Tri-State Employers Archives - Levy Employment Law

14

February, 2023

Workplace Breastfeeding Laws Offer General Consistency with Local Nuance

Breastfeeding protections have gone mainstream. Through the magic of a budget spending bill, nursing employees in workplaces throughout the country now have legal protections that will afford them break time and access to spaces outside of toilet stalls in which to express breastmilk. That is a sea change in many parts of the country, and a more modest shift for employers in the tri-state area of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, where these protections have been afforded to varying degrees under state and local laws going back nearly a decade.

Amazingly, the new laws are fairly consistent with those already in existence, which makes compliance less burdensome for employers. The laws focus on requiring three things:

suitable space;
sufficient time; and
protected access.

Suitable Space

Make it Private

Nursing a baby often can be done discretely even in public, under cover of a light blanket, shawl or loose garment. Expressing breast milk to be stored in bottles for later use is an entirely different operation and experience, as anyone who has seen or used the various pumping apparatuses well knows. For that reason, the existing and new laws entitling employees to suitable space for expressing breast milk all prioritize that the space offer “privacy.” Often the laws clarify that means the space should be “shielded from view” and “free from intrusion.” And to dispense with the most obviously private but apparently not suitably hygienic option, the laws consistently state that the space cannot be a restroom or toilet stall.

Employers looking to achieve compliance should consider options like a private office or conference room with solid walls, blinds, or filtered glass – and a lock on the door or at least signage advising against entry while the room is in use. Even a storage closet, if appropriately cleared out, may be fit for this purpose.

Consider Proximity

While the federal law only mandates privacy, the state and local laws often also consider accessibility. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and New York City, for example, all require that the designated space be in close proximity to the employee’s work area. This criterion serves employers’ interests, as well, in that it minimizes the time that the employee needs to spend away from the work area.

Furnish Appropriately

Some of the laws additionally require that the designated space be outfitted appropriately to its purpose. New York State and New York City require that the space be well lit and include a chair and working surface. New York City and Connecticut require access to an electrical outlet, and New York City further requires that employees have nearby access to refrigeration. New York State recognizes greater variability in work locations and therefore requires access to an outlet only if the workplace is supplied with electricity, and access to refrigeration if it is available. Connecticut also requires nearby refrigeration or an employee-provided cold storage unit. The New York state and city versions finally require access to clean running water.

Optimally, therefore, employers looking to achieve compliance should be looking to provide the following furnishings and equipment:

a chair and work surface;
ample light;
an electrical outlet; and
nearby running water and refrigeration.

Employers that incorporate those items will meet their obligations under the current jurisdictional variations in the law.

Undue Hardship Is Considered

Employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from the federal PUMP Act if they can demonstrate that compliance would impose an undue hardship. Comparable state and local laws similarly recognize an undue hardship exception, but employers invoking this exception should be prepared to demonstrate that they reasonably explored options for providing suitable space and were unable to do so.

Sufficient Time

Access to a suitable location would be virtually meaningless if employees could only use it on their meal break. The laws therefore additionally require employers to provide “reasonable” break time for employees to express breastmilk. The federal “PUMP Act” grants this right to break time for up to one year after the child’s birth. The New York State version extends the protection to up to three years after childbirth, while other state laws are not specific as to duration.

New York State has issued guidance that employees are entitled to break times of at least 20 minutes in duration in these circumstances, but can use more or less time as needed. The U.S. Department of Labor previously had advised that a break of 15 to 20 minutes to pump, plus some time for set up and clean-up, was most common. The DOL has removed any specific reference to duration in its most current Fact Sheet on break time for nursing employees. Employers generally are not required to pay employees for break time taken to express breast milk, provided the time is actually a break and the employee is not performing work while pumping.

Reasonableness is a Variable Threshold

“Reasonableness” is determined through the same process that employers are expected to follow for accommodating employees for other legally-protected reasons. In New York City, the process is called a “cooperative dialogue,” and the city’s phrasing is indicative of that which is expected of all employers in this context – some degree of discussion, consultation and consideration of the employee’s needs in relation to the nature, size and operations of the employer’s business.

The duration of break time needed for expressing breast milk may include factors beyond the employer’s control, such as the speed of the pump itself, as well as factors that the employer can influence. For example, employers that offer a secure location for employees to store their breast pump in close proximity to the employee’s work space and/or the designated break room can thereby reduce the time needed for set-up and cleanup.

One of my clients was frustrated that an employee was taking hour-long breaks to express breast milk. In speaking with the employee, the employer learned that each break period, the employee would leave the work area, go out to her car in the parking garage to retrieve her breast pump and walk to the designated room (waiting for elevators along the way), and then return her pump to her car before coming back to the work area. A secure storage solution was all that was needed to cut the break time in half. The more comfortable an environment the employer can provide, and the fewer obstacles an employee faces in cleaning and storing needed equipment for pumping, the less time an employee will need to be away from productive work.

Protected Access

All the laws related to nursing employees include an assurance that the break time and designated spaces are legally-protected. This means that employers cannot discriminate or retaliate against employees for requesting or using the time or facilities, or for breastfeeding in the workplace. Some of the laws, including New York State, New York City and Connecticut, additionally require that employees receive notice of their rights with regard to expressing breastmilk. In New York, the state and city laws additionally require employers to have written policies with specifically-delineated provisions.

Compliance with these varied laws is more readily achievable than, for example, many of the paid leave laws. Employers must still, however, note the variations in legal requirements and adjust their workplace practices accordingly.

By Tracey I. Levy

25

November, 2022

Sometimes We All Need a Little Help – and a Cooperative Dialogue with our Employer to Get Us There

I have been thinking a lot about managing physical and mental impairments recently. Not the permanent ones, but the ones that may come on suddenly and impede what we consider to be our “normal” functioning ability. The subject is on my mind for two reasons. First, because in the past few years we have heard of so many more instances of workers facing mental health or substance abuse issues, or newly diagnosed as adults with conditions like ADHD for which they are being prescribed medications or other treatment. Second, because I have been facing down my own physical and mental health issue – a chronic medical condition that at its most severe can produce hours-long, paralyzing vertigo attacks and hearing loss.

In my case, prior to the pandemic I thought I had my condition largely under control through a combination of diet and medication. Then I took the weight of the world on my shoulders as we heard the progressively more bleak stories of the impact of COVID-19, my vertigo attacks returned, and they became more frequent, less predictable and more debilitating. I lost 50 percent of my hearing in one ear, and the status quo clearly was not sustainable. I took the rare step of opting for surgery five weeks ago, a minor surgery with great odds of stopping the vertigo attacks (and thereby stemming the hearing loss).

I had anticipated a weekend for my recovery from surgery, and allowed a cushion of two additional days when I was scheduled to be out for religious observance. I had a roster of ongoing matters and deliverables, but no worries about working through all of them immediately following the holiday. I didn’t even set an out-of-office message, figuring I could return any necessary calls or emails as soon as the anesthesia wore off.

The surgery went as planned. The recovery did not. My weekend was spent sedated in the hospital, trying to make the world stop spinning. I rested at home over the holiday and then tried to resume my work in short intervals, from my recovery bed. My colleagues covered for me on some matters, and some I pushed off or worked through at less than my regular pace. I built in downtime between my meetings so I could just rest, give my eyes a break, and regain my strength for my next meeting or project. I had a running list of all my deliverables and gradually made my way through completing them.

By week four, the list had been reduced to just a few ongoing matters. But while I had seen gradual, albeit painfully slow, improvement in my first three weeks, I began to backslide. I was stretching out six hours of productive work over a 10 to 12 hour daily window, and by 8 pm, a milder version of the old vertigo was returning, leaving me helpless to do anything for 45 minute intervals and so exhausted thereafter that I had to call it quits for the night. By the weekend, the vertigo was back with a major roar, sudden, fierce and completely debilitating attacks that had me violently ill and confined to my bed. Clearly something had to change.

This past Monday, I confronted my own situation. I called out the areas in which I was not delivering at my expected level – the blog articles I had not even brought myself to start writing, the training materials I had only half-developed, the investigation I’d had to decline taking on for a new client and the one that was in danger of stalling – and I took some sage advice from a respected teacher. I put myself on medical leave (you can do that when you own the business). I emailed clients to request to push out some deadlines, I set out-of-office messages on my phone and email, I went for a walk outside, and then I went to bed. I saw my doctor the next day, who has put me on a new medication that is so far keeping the vertigo away. I am continuing to walk outside each day, I am accepting the care of my family and friends, and until now I had almost entirely retired my laptop and work emails.

And it is working. I feel slowed by the medication, but freed of the oppressive weight of the vertigo I was perpetually fighting off. I am not entirely steady on my feet, but my walks on flat terrain help to clear my head. And ideas and inspiration to write, the lifeblood of my professional existence, are flowing once again.

Perhaps this is too much disclosure of personal information. Perhaps I have spent just a few too many hours listening to Moth hour story podcasts on National Public Radio this past month when the vertigo left me unable to absorb any form of visual engagement. But I share all this because, while I hope my particular ordeal is unique, I am afraid that the themes of wanting to continue to deliver at work, not wanting to admit the scope of the problem, not wanting to accept too much help, and not giving in to “defeat” are more universal and more prevalent in our workplaces than we may recognize.

For those of you in circumstances like mine, I see you and I empathize. But I also want to educate because going it alone is not your only option. If you are suffering from a serious medical condition, it may qualify as a “disability” under federal law and even more likely so under the law in states like New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and others. What that means is that you are entitled to help to enable you to perform the essential functions of your job. In New York City they call it a “cooperative dialogue” process and I like the friendliness of that phrasing.

You will likely be asked for documentation from your health care provider, but most employers I work with genuinely want to help and support you. Certainly the work needs to get done, but particularly if yours is just a short-term debilitating condition, and particularly if you are part of a larger organization, it may be possible to temporarily shift certain projects or responsibilities to colleagues who can help cover. Sometimes deadlines are more aspirational than essential, and they can be shifted for compelling circumstances. And sometimes the best thing you can do for yourself and everyone around you is to just step away for a little bit, take a leave of absence and allow your body and mind the time and space to heal.

Marvel characters aside, none of us are superheroes. All of us, at some point, face circumstances usually not of our choosing that interfere with the career trajectory, performance standards and aspirations that we set for ourselves. If you are like me, the hardest step in that situation is recognizing our own limitations – to ourselves, and to those we work with. But health issues do not typically resolve themselves just by pretending they do not exist, and the caliber of work we can deliver under trying circumstances often does not meet our own lofty standards. Make the call, and if you need it, ask for the help.

By Tracey I. Levy

16

August, 2022

Employer’s Enforcement of Social Media Policies May Turn on State Law

Can you discipline or even fire an employee for postings on a personal social media account that convey a message inconsistent with the values of the organization? The answer may depend on geography.

State borders affect employees’ workplace rights. One example of this is the varying approaches that New Jersey, New York and Connecticut have taken with regard to employees’ “free speech” rights. Technically, employees working in the private sector have no First Amendment free speech rights, as I recently discussed in a prior blog article, because the Bill of Rights only applies to government action. But state laws can also grant employees free speech protections. Connecticut has done so; New Jersey has not; New York is sort of in the middle.

Connecticut Protects Employees’ Free Speech

Connecticut prohibits all employers from disciplining or discharging an employee for exercising rights guaranteed by the First Amendment or similar provisions in the Connecticut Constitution, provided the activity does not “substantially or materially interfere with the employee’s bona fide job performance or the working relationship between the employee and the employer.” On its face, the law does not protect all forms of employee speech, and the courts have interpreted the law to include two additional limitations, consistent with constitutional law principles:

1. The employee’s speech must pertain to a matter of public concern, and not merely an employee’s personal matters; and
2. (a) The employee generally needs to be speaking as an individual, and not in an official or representative capacity for the employer; or

(b)The employee’s speech in an official capacity must be related to a matter of significant public interest that involves dishonest or dangerous practices by the employer, and the employee’s interest in speaking up must outweigh the employer’s right to control its own employees and policies.

There are few reported cases in which an individual working for a private employer successfully established protection under the statute.

The current legal standard for analyzing these claims was outlined by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Trusz v. UBS Realty (CT 2015). In the subsequent history of that case, the federal district court in Connecticut held that the head of UBS Realty’s valuation unit could proceed to trial with a claim that he was wrongfully terminated under Connecticut’s free speech law for a whistleblower complaint. Trusz complained that he had repeatedly raised concerns that the employer’s failure to disclose property valuation errors to investors and adjust its management fees based on those errors was a violation of the company’s fiduciary, legal and ethical obligations to its investors.

Subsequent courts have allowed claims to proceed against private employers in analogous whistleblowing contexts:

for declining a supervisor’s direct request and expressing discomfort with creating fraudulent time sheets for services a non-profit had not provided, to be presented at an upcoming state audit;
for twice objecting to driving a tractor trailer transporting hazardous waste on public highways using vehicles that presented safety issues; and
for expressing concerns to the owner of a used car dealership that a supervisor was having firearms delivered to the office and storing them unlocked under his desk.

In contrast, the courts have declined to allow claims to proceed that involved matters of employer policy or individual behaviors. For example:

dismissing a claim based on a manager internally raising a pay inequity among supervisors;
striking an employment discrimination claim that an employee was disciplined because of her personal friendship with a former CEO; and
striking a claim based on concerns raised in an open workplace forum that the company was paying large bonuses to executives in a poor economic climate that would hurt shareholders and the public good.

The modest number of private sector cases under the Connecticut free speech law is indicative of the limitations in its reach, and none appear to have considered the law in the context of an employee’s social media activity.

The Trusz case and other decisions suggest that social media posts that pertain to whistleblowing activity may fall within the protections of the free speech law. Employers that are looking to discipline employees for social medial activity on other subjects, such as political expressions on race, religion, abortion, or other sensitive matters that may not align with the employer’s expressed values, should first consult with legal counsel as to whether the employees’ conduct is likely to be considered protected.

New Jersey Does Not Provide Free Speech Protection

The hypothetical situation of the employee posting on social media was directly considered by the New Jersey Appellate Division in McVey v. Atlanticare Medical System (May 20, 2022). The case originated in 2020, during the height of the nationwide protests responding to the death of George Floyd. The plaintiff, who held the title of Corporate Director of Customer Service, participated in a Facebook discussion related to the Black Lives Matter movement and responded that she found the phrase to be racist and bothersome because it “causes segregation.” In response to a further post that Black Lives Matter is bringing attention to the plight of Black people who are dying in America, she replied, “’[T]they are not dying…they are killing themselves,” and she later posted that she “’support[ed] all lives . . . as a nurse they all matter[,] and [she] d[id] not discriminate.’”

The employee’s job title and affiliation with her employer were clearly identified on her Facebook profile, and her postings came to the attention of senior management, who asked her about them. The employee acknowledged the posts, and in a subsequent meeting with senior managers she revealed she was recording the conversation. The employee was promptly terminated for “repeated instances of poor management judgment” and a “failure to uphold the company’s values.”

The employee sued, asserting that she had been wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy, citing the First Amendment and the corollary protections under the New Jersey Constitution. The New Jersey Appellate Division held that neither the First Amendment nor the New Jersey Constitution reflect a clear mandate of public policy that prohibited the employee’s termination. The Court observed that these constitutional protections apply to state action, and not actions taken by a private employer toward an at-will employee, and specifically noted that New Jersey had no corollary to Connecticut’s free speech law.

New York’s Middle Ground

New York law does not expressly provide employees with free speech protections in the private sector, but it does protect employees’ right to engage in certain lawful activities outside of work. Four types of activities are expressly protected by New York law:

certain political activities – running for public office, campaigning for a political candidate, or fund-raising for a candidate, political party or political advocacy group – if conducted completely outside of work;
legal use of “consumable products” (ie: alcohol, tobacco products and now marijuana) if conducted completely outside of work;
legal recreational activities – sports, games, hobbies, exercise, reading, watching television or movies and similar leisure time activity – if conducted completely outside of work; and
union membership or related organizing activities.

Evan as to those protected activities, the law expressly allows employers to take actions to protect trade secrets, proprietary information and other business interests; to direct employees into a substance abuse or alcohol program; and to align with union contracts.

The statute’s limited definition of “political activities” would not extend to most employee social media activity. Rather, such activities may fall within the third category of “legal recreational activities.” There is a difference, however, between an employer disciplining an employee for blogging or posting in general on social media, and an employer responding to the content of specific messages or images that an employee may post or respond to on social media. The former is likely protected; the latter may not be. Again, employers should consult with legal counsel before taking disciplinary action in this context.

Employers Should Proceed with Caution

The McVey decision should give New Jersey employers some comfort and bright-line principles for addressing employees’ social medial activity, at least where employees have directly identified their employer affiliation in their postings. Employers in Connecticut and New York should be mindful that there are legal protections that extend to employees in this context, and should seek legal advice relative to specific factual situations before taking responsive actions.

By Tracey I. Levy

4

August, 2022

Workplace Investigations: Video vs. In-Person Interviews

Prior to the pandemic, in-person interviews were generally considered the preferred method of conducting workplace investigations. They allowed the investigator to build rapport with the interviewee, the investigator could observe behaviors by the interviewee that might be relevant to credibility, and the investigator could know who was present for the interview and ensure a private meeting. But in March 2020, that all had to change. My Cornell colleagues and I wrote an article at that time, assessing the opportunities that videoconferencing offered as a virtual alternative to in-person interviews and identifying the caveats and precautions for which the investigator should be prepared.

Nearly two and a half years later, while employees have returned to their workplaces to varying degrees, I continue to conduct virtually all my workplace investigations by videoconference. Yes, it saves me a commute, but I actually like getting out into the world with people and I care deeply about ensuring the integrity of my investigations, so saving the commute would not suffice if it compromised my quality standards. Rather, over the period that remote interviews were the only viable option, I have come to appreciate some enduring advantages that they offer over in-person interviews.

Ensuring Privacy

Pre-COVID, one of the greatest challenges I faced when conducting in-person interviews was in securing a private location for those meetings. Most workplaces have shifted to glass-walled offices and conference rooms, many with little or no shading to afford visual privacy. I would strategically situate myself so that I faced outward, and only the interviewee’s back would be visible to passers by, but that afforded only a limited degree of anonymity. I would request to use a conference room or office that was off the beaten path, or at least in a different location than the coworkers of the people I would be interviewing – with mixed success.

For one investigation, I visited nearly every coffee house in a five-town radius of the client’s office. No interviewee felt comfortable that the office could afford privacy and each had a different idea, in relation to their own hometown, as to where our presence would go unnoticed. Investigation interviews can be conducted successfully in a coffee house or similar public space, but it requires the right mix of variables – other people conversing, so that my interview will not be a prominent sound in the space; a table spaced far enough from others such that it will be difficult for the people closest to us to eavesdrop; and frequent turnover or activity so that if we lingered longer it would not be noticed.

Videoconferencing spares me most of those logistical challenges. With the caveat that my interviews are generally conducted in areas where wifi access is abundant, I have extremely rarely had to shift from video to audio only interviews. Even employees who do not have a laptop or tablet are able to meet through their smartphone. The challenge with videoconferencing is that you never know who may be offscreen, just as you never know if your conversation is being recorded, so confirming the person is in a private place to speak sets a baseline expectation.

Keeping Everyone Safe

Videoconferencing offers the ultimate assurance of social distancing. While we may have moved past the worst of the pandemic, the need to quarantine or isolate due to exposure to COVID-19 can still arise at any time, and side-line plans for in-person meetings.

Videoconferencing also reassures all parties against exposure to other infectious diseases and milder ailments. Years ago, when I was conducting investigations internally as an Employee Relations specialist, I once came to work while fighting a bad head cold so I could proceed with the scheduled interview of the respondent, a relatively senior manager who had a very busy schedule. After the interview, I received feedback from the HR Business Partner that the respondent complained I had been sneezing throughout our meeting. Rather than being appreciated for my perseverance and commitment, I had made the manager uncomfortable by my physical presence. It was an interview that I should have postponed, or taken from the safer distance of a video screen.

More recently, I met in person to interview the respondent for a particularly sensitive matter. Having just recovered from COVID-19 and completed my 10 days of isolation, I was feeling unusually secure about meeting in-person. The day after the interview, I developed symptoms and tested positive for a rebound of COVID, and was put in the uncomfortable position of having to reach out to the respondent and others who had been present for that interview to advise them of their possible exposure. Meeting by videoconference ensures that the investigator, the interviewee, and any third-party representatives are all safe from infection.

Moving Things Along

One of the other benefits of videoconferencing is that it enables speedier coordination of meetings. Scheduling time to meet with individuals who travel frequently or work in multiple locations is much simpler when they can join via videoconference from virtually anywhere.

Making Exceptions

Notwithstanding these benefits, there still are times when videoconferencing may not be an ideal option. In particular, videoconferencing makes it slightly more challenging to build rapport and make the interviewee comfortable enough to provide the investigator with responsive information. For that reason, when conducting interviews of individuals who report having experienced traumatic situations, such as sexual assault, in which building and maintaining that rapport and comfort is essential, the benefits of meeting in-person may outweigh the challenges.

There is no one right way to conduct workplace investigation interviews, provided there is a considered process behind decisions that are made. Videoconferencing offers advantages, and my old bias toward in-person interviews has given way to a new reality.

*****************

In this Workplace Investigations blog series, I will be exploring considerations that arise from our firm’s experience conducting workplace investigations and my work as an educator with Cornell University ILR school’s professional certificate programs on conducting effective workplace investigations.

By Tracey I. Levy

21

July, 2022

Workplace Investigations: When Should You Consider Retaining an Outside Investigator

Increasingly, organizations are conducting workplace investigations in response to employee concerns – both those raised formally to human resources or through a written complaint or attorney demand letter, and those raised informally in a conversation with a supervisor that is brought to human resources’ or an equivalent function’s attention. Matters that, in the past, might have been handled by a conversation with the subject of the complaint and perhaps one or both parties’ managers are now referred for an investigation. That typically comprises documented interviews with both parties and others believed to have relevant information, as well as a review of other materials, including documents, electronic communications, recordings, and physical items.

Human resources is most typically tasked with conducting these types of investigations. In organizations with a larger HR function, there may be a dedicated employee relations function or equal employment opportunity (EEO) office to handle the investigation of matters potentially involving serious policy violations, such as the EEO or workplace violence policies. Complaints about workplace conditions (not involving health or safety concerns) or more generalized issues of unfairness or favoritism (not based on any protected characteristic) are often looked into by the HR generalist supporting that business function.

Sometimes, though, an organization is best served by retaining someone outside the organization to investigate a workplace concern. In my 15 years conducting workplace investigations, I have found that determining when to retain an outside investigator largely depends on four factors: conflicts of interest, sensitivity of the issue, skills and experience, and workload management.

Conflicts of Interest

CEOs/business owners, board chairs and other senior leaders can be the subject of an employee complaint reflecting a potential serious policy violation. Or a workplace concern may involve the head of the organization’s human resources, compliance or legal function. In each of those circumstances, the individuals within the organization who would typically be conducting a workplace investigation are being asked to look into a complaint against the people who ultimately determine the investigator’s pay and future with the organization. The internal investigator’s independence and ability to conduct an effective investigation may be compromised in that situation.

Even if the internal investigator feels equipped to disregard the underlying power dynamics and objectively gather and evaluate the factual information, there is an overriding appearance of undue influence that may undermine the confidence of the complainant or other parties in the objectivity of the outcome. The complainant may raise concerns about the process to coworkers, and employees may be disinclined to raise concerns internally in the future.

An outside investigator can help an organization avoid these conflict-of-interest concerns. The outside investigator may be retained by and asked to report directly to the board, outside legal counsel, or a senior leader within the organization who is above or outside the reporting lines of the parties involved in the matter (such as reporting to the CEO or CFO on a matter involving department heads within human resources or legal).

Sensitivity of the Issue

Sometimes the nature of the concern raised warrants retaining an outside investigator. For example, matters involving a sexual assault or a domestic violence issue that has carried into the workplace may present particular sensitivities that the internal investigations team is not experienced to handle. A trauma-informed approach is recommended for investigating these types of matters, which involves a focus on open-ended questions, delicate probing, and an appreciation that the complainant’s account may be fragmented or disjointed but still credible. These attributes of a trauma-informed approach are arguably best practices for any workplace investigation, but if the internal team lacks appropriate training in them, then an outside investigator may be a better option to conduct an appropriate investigation.

Skills and Experience

Smaller organizations often do not have an internal human resources function. HR support may be provided through a professional employer organization (PEO) or may be assigned to the business owner, the head of operations or the finance head. Or perhaps an organization does have one or more internal people responsible for human resources, but their role and experience has primarily focused on recruiting, benefits administration or HR advisory work, with little or no experience conducting workplace investigations. In these situations, leveraging the skills and experience of an outside investigator is helpful. Some organizations will retain an outside investigator for support on an ongoing, as-needed basis, while others may retain an outside investigator more ad hoc, if a concern has been raised where an investigation seems appropriate.

Workload Management

Finally, sometimes an internal HR or investigations team just has too much on its plate or is short one or more staff and needs additional resources on an interim basis. In these situations, the outside investigator still offers the benefit of more independent accountability and perspective, but primarily the investigator’s value is in being able to “hit the ground running” and offer support.

Final Considerations

An experienced outside investigator can be a helpful resource to organizations in a range of situations. It is helpful to articulate to the investigator at the outset the business issue that prompted reaching out to someone external to the organization. If, for example, an outside investigator is being retained due to a conflict of interest, then clarifying to whom the investigator will be reporting is important to ensure there is no perpetuation of the conflict. And if the investigator is simply an extra set of hands to manage workload, then it is important to clarify when and how the investigator will be engaged for specific matters.

*****************

By Tracey I. Levy