As businesses continue expanding across state lines, workplace investigations have become increasingly complex. A complaint may be reported to a human resources department in Michigan, involve a supervisor located in California, concern employees working remotely in several different states, and require interviews with witnesses located throughout the country. While technology has made it easier than ever to manage geographically dispersed workforces, it has also created new legal and practical challenges when workplace complaints arise.
Many employers assume that once an investigation has been initiated, the process is largely the same regardless of where employees work. In reality, investigations involving California employees often require additional legal considerations that employers may not encounter when investigating complaints involving only Michigan employees. California’s employment laws impose significant obligations regarding harassment prevention, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblower protections, employee privacy, and workplace investigations. These legal requirements frequently influence not only whether an investigation should occur, but also how it should be conducted.
For employers operating in both California and Michigan, workplace investigations should not be viewed as routine human resources exercises. They require thoughtful planning, careful documentation, and a clear understanding of which state’s employment laws may affect the employer’s obligations. Businesses that recognize these issues before beginning the investigation are generally better positioned to resolve complaints effectively while reducing future litigation risk.
The Location of the Employee Often Determines the Legal Analysis
One of the first questions employers should ask when a workplace complaint is received is where the employee performs his or her work. Many businesses instinctively focus on where the company is headquartered or where the human resources department is located. Those facts may be operationally important, but they often do not determine which employment laws govern the investigation.
A Michigan company with a California employee may find that California employment laws influence its response to workplace complaints, even though every member of management is located outside California. Likewise, a California company investigating complaints involving employees working exclusively in Michigan may face a different legal analysis than one involving California personnel.
This distinction frequently surprises multi-state employers. They assume one investigation process can be applied uniformly across the organization regardless of employee location. While consistency remains an important management objective, employers should recognize that California’s employment laws often require additional considerations that may not arise elsewhere.
Understanding which state’s laws potentially apply should therefore become one of the first steps in every significant workplace investigation.
Remote Work Has Changed the Investigation Process
Only a few years ago, most workplace investigations involved employees working in the same office or facility. Investigators could meet with witnesses in person, review physical documents, and observe the workplace environment directly. Today’s investigations frequently look very different.
Remote employees may work hundreds or even thousands of miles apart. Witnesses often communicate primarily through email, Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Slack, text messages, and other electronic platforms. Supervisors may never have met certain employees in person, and important evidence often exists entirely in electronic form. These changes require employers to rethink how workplace investigations are planned and conducted.
California employers should pay particular attention to preserving electronic evidence at the outset of the investigation. Emails, messaging platforms, electronic calendars, video meeting records, access logs, and other digital communications frequently become central pieces of evidence. Waiting until interviews have concluded before collecting this information often results in unnecessary delays or the loss of potentially important evidence.
Technology has made workplace investigations more efficient in many respects. It has also made careful planning significantly more important.
Witness Interviews Require Additional Coordination
Interviewing witnesses in a multi-state investigation often presents logistical challenges that many employers do not initially anticipate. Employees may work in different time zones, have different reporting relationships, or participate remotely from locations where confidentiality becomes more difficult to maintain. Investigators should account for these practical realities before interviews begin.
California employers should also recognize that remote interviews require the same level of preparation as traditional in-person meetings. Witnesses should understand the purpose of the interview, the employer’s expectations regarding confidentiality, and the importance of providing complete and accurate information. Investigators should verify that witnesses are participating from locations where conversations cannot easily be overheard and should confirm that interview notes accurately reflect the information provided.
Because remote investigations often rely more heavily on witness credibility than physical evidence, consistency becomes particularly important. Similar questions should generally be asked of comparable witnesses, and investigators should avoid sharing unnecessary information regarding what other employees have reported during prior interviews.
A carefully organized interview process frequently strengthens both the quality of the investigation and the credibility of the employer’s ultimate findings.
Employment Decisions Should Not Wait Until the Investigation Is Complete
One of the more difficult issues facing multi-state employers involves determining whether interim action should be taken before the investigation concludes. In some situations, allowing employees to continue working together without modification may create unnecessary risk. In others, immediate disciplinary action may itself create legal concerns if the investigation has not yet established what occurred.
Employers should evaluate interim measures carefully. Temporary reporting changes, administrative leave, modified schedules, or other precautionary actions may be appropriate depending upon the allegations and the potential risks involved. These decisions should be documented carefully and should not be presented as disciplinary conclusions before the investigation has been completed.
This issue frequently becomes more complicated in multi-state organizations because managers located outside California may be unfamiliar with California’s legal expectations regarding workplace complaints and retaliation. Businesses should therefore ensure that significant interim employment decisions are reviewed carefully before implementation.
The objective should always be protecting employees while preserving the integrity of the investigative process.
Consistency Does Not Mean Every Investigation Looks the Same
Many employers strive for consistency when conducting workplace investigations, and appropriately so. Employees should expect complaints to be taken seriously regardless of who reports them or where they work. However, consistency should not be confused with rigidity.
A complaint involving a disagreement between coworkers may require a different investigative approach than allegations involving executive misconduct, discrimination, retaliation, workplace violence, or whistleblower activity. Likewise, investigations involving California employees frequently require additional legal analysis compared to matters involving employees working exclusively in Michigan.
Consistency means applying the same commitment to fairness, objectivity, and thoroughness throughout every investigation. It does not require employers to conduct every investigation in exactly the same manner regardless of the allegations or the applicable legal requirements.
Businesses that understand this distinction generally conduct stronger investigations because they tailor the process to the issues presented while maintaining consistent investigative principles throughout the organization.
Strong Investigation Procedures Support Multi-State Growth
As businesses continue expanding into California, Michigan, and other jurisdictions, workplace investigations will only become more important. Employment laws continue evolving, workforces remain geographically dispersed, and employees increasingly expect employers to respond promptly and professionally when workplace concerns are raised.
Companies that develop thoughtful investigative procedures before complaints arise are generally better positioned than employers attempting to create processes under the pressure of an active workplace dispute. Clear reporting procedures, experienced investigators, consistent documentation, management training, and access to experienced employment counsel all contribute to stronger investigations and better employment decisions.
For multi-state employers, workplace investigations should be viewed as part of the organization’s broader compliance strategy rather than simply a response to individual complaints. Businesses that invest in strong investigative practices often reduce litigation risk, strengthen workplace culture, and improve employee confidence throughout the organization. As California and Michigan employers continue building increasingly diverse and geographically distributed workforces, effective workplace investigations will remain one of the most valuable risk management tools available to business leadership.
► About the Author
Rabeh M.A. Soofi is the Founder and Managing Attorney of Axis Legal Counsel, a California law firm representing employers, businesses, entrepreneurs, executives, and investors in employment law, business law, and complex commercial disputes. Ms. Soofi advises employers on wage and hour compliance, employee classification issues, workplace investigations, workplace safety matters, disability accommodations, employee leave obligations, employment litigation, and workers’ compensation-related employment issues. She regularly counsels businesses on risk management, regulatory compliance, and strategies designed to minimize litigation exposure while protecting business operations. Through her legal writing and client advisory work, Ms. Soofi provides practical insights regarding legal developments affecting California employers and businesses.
► Getting Legal Help
AXIS Legal Counsel represents employers, business owners, executives, and management teams in a wide range of employment law matters, including wage and hour compliance, employee classification issues, workplace investigations, disability accommodations, employee leave laws, workplace safety compliance, workers’ compensation-related employment issues, wrongful termination claims, discrimination and harassment claims, retaliation claims, and complex employment litigation.
The firm regularly advises businesses on proactive compliance strategies designed to minimize legal risk, reduce litigation exposure, and address evolving employment law requirements. Axis assists employers throughout California with workplace policies, employee handbooks, regulatory compliance, personnel management, and the defense of employment-related claims before administrative agencies, state courts, and federal courts.
Businesses facing employment law disputes, workplace compliance concerns, wage and hour challenges, workers’ compensation-related employment issues, or government investigations should consult experienced counsel to evaluate potential risks and develop effective legal strategies tailored to their specific operations.
For information on retaining AXIS Legal Counsel to represent your business in connection with any legal matter, contact info@axislc.com for a confidential consultation.
