River
Y CombinatorBacked by Y Combinator
Log InStart Free

Free template

Workplace Investigation Report Template

An investigation plan, interview guides, findings report and outcome letters, plus sheets that log evidence and date each step from when the company knew.

Edit with AIDownload Word and CSV

Free download · No account needed

What you get

Pack of 8 files: 5 documents, 3 spreadsheets

Workplace Investigation Report Template
  • Why the Clock Starts at NoticeDocument
  • Investigation PlanDocument
  • Interview GuidesDocument
  • Findings ReportDocument
  • Outcome CommunicationDocument
  • TimelineSpreadsheet
  • Interview RegisterSpreadsheet
  • Evidence LogSpreadsheet
RiverWorkplace Investigation Report Template

Why the Clock Starts at Notice

The same file, on time and 63 working days late

Marloe Logistics, case ER-2026-014. Complaint form filed Thursday 6 August 2026. Ten steps, each with a working-day window set by Marloe's own policy.

StepDays
allowed		Required by,
from the form		SlipRequired by,
from notice		SlipDone
Interim measures decided210 Aug-113 May+627 Aug
Investigator appointed311 Aug014 May+6311 Aug
Preservation hold issued311 Aug014 May+6311 Aug
Complainant interviewed513 Aug018 May+6313 Aug
Respondent notified in writing513 Aug-118 May+6212 Aug
Respondent interviewed1020 Aug025 May+6320 Aug
Witness interviews complete1527 Aug-11 Jun+6226 Aug
Findings report delivered2510 Sep-415 Jun+594 Sep
Outcome communicated3017 Sep-722 Jun+568 Sep
Retention lock, file closed3524 Sep-1029 Jun+5310 Sep
Against the complaint form: 0 of 10 steps late, closed in 25 working days inside a 35-day window. Against the notice date: 10 of 10 late, closed in 88.

The notice date is Monday 11 May 2026, because the complainant raised the conduct with her shift supervisor in a 1:1 and the supervisor's own notebook records it. That is 87 calendar days and 63 working days before the form was filed. Nothing else about the file changed. One column did.

The three steps the standard is actually about

An employer is responsible for acts of sexual harassment between fellow employees where it knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show it took immediate and appropriate corrective action. That is a question about what happened first, not about how neatly the file was assembled afterwards. Interim measures +62. Investigator appointed +63. Preservation hold +63.

Page 1 of 1319 words

How to conduct a workplace investigation and write the report

A workplace investigation is the fact-finding an employer does after a report of harassment, discrimination or other misconduct. A sound one starts promptly, is run by someone neutral, secures evidence before it can be deleted, and hears from everyone involved. The workplace investigation report then sets out each allegation, the evidence for and against it, a finding on whether it more likely than not happened, and why.

Date everything from the day the company first knew, not the day a complaint form arrived. The two can be months apart, and only the first shows whether you responded promptly.

A woman in a gray suit holds a clipboard and pen as she listens to a man across a desk in a bright office
An interview should feel like a conversation, not a cross-examination. Photo: Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

Start from the day the company knew

In the US, the EEOC's sexual harassment guidelines hold employers responsible for co-worker harassment when they, or their agents or supervisors, knew or should have known of the conduct1. That holds unless they can show they took immediate and appropriate corrective action. What a supervisor heard can count, even if nobody wrote it down.

Before setting any deadline, find out who heard about it first. Read the earlier records: past complaints about the same person or team, exit interviews from that team, survey comments and managers' 1:1 notes. If a supervisor heard in May, your timeline starts in May, whenever the form came in.

The guidelines set no number of days. In its harassment prevention guide for employers2, California's Civil Rights Department notes that some companies require same-day action on physical harassment or threats of violence. For less urgent complaints, many contact the person who complained within a day or two and aim to finish within a few weeks.

Put interim measures in place right away, such as separate shifts, and make clear they aren't a penalty. Don't move only the person who complained: the EEOC lists transferring an employee to a less desirable position3 among actions that can be retaliation.

Preserve the evidence first

Some evidence deletes itself: chat, email, badge logs and security video can erase on a schedule, and no retention rule brings a deleted record back. California's guide notes that a prompt investigation helps preserve emails, videos and witnesses' memories. The day you hear of a complaint, send a written hold to whoever manages each of these:

  • Team chat and email, including work messages on personal phones
  • Badge and door logs, and security video
  • Schedules, timesheets and payroll
  • The HR case log, training records and signed policies

Get every hold confirmed

Name the people and dates, and chase each owner until they confirm in writing that automatic deletion is off. Tell both people involved not to delete anything.

Choose an investigator, then plan

Pick someone neutral who has done this before. The EEOC recommends that the people who handle complaints be well-trained, objective, and neutral4, with the authority and independence to resolve them. California's guide warns against an investigator with less authority than either person, so bring in an outsider for complaints about senior leaders.

Then write a short plan before the first interview. State each allegation as a numbered fact that evidence can confirm or not: "changed the schedule so she worked alone with him," not "schedule manipulation." If an earlier report went nowhere, add an allegation about that. Note the evidence each one needs.

When to call an employment lawyer

Call one before you start if the complaint involves a senior leader, a possible crime or a likely lawsuit, and before anyone is fired. This guide covers US practice in general terms and isn't legal advice.

Interview with open questions

Ask open questions, such as "Take me through what happened," and let each answer run its course. California's guide says plainly that investigations should not be interrogations2. Record what people said, not what you thought it meant, and have each person check and sign the notes. Interview in this order:

  1. The person who complained

    Start here, in person or by video. Ask who else they told, and when, and follow up every name.

  2. The person accused

    Put each allegation to them separately and clearly, and record each answer.

  3. Witnesses

    Don't share what others said. Ask whether anyone has discussed the matter with them.

  4. Anyone whose own conduct is in question

    Such as a supervisor who didn't pass a report on. Interview them last.

Tell everyone that retaliation is prohibited: the EEOC counts answering questions during an employer investigation3 of alleged harassment as protected activity. Promise only need-to-know confidentiality. Employees represented by a union can ask for a representative at an interview they reasonably believe could lead to discipline, under what the NLRB calls Weingarten rights5.

Weigh the evidence

Findings use the civil standard: did it more likely than not happen? California's guide calls this the preponderance of the evidence2 and warns against demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Questions that test an account

FactorWhat to ask
PlausibilityDoes the account hang together, and could it have happened that way?
CorroborationDoes anything independent confirm part of it?
MotiveDoes the person have a reason to shade the truth?
PerceptionCould they see or hear what they describe?
ConsistencyHas the account changed in ways that aren't easily explained?
DemeanorUse with caution. Few people can read honesty from manner.

Adapted from the credibility factors in California's guide.

Count sources, not statements. Two statements from one person are one source. A witness who reports to either person isn't independent, however honest, so their support counts for less than a bystander's.

When there's nothing but the two accounts, the same guide says to weigh their credibility and decide who is more believable. If they are truly even, the allegation isn't proven. Recheck dismissed allegations as closely as upheld ones, and find whether it happened, not whether it was unlawful.

Write the workplace investigation report

The EEOC's harassment prevention guidance recommends a written report documenting the investigation4, findings, recommendations, and any discipline or corrective action. Open with the allegations and the standard of proof, list who you interviewed and what you reviewed, then give each allegation its own finding and reasons.

ExampleOne finding, written outAn illustrative example written for this guide

Allegation 3: On June 4, the shift lead told Dana that reporting his comments would cost her the night-shift premium.

Evidence: Dana gave the same account twice, and Sam, who reports to her, backs it. The shift lead denies it. Payroll shows the premium never changed, which settles nothing about the remark.

Finding: Not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Both accounts are plausible and consistent, and nothing independent tips the balance. This is not a finding that Dana was untruthful, and the question reopens if she names another witness.

  • A testable allegation. A date, a speaker and words evidence can confirm.
  • Sources, not statements. Dana's two accounts count once; Sam isn't independent.
  • Fair to both. It names the gap without calling anyone a liar.

Tell each person the outcome on the allegations that concern them. A harassment finding doesn't legally require you to fire the harasser: the EEOC lists corrective actions from informal counseling to termination6, aimed at stopping the harassment and preventing more. Before firing anyone, work through a termination checklist.

Put process fixes in their own section, such as a second reporting route in your handbook when a report stalled with one manager. Later, check back with the person who complained for signs of retaliation.

Keep the whole file, handwritten notes included. The EEOC's recordkeeping rule requires covered employers to keep personnel records for one year7. Once a discrimination charge is filed, every relevant record stays until the time to sue runs out or any lawsuit ends.

Before you close the file

  • Every deadline counts from when the company first knew
  • Each hold is confirmed in writing
  • Each finding shows its evidence, independent sources and reasons
  • Each person has heard the outcome that concerns them
  • A date is set to check in about retaliation

The template on this page sets out each step on a sample case. Open it in River and it first asks for the complaint and any earlier reports.

How to use this template

Use the files as they are. Date each step in the Timeline, write the Investigation Plan before anyone is interviewed, run each interview from the Interview Guides and number every item in the Evidence Log. All eight files are filled in with one made-up case, so you can see how they fit together before you clear them.

Choose Edit with AI and River asks for the complaint and any earlier records about the same people or team. It also wants your policy deadlines, the systems that might hold evidence and where everyone works. It comes back first with the date the company knew, the gap to the complaint and which records are about to be deleted. It won't decide discipline or legal liability.

  1. Download it or open it in River

    Get the five Word documents and three CSV sheets free, or open the template in River to work on a case with AI.

  2. Find when the company knew

    Read earlier complaints, exit interviews and managers' notes for the first report, then date every step in the Timeline from it.

  3. Preserve, plan and interview

    Put a hold on records that delete themselves, write the plan, and run each interview from the guide that fits.

  4. Weigh the evidence and write

    Count the independent sources behind each allegation in the Evidence Log, then write the findings and letters, or ask River to draft them.

What's in the template

Twenty evidence items, four allegations scored, four records already goneThe three sheets in the pack. Every figure comes from the same case file.
Workplace Investigation Report Template
RiverAllegation scoring

Every allegation carries its position

Computed from the evidence log, not asserted. Sources are counted rather than items, and a source is independent only where it has no reporting line to either party and no interest in the outcome.

AllegationCorroboratingIndependent
corrob sources		ContradictingIndependent
contra sources		As first
written		What the position
supports
A1 Repeated sexual comments on the warehouse floor9 items, 8 sources62 items, 1 source0SubstantiatedSubstantiated
A2 Rosters altered so she was scheduled alone5 items, 3 sources22 items, 1 source0SubstantiatedSubstantiated
A3 A threat about her shift premium4 items, 2 sources03 items, 2 sources1SubstantiatedNot substantiated on this evidence
A4 The 11 May report was never passed on7 items, 5 sources300Not substantiatedSubstantiated

Two of the four findings moved once each was scored. A1 and A3 were both written as substantiated. A1 rests on six independent corroborating sources. A3 rests on none: four items from two sources, being the complainant herself and one person who reports to her, with a payroll record showing the premium was never altered against it. Two items from one non-independent source is one non-independent source.

A4 went the other way, which is the direction nobody audits, because nobody re-reads the allegations that were dismissed. It has three independent corroborating sources and nothing contradicting it. It read as not substantiated because the investigation was scoped to the respondent's conduct and A4 is about the employer. It is also the allegation that establishes the notice date, so it is the reason every number on this page is what it is.

RiverEvidence Log

Evidence Log

Twenty numbered items. Each carries its source, the source's relationship to both parties, whether that source is independent, the date and manner it was obtained, and every allegation it bears on.

ItemWhat it isSourceRelationshipIndepObtainedBears onDirection
E02Shift supervisor's 1:1 notebook, entry of 11 MayFidelma OkonjoOwn conduct in scope under A4No12 AugA1, A4Corroborates
E03Chat messages, three threads 28 Apr to 6 MayTeam chat exportSystem recordYes12 AugA1Corroborates
E05Roster change log naming who made each swapShift scheduling toolSystem recordYes12 AugA2Corroborates
E09Interview, witness present on the floor 4 MayTobias RennerColleague, no reporting lineYes24 AugA1Corroborates
E12Interview, one of the complainant's direct reportsSelwyn AchterbergReports to the complainantNo25 AugA3Corroborates
E13Follow-up written statement, same direct reportSelwyn AchterbergReports to the complainantNo26 AugA3Corroborates
E15Escalation mailbox log, 11 May to 6 AugCase management systemSystem recordYes12 AugA4Corroborates
E16Exit interview of a former team member, 2 JunAurelio SandovalFormer employee, no relationshipYes12 AugA1Corroborates
E17Respondent's written response to the allegationsRespondentParty to the complaintNo18 AugA1, A2, A3Contradicts
E18Payroll record showing the premium was never alteredPayroll exportSystem recordYes21 AugA3Contradicts
20 items: 11 independent, 5 from a party, 4 from someone with an interest in the outcome. Seven exist only because a preservation hold was eventually issued.

The Relationship column is the one a report form leaves out, and it is what decides how much an item can carry. E02 is the sharpest case: the supervisor's own note is what establishes the notice date, it was written against her own interest, and she is still recorded as not independent on A4 because her conduct is in scope there.

RiverInterview Register

Interview Register

One row per interview, with the guide chosen by relationship rather than one guide reused for everybody. Required-by dates on both anchors.

IntervieweeRelationshipIndepGuide usedRequired by,
from notice		HeldSlipCovers
ComplainantParty to the complaintNoComplainant or respondent18 May13 Aug+63A1 A2 A3 A4
RespondentParty to the complaintNoComplainant or respondent25 May20 Aug+63A1 A2 A3
Tobias RennerColleague, no reporting lineYesWitness1 Jun24 Aug+60A1
Ngozi AchebeColleague, no reporting lineYesWitness1 Jun24 Aug+60A1
Petra HalvorsenColleague, no reporting lineYesWitness1 Jun25 Aug+61A1 A2
Selwyn AchterbergReports to the complainantNoWitness, reporting line declared1 Jun25 Aug+61A3
Fidelma OkonjoOwn conduct in scope under A4NoPerson whose conduct is in scope1 Jun26 Aug+62A4
Seven interviews, three with an interviewee independent of both parties, all three of them on A1. A3 is covered by one interview, and the interviewee reports to the complainant.

That last line is why the register exists and why it is read before the findings are written rather than after. A3's gap was named in the investigation plan on 12 August, before any interview happened, which is the only point at which finding another source is still cheap. It was not closed, and the findings report says so instead of working around it.

The supervisor was moved from third to last after A4 entered scope. She is a subject on that allegation rather than a witness to it, so she needed the written notice and the right to be accompanied that a subject gets, and the amendment is dated at the foot of the plan rather than made silently.

RiverWhat purged

What purged before the hold went out

The hold was issued Tuesday 11 August 2026, 92 calendar days after notice, against a required-by of Thursday 14 May.

SystemWhat it holdsAuto-purgeCoveredPurged onBefore the hold by
Warehouse floor CCTVCamera 3 and camera 7 footage30 days4 May incident3 Jun69 days
Warehouse floor CCTVCamera 3 and camera 7 footage30 days7 May incident6 Jun66 days
Badge access controllerDoor and turnstile events90 days4 May incident2 Aug9 days
Badge access controllerDoor and turnstile events90 days7 May incident5 Aug6 days
Shift scheduling toolPublished rosters and same-day swaps180 days4 and 7 May31 Oct, 3 Novheld
Team chatChannel and direct messages180 days28 Apr, 6 May25 Oct, 2 Novheld
Four of eight system records covering the alleged incidents were already gone. All four would have existed on 14 May.

The badge log for the 7 May incident purged six days before anybody asked for it. A hold triggered at intake would not have saved it; only one triggered at notice would. This is the part of the delay that cannot be argued with, and it is why the pack puts the hold second rather than filing it under process hygiene.

A retention obligation is not a substitute. A personnel record has to be preserved for a year from the date it was made or from the personnel action involved, whichever is later, and once a charge of discrimination is filed, all personnel records relevant to that charge are preserved until final disposition of the charge or action. Every word of that reaches only a record that still exists.

  • Why the Clock Starts at NoticeWhy every deadline runs from when the company first knew, shown on one case dated both ways.
  • Investigation PlanNumbered allegations, conflicts, interim measures, evidence sources, interview order and gaps, written before any interview.
  • Interview GuidesFour guides, one for each relationship to the people involved, with core questions and closing steps.
  • Findings ReportEach allegation's finding beside the evidence for and against it, plus recommendations to fix the process.
  • Outcome CommunicationOutcome letters to the complainant, the accused and a supervisor, plus a memo for whoever decides discipline.
  • Timeline sheetAll 10 steps, each dated from the complaint form and from when the company first knew, with any slip.
  • Interview Register sheetEach interview with the person's relationship to the parties, the guide used, dates and allegations covered.
  • Evidence Log sheetEvery numbered item with its source, independence and allegations, plus records deleted before the hold.

Common questions

What should a workplace investigation report include?

It should set out each allegation, the standard of proof, who was interviewed and what was reviewed, then the evidence for and against each allegation, with a finding and reasons. The EEOC also suggests recording recommendations and any discipline or corrective action taken. Keep the findings factual, and leave legal conclusions to a lawyer.

How long should a workplace investigation take?

Aim for a few weeks, counted from when the company first knew, such as when a supervisor heard, rather than when a form arrived. The EEOC's guidelines set no number of days but expect immediate and appropriate corrective action. California's Civil Rights Department notes that many employers contact the person who complained within a day or two.

Who should conduct a workplace investigation?

Someone trained, neutral and at least as senior as the people involved. The EEOC recommends that whoever handles complaints be objective and neutral, with the authority and independence to resolve them. For complaints about senior leaders, use an outside investigator. In California, the Civil Rights Department says outside investigators must be licensed private investigators or attorneys.

What standard of proof does a workplace investigation use?

The preponderance of the evidence, which asks whether the conduct more likely than not happened. California's Civil Rights Department calls it the standard civil courts use in discrimination and harassment cases, and says demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt sets an unrealistic bar. A finding is possible without an independent witness, but the report should say which way the evidence tipped and why.

Can a workplace investigation be kept confidential?

Only partly. California's Civil Rights Department says investigators can promise limited confidentiality, sharing information only with people who need to know, such as witnesses, leadership and HR. Investigating and acting on a complaint usually means others learn some details. Whether you can require employees to keep quiet depends on National Labor Relations Board rulings that are still shifting, so ask a lawyer first.

Is this workplace investigation template free?

Yes. Download the five Word documents and three CSV sheets free, with no account needed. They come filled in with one made-up harassment case, so you can see how each file works before you replace it with your own. Edit with AI opens the same template in a free River workspace.

What does Edit with AI do?

It opens the template in a free River workspace. River asks for the complaint, earlier records about the same people or team, your policy deadlines and the systems that might hold evidence. It reports first when the company knew and which records are close to deletion, then helps with the plan, interviews and findings. It won't decide discipline.

Sources

  1. eCFR. “29 CFR 1604.11 — Sexual harassment.” ecfr.gov (opens in a new tab)

  2. California Civil Rights Department. “Harassment Prevention Guide for California Employers.” calcivilrights.ca.gov (opens in a new tab)

  3. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Retaliation.” eeoc.gov (opens in a new tab)

  4. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment.” eeoc.gov (opens in a new tab)

  5. National Labor Relations Board. “Weingarten Rights.” nlrb.gov (opens in a new tab)

  6. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Small Business Fact Sheet: Harassment in the Workplace.” eeoc.gov (opens in a new tab)

  7. eCFR. “29 CFR 1602.14 — Preservation of records made or kept.” ecfr.gov (opens in a new tab)

Written by

Chandler Supple

Co-founder & CEO, River

Chandler has spent the last six years working in AI, building tools for millions of users and Fortune 100 companies. In 2025, he co-founded River to build a new kind of operating system for AI agents.

LinkedInGitHubX

Reviewed by

Brian Joseff, Co-founder, River

LinkedInX

Related tools and templates

More free templates