Finding the Facts - Disciplinary and Harassment Investigation

District responded to allegations of misconduct by a high ranking official. 158 But the Court did permit the names of the persons interviewed, including students, parents, staff members, and faculty members, to be redacted from the report. 159 In Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. , 160 a Court of Appeal held that the District complied with the PRA by disclosing a redacted investigation report and written reprimand for sexual harassment. A teacher was issued a written reprimand following an investigation which found that the teacher violated the District’s sexual harassment policy. The court held that while the teacher certainly has a privacy interest in the investigation report and the reprimand, the public’s interest is greater. The court found that a classroom teacher occupies a position of trust and the public has an interest in knowing whether and how the District enforces its sexual harassment. Because an investigation report could be subject to public disclosure, an investigator should ensure that he/she only makes factual findings and does not reach conclusions regarding whether the accused violated any laws or policies (unless asked to do so). The investigation report also should be detailed with respect to how the investigator reached the relevant factual and credibility determinations. Appropriate corrective action takes place after, and relies upon, the findings of a timely, thorough and completed investigation. Thus, in one sense, “corrective action” goes beyond the scope of a workbook that addresses the investigation process. But, a district’s ability to defend its remedial steps (or decision that remediation is not warranted) will depend on the quality of its underlying investigation. Additionally, it is important to remember that harassment investigations are not just legal obligations, they are essential tools for identifying the appropriate discipline and remediation in a particular situation. Given this close nexus between the investigation process and the remedial process, we address briefly here the post-investigation “corrective action” step. For a more detailed discussion of disciplining and remediating harassment, please see our workbook Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation. A. P ROMPT AND E FFECTIVE R EMEDIAL A CTION Employers have an affirmative duty to “take all steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment from occurring, such as affirmatively raising the subject, expressing strong disapproval, developing appropriate sanctions, informing employees of their right to raise and how to raise the issue of harassment under Title VII, and developing methods to sensitize all concerned.” 161 In addition, districts must take corrective action if the investigation findings reveal that harassment in violation of the district’s policy occurred. This remedial action must be: Section 9 T AKING C ORRECTIVE A CTION

Disciplinary and Harassment Investigations ©2019 (e) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 78