Through Rain, Sleet, or Snow: The USPS Delivers a Helpful Example of Well-Executed Employment-Related Internal Investigations

Remember when the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) conjured up images of disgruntled employees engaging in workplace violence? Those days of incidents, often sparked by employee discontent over unresolved labor grievances and employment-related complaints, are apparently over. The USPS has learned from the violent incidents of the 1980s and is now considered a go-to source for federal agencies seeking timely and well-executed internal investigations.

I was surprised to learn from Federal News Radio that the USPS now handles roughly 60 percent of all federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints through inter-agency agreements. How has it gone from a back log of 4,000 EEO cases to a trusted source for handling internal complaints? Simply put, the USPS has applied tried and true best practices for conducting internal investigations.

Here are a few best practices every employer can learn (or re-learn) from the USPS:

Employment issues are human issues (often) with human solutions.
Offering employees clear and open lines of communication with HR is paramount to exploring the possibility of a pre-investigation resolution of internal disputes, which can be a major time- and money-saver. The USPS, for its part, offers an EEO complaint hotline for employees to call and receive a response within 24 hours (rain, sleet, or snow). The first order of business for the USPS is to try to resolve the matter quickly and informally with the employee who calls, recognizing that most employee complaints stem from misunderstandings or interpersonal issues.
When it comes to the investigation, timeliness is key.
Allowing a grieved employee to stew in his or her discontent is bad for morale, productivity, and customer service. Employers are wise to start investigations promptly upon receiving complaints and to establish and communicate deadlines for completing investigations. The USPS used to take an average of 240 days to process an EEO complaint. This wait was more than its employees could bear, and came at a significant cost to the organization. Today, the USPS processes EEO claims in an average of 100 days.
Who conducts the investigation matters.
Employers typically enlist human resources personnel, in-house counsel, outside counsel, or a third party investigator to conduct internal investigations into employment-related internal complaints. But the choice among these possible investigators is consequential, and employers should carefully consider:

Who is most familiar with the personalities involved and the corporate culture?
Who is most familiar with the employer’s policies and investigation protocols?
Who will seem most credible and objective to the individuals involved in the investigation?
Who has the most experience conducting internal investigations and knowledge of the relevant employment laws?
Who will exercise the most discretion and/or protect the confidentiality of the proceedings?

While internal investigators may offer cost-savings as well as institutional knowledge, external investigators often offer years of relevant expertise, unbiased objectivity, and (if outside counsel) may shield the investigation materials and findings from discovery. Agencies apparently see value in the USPS’s experienced staff of investigator “consultants” who offer a third party, objective approach to resolving EEO complaints.

For more best practices on conducting effective internal investigations, check out our article on the “Top Five Best Practices for Workplace Investigations.”

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.