Conducting Internal Investigations: Getting This Wrong Is NOT an Option

Internal investigations are crucial for ensuring compliance, maintaining employee trust, and mitigating organizational risk. Whether triggered by a complaint, an incident, or an audit finding, following a structured and impartial process helps protect both the organization and its personnel. When done properly, an investigation can provide a legal defense to employment-related claims, as was originally recognized by the Supreme Court nearly thirty years ago in the companion cases of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth.

But when done wrong, the opposite may be true, as the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) recently learned when an $11.5 million verdict was awarded against it in December 2025, including $10 million in punitive damages.

In the case at issue, Mohamed v. Society of Human Resource Management, [1] the jury heard about an internal investigation conducted by a member of the SHRM HR Department regarding a discrimination complaint. This was the investigator’s first investigation, and he apparently testified at trial that he could not recall the details of the investigation training he attended one month prior. In addition, it was reported that, as a member of the HR department, the investigator assisted in “ghost-writing” email correspondence on performance issues for the accused supervisor and also assisted in the preparation of the termination paperwork with respect to the complainant; both common activities for members of an HR Department, but not common for an impartial investigator.

The jury was also permitted to hear that SHRM professes to be the nation’s leading authority on workplace best practices, including workplace investigations.[2] And, while it is yet to be seen how any appeal of this verdict may play out — if an appeal is filed — there are significant lessons to be learned and reinforced with respect to conducting an internal investigation.

Best Practices for Conducting Internal Investigations

1. Complaint Information. Consistent documentation in recording and identifying the complaint or concern is essential. Use an employee issue intake form (or something similar) that contains sections for the information that should be collected and recorded in every initial meeting. Complete the form in front of the employee; this will help build credibility and ensure that the concern is identified correctly.
   
   
2. The Investigation. The first step in the actual investigation is determining who should conduct it. Most issues brought to the attention of HR will be investigated by an HR representative. HR representatives are familiar with company policies and procedures, the employees, and the company culture and have ready access to most relevant records. However, there may be a need to consider a different investigator if: (i) HR does not have capacity to conduct a timely investigation, or is not trained in proper investigation process and technique; (ii) the HR department is not — or may not seem to be — objective and impartial (for example, complaints involving an HR representative, or if the specific matter involved counsel and advice provided by HR); (iii) the individual(s) complained about are high level executives for whom HR may not have the power or authority to discipline or address concerns if the investigation shows that needs to be done; or (iv) the company wants to conduct the investigation confidentially under attorney-client privilege.
   
   

The second step involves the collection of information necessary to complete the investigation: typically, documentation (in the form of policies, procedures, work product, email, text messages, etc.) and interviews (from the complainant, alleged perpetrator, witnesses). It is best to outline the anticipated investigation steps (including the identity of witnesses) early based upon the complaint to ensure thoroughness. However, the investigator must remain flexible, as additional witnesses or documentation may be identified during the process. Remember that a “good” investigation is conducted immediately after receipt of a complaint — so information does not become stale or lost — and is completed in a timely manner. And a “good” investigator will meet first with the complainant to confirm the accuracy of the information in the complaint, and to ensure the complainant knows that an investigation is being conducted. The investigator should also give the complainant a brief outline of next steps so they are not “kept in the dark.” Frustration due to lack of “sight” into an investigation or appreciation that an investigation is being conducted oftentimes leads to a complainant seeking third-party assistance (perhaps from a plaintiff-side attorney) on an issue that may be resolved internally.

When conducting interviews, they should be thorough and fair — there is no room for prejudgment in a successful internal investigation. The investigator should prepare open-ended questions, allow subjects to share their account without leading or identifying the specifics of the complaint (complainant or alleged perpetrator, if possible), and document responses accurately without any opinion or speculation. Notes of each interview should reflect the facts and information provided by the interviewee, not the interviewer’s impression of whether the interviewee’s rendition is truthful or accurate. The interviewer should think of him/herself as Sergeant Joe Friday from “Dragnet,” who was credited (incorrectly) with this well-known catchphrase when conducting investigations: “Just the facts, ma’am. Just the facts.”

Be sure to document everything. Keep detailed records of evidence, interview notes, timelines, and findings. Comprehensive documentation supports conclusions and demonstrates due diligence. Also analyze objectively, basing conclusions only on verified evidence and credible testimony and information. Avoid speculation and be mindful of unconscious bias.

Finally, prepare a formal report stating facts, analysis, and recommended actions. Share results in accordance with legal, compliance, and HR policies. Take corrective measures such as policy updates, training, or disciplinary steps, as necessary. Monitor for recurrence and assess the effectiveness of changes. AND follow-up with the complainant. You have an obligation to ensure the complainant feels — if not good — at least satisfied that a competent investigation was conducted.

Key Takeaway: A structured, confidential, and unbiased investigation process safeguards organizational integrity, reduces legal exposure, and fosters a culture of accountability and trust.

[1] Case No. 22-cv-1625-GPG-KAS (D. CO) (Verdict Form, Dkt. #154 (Dec. 5, 2025).

[2] In fact, SHRM’s tag line that appeared following its statement on the verdict noted: “SHRM is the foremost expert, researcher advocate, and thought leader on issues and innovations impacting today’s evolving workplaces.”