Employers must investigate complaints of harassment or discrimination. Employers must also protect the participants in an investigation from retaliation by supervisors and co-workers. These “musts” are non-negotiable under the law. As a result, most employers advise employees who are involved in an investigation, to refrain from discussing the investigation or interview and to keep information about the process strictly confidential. Moreover, from the employer’s perspective, the request for confidentiality makes sense—limiting the discussion regarding the investigation/interviews is an attempt to ensure that candid and truthful information is provided—if the information is freely shared and discussed between employees it could be compromised by a “group think mentality” or fear of retaliation. However, such blanket prohibitions on discussing the interview/investigation violates an employee's Section 7 rights: “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of … other mutual aid or protection."
But often there is a way to comply with the law while at the same time advising an employee to keep the details of the investigation/interview confidential. The question an employer must ask in each case before insisting on confidentiality is as follows: “will the employer be able to satisfy the court that the employer’s interest in requesting confidentiality in the investigation outweighs any potential infringement of an employee section 7 rights?’” In making that determination, the employer should consider if confidentiality is required for one or more of the following permissible reasons:
- Protection of witnesses;
- Avoiding the destruction of evidence;
- The testimony is at risk of being fabricated or altered; or
- It is necessary to prevent a cover-up of the facts.
An employer must show that the confidentiality is warranted based on an objectively reasonable grounds for believing that "the integrity of the investigation will be compromised without confidentiality."
Takeaway: Before an investigation (regarding any issue) starts, an employer should document the reasons they believe confidentiality is required.
The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness. The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.
This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk. We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability. Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein. We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.
We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.
If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.