Duty to Investigate?

jscheidter

A white employee reported to the company that she felt there was favoritism between the white employees and the black employees in her department. (The blacks were being treated better than the whites by a certain manager.) But she said she did not want us to investigate and didn't want her manager to know that she had complained. Does the company have a duty to look into the matter further against the complainant's wishes?

deniseE

yes. If once she complained, she made it the company's problem too. If you fail to look into it now, it could be a huge problem later.

Gillian3

Ditto. You tell the employee that you have a duty to investigate and why, then say that you will do everything that you can to maintain confidentiality but that it cannot be guaranteed.

marc

Denise and Gillian are right on. You have been "burdened with knowledge" and you must now do something about it. If you can maintain confidentiality, fine, but do not let that be your guiding light. Your investigation will take you where it will regardless of the complainants wishes.

To ignore it could mean very large checks are written to a number of people, including your lawyers.

Cinderella

What is it with ee's who want to complain to HR but then not have us do anything? We're not two friends sitting down to gossip at lunch - we're an HR professional and an ee with a complaint that could be evidence of some serious legal issues. Hello? Bueller?

ray a

Failure to investigate could lead to deeper problems down the road. If she, or someone else, proceeds with legal action, she could explain her reluctance for an investigation because of the fear of retaliation. That would indicate the problem was severe enough that a reasonable person would have expected you to investigate regardless of her wishes.

Shadowfax

I agree with the posters, in general, and in this case it would seem to be prudent to investigate, but, where is the protected status here that would mandate the duty to investigate? Just askin.