Internal Investigations — Assessing Witness Credibility

29 June 2015 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

As experienced investigators know, an investigation into allegations of harassment, discrimination or other misconduct may lead to a so-called “he said/she said” scenario, possibly leaving the investigator in a quandary as to the investigation’s outcome. This situation may indeed lead to a determination that the allegations are unsubstantiated. However, an investigator should not shy away from making credibility determinations when possible, even when it is one person’s word against another.

Here are a few practical pointers in assessing witness credibility:

  • Selecting the Investigator. To begin with, selecting an objective, trained investigator with no skin in the game (real or perceived) is essential. The impartiality or credibility of your investigator should not be in question. Depending on the size and structure of your organization, this may require retaining an outside investigator. Indeed, the investigator may become a witness in subsequent proceedings, so this may be something you want to consider on a case-by-case basis depending on the situation and the likelihood of future proceedings.
  • Assessing Credibility. Determining witness credibility is something our justice system asks jurors to do every day – to reconcile conflicting testimony and decide who to believe. There are often multiple factors to consider in assessing a witness’s credibility. Even when confronted with the “he said/she said” dilemma or otherwise conflicting stories, employers should attempt to make judgment calls. Some factors to consider are:

a. Does the witness have a history of being untruthful?  b. Does the witness have a motive to be untruthful or less than candid and forthcoming?

c. Is the witness’s story plausible?

d. Does the witness have a stake in the outcome of the investigation, e.g., a personal relationship with the victim or the accused which could create a
bias?

e. Can the witness’s story be corroborated by other witnesses or evidence, e.g., documents, photographs, recordings, etc.?

f. Has the accused employee engaged in similar behavior in the past, e.g., is it consistent with prior behavior? The investigator, however, must be careful not to pre-judge guilt before conducting a thorough investigation.

g. Does the witness “appear” credible? Albeit somewhat subjective, it is proper to assess a witness’s demeanor, e.g., body language, eye contact, nervous,  defensive, shocked, relaxed, evasive, argumentative, etc.

  • Documentation. If credibility determinations are made, e.g., that the witness is truthful, or not, it is important that the investigator document the basis for the determinations. The investigator should take detailed contemporaneous notes of any observations or behaviors which led to the credibility determinations. The goal is to identify (and document) the factors which caused the investigator to believe, or not believe, a witness’s version of events.

In the end, you may be unable to reconcile conflicting information and, therefore, conclude that the allegations are unsubstantiated. However, an investigator should consider the above factors, among others, and try to make credibility judgments when possible. A thorough investigation requires it.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.