Microsoft Word - Sample.investigation.report.10.2.23.v2



1



Sample Investigation Report

Introduction

On August 3, 2023, Agency received a complaint from XX, Public Service

Representative I (“Complainant”) alleging that XX, Customer Service Manager

(“Respondent”) engaged in inappropriate conduct towards Complainant.

Agency initiated an investigation of Complainant’s allegation resulting in this

investigatory report.

Allegations Summary

Below are the specific allegations and factual issues to be assessed and determined by

this investigation:

(1) Does Respondent scrutinize Complainant’s work more than Complainant’s peers

in violation of the Discrimination and Harassment-Free Workplace Policy?

(2) Is Respondent dismissive of Complainant’s ideas and recommendations in

violation of the Discrimination and Harassment-Free Workplace Policy?

Complainant alleges that she believes Respondent treats her differently because of her

race/ethnicity and because she speaks English with an accent, i.e., national origin.

Complainant’s Workday profile lists Complainant as “Latina.” Complainant stated that

she was born in Chile and emigrated to the United States 10 years ago. Complainant

stated that she is fluent in Spanish and English and that she grew up speaking Spanish

and learned English when she came to the U.S. Complainant stated that receives a

language allowance of 5% for Spanish, that she qualified for the allowance after passing



Thisisasamplereportthatshowsanapproachtomakingcredibilityfindingsandreachingconclusionsonpolicy

violations.Thisformatisnotpresentedasafullreportandcontainssomeeditsforbrevity.Amongobjectivesisto

showhowcloseorinconclusiveissuesmightbeapproachedandhowcredibility

findingsarecarriedforwardinthe

analysissectionofthereport.WerecognizetheinputanddraftingassistancefromJaniceKim,CivilRightsand

InclusionSectionDirector,EquityInclusionDivision,OregonHealthAuthority,inpreparingthissamplereport.



2



the Agency’s language proficiency screening and that she regularly uses Spanish in her

work.

Respondent is Complainant’s manager. Respondent’s Workday profile lists Respondent

as “White.” Respondent stated that she was born and raised in Oregon.

Witnesses Interviewed:

The investigator interviewed the following five people either in-person or on Microsoft

Teams.

1. Complainant on August 15, 2023. In-person. Complainant is a represented

employee and requested that a union steward attend her interview.

2. Witness 1. PSR1 who works with Complainant and reports to Respondent.

August 22, 2023. In-person.

3. Witness 2. PSR2 who trained Complainant and reported to Respondent until

they promoted to a different position reporting to a different manager. August 30,

2023. In-person.

4. Witness 3. Respondent’s manager. September 16, 2023. On Teams.

5. Respondent on September 20, 2023, September 30, 2023. In-person.

Respondent was represented by an attorney at her interviews. Accordingly, an

attorney from Oregon DOJ attended Respondent’s interviews.

Credibility Assessments

Of the above people, the investigation finds Witnesses 1 and 2 to be the most credible

for the following reasons:

1. Their statements were generally corroborated by one or more of the other

parties or documentary evidence or both.

2. None of their statements were contradicted by another party or documentary

evidence.

3. These parties readily admitted when they did not know or could not recall

information.



3



4. These parties corrected themselves without prompting when they realized that

they had made an erroneous or exaggerated statement. Witness 1 did so during

the interview and Witness 2 did so in an email to the investigation two days after

their interview).

5. These parties have no personal interest in the outcome of the investigation.

Additionally, the investigation finds Complainant to be credible but slightly less credible

for reasons 1 through 3.

As to Witness 3, the investigation finds Witness 3 to be less credible for the following

reasons:

1. Witness 3 appears to have an interest in the outcome of the investigation

because they and Respondent are friends as well as “mentor-mentee;” Witness 3

and Respondent socialize outside of work including at their children’s school

events and church.

Finally, the investigation finds Respondent to be less credible for the following reasons:

2. Respondent frequently avoided answering questions she or her attorney thought

were irrelevant (“why are you asking this?”) by responding, “I don’t remember” or

“I don’t recall.” However, when the purpose of the question became apparent to

her later in the interview or after a brief recess to speak privately with her

attorney she recalled detailed information.

3. Respondent voluntarily provided to the investigation documentary information

that was supportive of her position. However, when the investigation requested

information in addition to what Respondent provided, Respondent was equivocal

about its existence or her ability to produce it or both. Respondent eventually

provided most of the requested information. The investigation obtained the

remainder from human resources who indicated that the information HR provided

should have been within the possession and control of Respondent. The

investigation notes that some but not all of the information provided by HR was

inconsistent with Respondent’s statements during her interview.



4



4. In her second interview, when asked about the discrepancies between her

statements and the documentary evidence, Respondent was non-responsive or

stated that the documentary evidence was incorrect. Respondent did not explain

how the documentary evidence was incorrect or acknowledge that she may have

had incorrect recollections or made misstatements in her interviews.

Documents and Evidence Considered

1. DAS Discrimination and Harassment and Discrimination-Free Workplace Policy

2. Notes from Complainant dated [x date] and sent to investigator on [x date].

3. Complainant’s performance reviews dated [x date], and notes from Respondent’s

supervisory file.

4. Emails provided by Complainant and Respondent

5. Quarterly phone call audits.

FINDINGS

Allegation 1. Does Respondent scrutinize Complainant’s work more than

Complainant’s peers in violation of the Discrimination and Harassment-Free Workplace

Policy?

Finding 1: It is Substantiated that Respondent scrutinizes Complainant’s work

more than her peers in violation of the Discrimination and Harassment-Free

Workplace policy.

Factual Background

As PSR1s, Complainant and her peers frequently speak with clients on the telephone.

Those calls are recorded for record-retention and quality assurance. Complainant

stated that she learned that while Respondent will frequently review Complainant’s

customer phone calls in their check-in meetings, that Respondent does not do so with

many of Complainant’s peers. Complainant stated that Respondent will sometimes ask



Someagenciesmayhaveinvestigationprocessesthatresultinfactualconclusionsandleavethedeterminationof

whetheranysubstantiatedfactsrisetothelevelofapolicyviolationtoanappointingauthorityorotherdesignee.

Suchdirectioniswithinanagency’soperationaldiscretiontodesignateandconsistentlyapplyaprocess.



5



Complainant why it is that callers seem confused by the information that Complainant

provides. Complainant stated that the programs about which people ask are

complicated and that it often takes multiple explanations, by phone and in writing,

before clients understand. Complainant stated that she felt as if Respondent was

saying that people did not understand Complainant because she is Latina and speaks

with an accent.

All interviewed parties acknowledged that the programs they service are complicated

and that many of the callers are confused and have a hard time understanding.

Witnesses 1 and 2 stated that the lack of understanding is exacerbated when the caller

speaks a language other than English and that they are thankful that they have

teammates like Complainant who receive a language differential and can communicate

with callers in Spanish. Witnesses 1 and 2, separately stated that their primary

language is English and that Respondent has never reviewed their calls with them

during a check-in or evaluation. Neither Witness 1 nor Witness 2 receive a language

allowance. Witnesses 1 and 2 stated that it is not uncommon for callers to continue to

have questions even after they have gone through the program details repeatedly.

Neither Witness 1 nor Witness 2 had race/ethnicity details in their Workday profiles.

When asked by the investigation what their racial/ethnic background is, Witness 1

stated if they had to pick they would select “White/Non-Hispanic.” Witness 2 indicated

that they would select “White/Hispanic.”

The investigation reviewed HR files that indicated that at all times relevant to the

Complaint that Complainant was the only PSR1 who reported to Respondent who

received a language allowance.

Witness 3 stated that a good manager will review PSR1’s calls with them for

performance management purposes. Witness 3 stated that how many calls a manager

reviews with an employee varies. When asked by the investigation if it would ever be

appropriate for a manager to never review a call with an employee, Witness 3 stated

that they would not do so but that there are many reasons why a manager may do or



6



not do something. When asked by the investigation why a manager would never review

a call with an employee, Witness 3 could not provide a reason.

Respondent denied that she scrutinizes Complainant more than other employees.

Respondent stated that she customizes her supervision based on the needs of an

employee and other factors. Respondent stated that she regularly reviews recorded

phone calls with employees as part of their check-ins or evaluations. Respondent

stated that she may review more calls with some employees than others, but that

reviewing calls is a regular part of her supervision of all employees.

The investigation provided to Respondent a quarterly audit report of phone calls that

Respondent pulled. The report showed that there were some employees, including

Complainant, for whom Respondent pulled multiple recordings and others for whom

Respondent did not pull any recordings. (The majority of employees whose calls

Respondent pulled were trial service employees or employees about whom clients had

complained.) There was no evidence that any client had complained about

Complainant’s calls, and Respondent confirmed that she had not received any

complaints.

Respondent stated that the report showed information which differed from her

recollection and practice. When asked by the investigation why it is that the audit

showed information which did not align with what Respondent believed had happened,

Respondent said that she is not familiar with the audit program so could not say.

Respondent could not provide a specific business reason why she had pulled multiple

recordings for the Complainant. When asked whether it was more likely that the audit

was incorrect or if Respondent’s recollection was incorrect, Respondent stated, “I know

what I do.”

Based on the above, the investigation substantiates that Respondent scrutinizes

Complainant’s work. The investigation also demonstrates that Respondent’s treatment

of Complainant was influenced by one or more protected class categories including

Complainant’s national origin (i.e. speaking with a discernable accent) in violation of the

DAS Discrimination and Harassment-Free Workplace Policy. Respondent focused on



7



the evaluation of Complainant’s performance much differently than she evaluated

colleagues who do not share any protected class attributes. Respondent did not offer a

persuasive explanation or otherwise provide documentation of an alternate, business-

related rationale supporting the difference in management approaches among similarly

situated workers.

Allegation 2. Is Respondent dismissive of Complainant’s ideas and recommendations

in violation of the Discrimination and Harassment-Free Workplace Policy?

Finding 2. The investigation revealed that Respondent can be dismissive of the

Complainant’s ideas and recommendations, but evidence demonstrates that

Respondent treats everyone on her team similarly regardless of protected class

status as described below and there was no substantiated violation of the

Discrimination and Harassment-Free Workplace Policy.

Factual Background

Complainant stated that at team meetings that whenever Respondent asks for

suggestions that Respondent rarely calls on Complainant. Complainant stated that she

believes Respondent does so because Complainant is Latina and has an accent.

Complainant stated that she believes she has much to contribute to the team and that

she is more comfortable making suggestions in a group setting because of how

Respondent treats Complainant when it is just the two of them.

Witnesses 1 and 2 separately stated that they perceive that while Respondent asks for

suggestions that it does not matter what anyone says because Respondent has already

decided what will happen. Witnesses 1 and 2 separately stated that when they first

started working they would raise their hands to contribute and that they stopped after a

while because Respondent always asked at the end of a meeting when there was no

more time. Respondent would ask employees to email her with their suggestions.

Witnesses 1 and 2 stated that they did not email Respondent because if Respondent

wanted their ideas she would make time for that to happen or follow up with them

directly and that the workload was such that there was no time to send a separate

email. Witnesses 1 and 2 observed Complainant continue to try to contribute and that



8



they did not say anything to Complainant because Complainant would eventually figure

it out.

Witness 3 stated that they do not regularly attend Respondent’s team meetings and has

not observed what Complainant alleged in the few meetings that Witness 3 has

attended.

Respondent stated that she welcomes input from everyone. Respondent stated that

she has never noticed Complainant wanting to contribute and that if she had noticed

she would welcome it. Respondent acknowledged that there is frequently too much to

discuss, not enough time and that she often has to ask folks to send her their ideas by

email. Respondent stated that she has never received an email suggestion from

Complainant. When asked by the investigation if during her check-ins if Respondent

asks the employees whom she supervises for their suggestions, Respondent stated that

she does not explicitly ask but that her team should know that her “door is always

open.”

The information available to the investigation indicates that Respondent treats everyone

on her team similarly.