have access to final findings and recommendations. Each of these decisions can have potential implications on the scope of the investigation, as well as issues of confidentiality and privilege.
- Policies and Trainings: Finally, employers should take steps to ensure that internal policies set forth guidelines for handling employee complaints and procedures for conducting investigations. Employers should take care to ensure appropriate personnel are trained on these policies. Implementing robust policies and training can help ensure that managers and human resource personnel can appropriately identify and escalate employee complaints, as well as manage any resulting investigations. Employers should periodically review and update their policies to ensure they remain aligned with applicable laws, regulations, and evolving best practices, particularly where an investigation has exposed gaps in existing systems or processes. Applying these lessons learned demonstrates that the employer is taking its legal and organizational obligations seriously and is committed to continuous improvement.
Workplace investigations can be complex and have high stakes for both employers and employees. While this process can be complex, you don’t have to face it alone. Our team combines legal knowledge and years of experience to assist in all stages of workplace investigations.
[1] See Jury Verdict, Bryant v. C&M Defense Group LLC et al, No. 1-23-CV-05848, Dkt. Nos. 120-121 (D. N. Ga.) (Jan. 14, 2026); Jury Verdict, Graham v. Bristol Hospice Holdings, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00754-TS-DBP, Dkt. No. 95 (D. Utah) (Jan. 29, 2026).
