HR Investigation Services
Investigations Done Right. Decisions That Hold.
Neutral Investigations. Defensible Findings. Courtroom-Ready Process.
I serve as a neutral third-party investigator in sensitive matters.
In this role, I bring:
Organizational psychology expertise
Investigative rigor
Bias-aware analysis
Structural independence
A defensibility lens shaped by litigation review
I understand how investigations are later examined in deposition, motion practice, and trial.
That perspective informs every step of the investigative process.
I provide structured training for:
HR Departments
Chief Human Resource Officers
In-House Legal Teams
Outside Counsel
Executive Leadership
The goal is to equip internal teams to conduct investigations that are procedurally sound, equitable, and legally defensible.
The goal is to equip internal teams to conduct investigations that are procedurally sound, equitable, and legally defensible.
I have conducted internal investigations within organizations and analyzed investigations extensively in my role as an HR Expert Witness.
Those two perspectives are not the same.
When I serve as an HR Expert Witness on the Plaintiff side in employment litigation, one pattern appears consistently across cases, regardless of industry, company size, or sophistication:
Organizations routinely fail to conduct thorough, impartial, and comprehensive investigations when protected complaints arise.
These complaints typically involve:
Discrimination
Harassment
Retaliation
Discipline disputes
Performance management concerns
Promotion decisions
Race- or gender-related workplace dynamics
The issue is rarely a single missing step. It is a systemic gap in investigative rigor that falls below the standard of care required to withstand legal scrutiny.
2. HR Investigation Training
Training focuses on:
Standard of care requirements
Investigative methodology
Bias-aware interviewing and investigations
Documentation standards
Comparator and consistency analysis
Protected activity handling
Governance and structural independence
1. Independent HR Investigations
What I Consistently Observe in Litigation
In virtually every employment matter I am retained on as an HR Expert Witness, the investigation becomes a central point of examination.
Across industries, organizational sizes, and levels of sophistication, one pattern is strikingly consistent:
Investigations into protected complaints frequently fail to meet the standard of care required to withstand legal scrutiny.
These gaps are not confined to inexperienced HR teams. I have reviewed investigations conducted by seasoned HR executives, internal legal departments, and national employment law firms. The deficiencies are not superficial. They reflect deeper structural shortcomings in investigative design, analytical reasoning, neutrality safeguards, documentation sufficiency, and governance alignment.
The issue is not that something small was overlooked.
The issue is that the investigation was not constructed with litigation-level rigor.
In deposition and trial, investigative processes are dissected in detail. Methodology, sequencing, scope, independence, bias awareness, comparator review, credibility determinations, documentation practices, and closure decisions are all examined against accepted professional standards.
What appeared reasonable in real time often does not withstand disciplined scrutiny when evaluated through a forensic HR lens.
The consequences are significant.
When an investigation is not methodologically sound, the problem does not stop with the report itself.
In litigation, I routinely see that once the investigation is weak, nearly every step that follows is compromised.
Not just what the organization decided — but how it reached that decision, what it relied on, what it failed to examine, and whether the reasoning holds up under scrutiny.
What may have felt reasonable internally often does not withstand careful examination because the investigative process did not create a defensible foundation for what came next.
That is where liability grows.
The discipline imposed may appear inconsistent.
The decision not to discipline may appear dismissive.
The communication to the complainant may appear insufficient.
Even well-intended corrective measures can be reframed as reactive or strategically defensive if the investigative groundwork was incomplete. What could have been resolved internally becomes compounded liability.
In deposition and trial, the inquiry extends beyond “What was decided?” to “How was it examined? What standard was applied? What analysis supports that conclusion? What safeguards were in place?”
If the investigative structure does not reflect disciplined neutrality and litigation-level rigor, nearly every downstream decision can be compromised.
This is where organizations become most exposed, not merely because of the complaint itself, but because of the investigative architecture that followed.
The communication to the accused may appear retaliatory.
The closure rationale may appear unsupported.
The absence of action may appear indifferent.
Even Third-Party Investigations Fall Short
I have also reviewed investigations conducted by external law firms hired as independent third parties.
Organizations often assume that because a law firm specializes in employment law, the investigation will automatically meet the appropriate standard of care.
Yet I have seen companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on third-party investigations that still contained:
Methodological gaps
Incomplete factual development
Insufficient neutrality safeguards
Limited comparator review
Inadequate policy application analysis
Documentation deficiencies
Legal representation does not automatically equate to investigative excellence. An investigation must be structured to withstand scrutiny not only at the time it is conducted, but years later under deposition and cross-examination.
Why This Matters
When protected complaints arise, organizations have heightened responsibility.
An investigation is not simply an internal fact-finding exercise.
It is:
A legal safeguard
A governance function
A credibility test
A cultural signal
A documentation record that may later be examined line by line
If the investigation falls below the standard of care, no amount of litigation strategy can repair structural deficiencies in the record.
The Standard
Investigations cannot be informal.
They cannot be rushed.
They cannot rely solely on policy language or legal assumptions.
They must be methodical, impartial, documented, and defensible.
I have reviewed matters where an improper investigation led the organization to reach unsound conclusions or implement inadequate corrective measures, ultimately contributing to substantial settlements and verdicts in the Plaintiff’s favor. When the investigative process lacks rigor and neutrality, the decisions built upon it do not withstand standard-of-care evaluation under oath
Investigative Integrity Is Risk Management.
If your organization is handling a protected complaint or you are reviewing your investigative framework, schedule a confidential consultation to assess whether your process meets the standard of care required in litigation. Do not wait until a deposition to discover weaknesses in your investigative record. Let’s build a process that stands up to expert review and cross-examination.