The Price of High Profile Investigations

With the recent wave of allegations concerning employment-related conduct, there may be in uptick of employers engaging outside firms to conduct internal investigations. While these can be kept in-house, high profile cases and social media often results in the publication of these reports to the public. Consider the NFL’s investigation of the Miami Dolphins known as “bullygate.”

In the Dolphins case, particular employees were identified as fostering a bullying culture and publicly identified in the conclusions. Although one of these employees had his defamation case dismissed by the district court, he is now arguing on appeal that the report had a preordained conclusion, and that the omission of certain facts painted him in an unduly negative light. Importantly, this particular employee is not denying any of the statements, but only that the report as a whole unfairly portrayed him in a defamatory matter.

This case illuminates the likelihood of litigation based on any investigation of workplace misconduct. The issues investigated are always highly sensitive, and negative findings regarding a particular employee may not only lead to his immediate loss of employment, but the potential of being blackballed in an entire industry. The acceptance that there were no disputed facts was not enough to dissuade this particular coach from suing. This should be no surprise, as an employee who loses his job, cannot find replacement employment, and is publicly shamed so may have nothing to lose by using extensive litigation in an attempt to salvage what he can from the situation.

Unfortunately, there is little professional firms can do to prevent this result. Instead, the key is in preparation. As the investigation proceeds, regular memos should be kept regarding key pieces of information and thought processes involved. For example, memos about what was kept out of the final reports, even if fairly broad, should be kept so that real-time explanations are available. Especially in large scale investigations with many witnesses and documents, these memos can be very helpful after time has passed. Professionals may also want to consider indemnification agreements with their clients to protect themselves from any suit arising from the investigation. While only the beginning, these simple tools will be valuable when a disgruntled investigative subject inevitably sues.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment

  1. Thomas

    I have another solution: make everything public! Involved in litigation myself that was 100% false, my former employer went to enormous lengths to blackball me, then after twice lying to the court to receive continuances of almost a year each and forcing me into debt greater than $100,000, forced a settlement on me that my attorney told me to accept because my former employer was never going to go to trial, especially after losing a companion case in a jury trial. He told me they could keep this going for 10 years. Key to the settlement: silence. I could not discuss anything about the case at all, including telling the truth. As about 98% of civil cases never go to trial, remove the gag clause. Attorneys will argue that no one will settle under these conditions. Correct. So that leaves them with two choices, either a jury trial or they can start doing the right thing. When I mentioned this to several attorneys their eyebrows went up, as “doing the right thing” was a thought they never had.

Next ArticleIs a Client's Criminal Prosecution Foreseeable?