Privileged, employer-side fact-finding into harassment, misconduct, and whistleblower complaints, scoped, conducted, and documented to a standard that holds up when the findings are later tested.
When a supervisor is accused of harassment and no one was fired or demoted, the employer's defense is the investigation. Federal law excuses the company only if it took reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the conduct and the employee unreasonably failed to use the complaint process it offered. Illinois is less forgiving: the Human Rights Act holds an employer strictly liable for sexual harassment by any supervisory employee, so there the inquiry decides the remedy rather than the liability.
We act for the employer, and the first decision is whether the findings will ever be shown to anyone. An investigation commissioned by counsel to give legal advice is privileged; an investigation the company later relies on as its defense generally has to be produced. We settle that posture before the first interview, open each interview with the warning that counsel represents the company and not the witness, and make every credibility finding on stated reasons.
Notice to a supervisor is usually notice to the company, and the clock starts then, not when human resources hears of it.
Defining the allegations, the questions to be answered, and the structure of the engagement at the outset, so the inquiry is proportionate to the complaint and positioned to preserve privilege where it is available.
Independent investigation of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation complaints under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and state frameworks, conducted to the prompt-and-adequate standard the law expects.
Inquiries into whistleblower and retaliation reports, suspected fraud, financial irregularity, and serious policy breaches, including the sensitive, executive, and board-level matters that call for independence from internal HR.
Structured interviews of complainants, respondents, and witnesses, alongside preservation and review of the documents, communications, and electronic records on which credible findings rest.
Structuring how the investigation is commissioned, conducted, and reported to protect attorney-client privilege and work-product where the law allows, while advising clearly on the limits of the confidentiality an employer can promise.
Reasoned findings, delivered orally, in writing, or both to suit the privilege strategy, followed by counsel on the remedial action they call for, from discipline and separation to policy and training changes.
Where a supervisor harassed and no tangible action followed, federal law excuses the employer only if it proves both reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the conduct and the employee's unreasonable failure to use the complaint process. The investigation is the proof of the first element.
An investigation commissioned by counsel for legal advice is privileged. The moment the company pleads that investigation as its defense, it has put the inquiry at issue and will usually have to produce the report, notes and interviews. That choice is made before the first interview.
For senior or sensitive allegations, an inquiry led by outside counsel removes the appearance that the employer investigated itself. That independence is often what makes the findings believable.
Under the Illinois Human Rights Act an employer is strictly liable for sexual harassment by a supervisory employee, even one with no authority over the complainant. For harassment by co-workers it is liable once it knew and failed to take reasonable corrective measures.
When accounts conflict, the finding rests on factors the EEOC's own guidance names: inherent plausibility, corroboration and motive to falsify among them. Each is written down against each disputed fact. A finding that says only that the investigator found the complainant credible invites a jury to disagree.
Every Illinois employer must give every employee sexual-harassment prevention training each year under section 2-109 of the Human Rights Act, and an adverse judgment in a harassment or discrimination matter must be reported to the Department of Human Rights by the following July 1.
Within hours of the complaint landing, counsel is commissioned in writing to give legal advice rather than to write a report, so privilege has a footing from the first step. A litigation hold goes out, the respondent is walled off from the complainant, and interim measures guard against the retaliation claim that so often outlives the original one.
The allegations are converted into specific questions the inquiry must answer, and nothing more. Emails, chats, and badge and system records are pulled and preserved before memories and messages start to change, because that documentary record is what witnesses will later be tested against.
Complainant first, corroborating witnesses next, respondent last, and each interview opens with an Upjohn warning that counsel represents the company and does not represent the individual. Accounts are pressed against the documents, and every credibility call is made on stated reasons.
Each allegation is found substantiated, unsubstantiated, or inconclusive, with reasons, and the findings are delivered orally or in writing to suit the privilege strategy. Then comes the part most investigations never reach, the discipline, separation, or policy change the findings compel, carried out by the same practice.
An investigation is judged less on what it found than on how it looked.
A fact-finding exercise with a legal purpose: to put the employer in a position to act on what happened rather than on what was alleged. It converts a complaint into specific questions and preserves the emails and system records before they change. It interviews the complainant, the witnesses and then the respondent, and decides each allegation as substantiated, unsubstantiated or inconclusive on the balance of probabilities, with reasons. It is not a disciplinary hearing and it reaches no conclusion about the law. Whether the conduct found amounts to unlawful harassment, and what the company must now do about it, is the legal advice the investigation exists to inform.
Outside counsel brings independence and the prospect of privilege that an internal HR inquiry often cannot. An investigation led by a lawyer can be structured to protect attorney-client privilege and work-product where the law allows, and it removes the appearance that the employer investigated itself. For senior, sensitive, or board-level allegations, that independence is frequently what makes the findings credible.
Privileged, if commissioned for legal advice; confidential only up to a point. Attorney-client privilege covers an investigation that counsel conducts to advise the company, and work-product protection covers notes prepared in anticipation of litigation, but both belong to the company and the company waives them the moment it relies on the investigation as its defense to a harassment claim, which is the usual reason for having done one. The privileged route and the defensive route are therefore chosen at the start, and sometimes both are run, with a privileged legal analysis sitting behind a disclosable factual report. Confidentiality is narrower still. Participants can be asked for discretion while the inquiry is open, but a blanket instruction never to discuss working conditions runs into the National Labor Relations Act, and no one can be promised that the findings will stay inside the room.
As soon as it knows, and it knows sooner than it thinks. No formal complaint is required. A remark to a supervisor, an anonymous hotline report or a resignation letter that mentions the conduct all put the company on notice, because a supervisor's knowledge is generally imputed to the employer. Under Title VII the employer must then take prompt remedial action reasonably calculated to end the conduct; under the Illinois Human Rights Act it is liable for co-worker harassment from the moment it knew and failed to act. A complainant who asks that nothing be done cannot be given that promise, since the duty runs to the workplace and not only to the person who spoke. Proportion matters too: a single ambiguous comment may warrant a conversation and a file note rather than a full inquiry, and the file note records why.
By protecting the three people most likely to sue. The complainant is protected from retaliation, which means every change to that person's schedule, assignments or reporting line is cleared through counsel for the duration, because a retaliation claim succeeds on timing alone far more often than the underlying claim succeeds on its facts. The respondent is told the substance of the allegations, interviewed last with the documents in hand, and placed on paid rather than unpaid leave if separation is needed, since an unpaid suspension before any finding is a breach claim in waiting for anyone with a contract. The witnesses are given the warning that counsel represents the company and told that retaliation against them is forbidden too. Every interview is memorialized the same day, every credibility call is reasoned in writing, and the findings are limited to what the evidence supports.
The findings are delivered within days of the last interview, in writing or orally depending on the privilege posture, and the remedial decision follows at once, because the gap between finding and action is itself measured later. Substantiated misconduct is met with discipline proportionate to the finding and consistent with how the company treated the last comparable case; the discipline and separation practice handles that paper. The complainant is told the inquiry has concluded and that action was taken, without the detail of another employee's discipline. Retaliation check-ins with the complainant are calendared at 30, 60 and 90 days. Policy or training gaps the inquiry exposed are closed, which in Illinois includes the annual sexual-harassment training every employer owes every employee. If the matter later ends in an adverse judgment, it is reported to the Illinois Department of Human Rights by the following July 1.
Legally defensible termination and layoff procedure, with the documentation that forecloses a wrongful-discharge claim, which is the decision an investigation usually informs.
Explore →The policies and reporting channels an investigation tests, on wages, leave, accommodation, and conduct, drafted so practice and policy match.
Explore →Arbitration, mediation, and litigation for when a matter becomes contested, handled with the early posture and the paper trail that resolve it on the employer's terms.
Explore →Reorganizations, reductions in force, and WARN Act planning, from selection criteria and notice obligations to the sequencing that keeps a restructuring out of litigation.
Explore →Reviewed by Jonathan D. Herpy, Sr., Senior Partner · Last updated October 2026 · Educational overview · Not legal advice
One partner is accountable for the whole matter, and you have that partner's direct line. Chicago, London, and Dubai work to the same standard.