[ Field Notes ]
Once a week — investigation technique, employment law, documentation that holds up, and AI in HR practice. No fluff.
Get it in your inbox
[ Archive ]
Retaliation claims rarely turn on whether an adverse action happened — they turn on timing, and the law governing timing is less settled than most practitioners assume.
As EEO-1 reporting requirements face rescission, the agency's enforcement priorities show where scrutiny is actually moving.
A 2-1 vote opens a rulemaking process that could eliminate a data collection requirement HR teams have built compliance and investigation practices around for decades.
The boundaries set at intake shape everything that follows — and poorly defined scope is one of the most common sources of investigative failure.
What experienced investigators do when witnesses don't want to cooperate — and why the approach matters for the outcome.
The language investigators use in their conclusions — and how they connect findings to evidence — determines whether a report survives legal scrutiny.
The quality markers courts and agencies apply consistently — and how to build them in from the start
Employers face legal exposure when investigations move slowly — but the standard for 'prompt' is more fact-specific than most practitioners realize.
The decision about who gets interviewed first — and when — shapes everything that follows, from evidence integrity to legal defensibility.
The documented reasoning behind a credibility finding is what makes an investigation legally defensible — or not.
The architecture of a written report determines whether findings hold up under adversarial scrutiny — not just whether the right conclusion was reached.
As large language models enter HR workflows, the question isn't whether to use them — it's which decisions they can support and which ones they can't.
[ Subscribe ]
Don't miss the next issue.
One email per week. Investigation technique, employment law, and AI in HR practice. Unsubscribe any time.