🚨 The Internal Affairs investigation was textbook. The complaint was documented.

Witnesses were interviewed. Body-worn camera footage was reviewed. Policies were cited.

The employee was given an opportunity to respond. Leadership approved the findings, discipline was imposed, and everyone believed the matter was over.

Then the lawsuit arrived. The agency's attorneys expected the case to focus on whether the employee committed the alleged misconduct. Instead, opposing counsel focused on something entirely different.

That question has become one of the defining issues in modern employment litigation.

Across the country, employers continue to lose cases not because they lacked evidence of misconduct, but because they failed to demonstrate that the investigation itself was fair, objective, consistent, and professionally documented.

Nearly three decades ago, the California Supreme Court decided a case that still influences how employment investigations are evaluated today.

In Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc., an employee challenged his termination after an internal investigation concluded he had engaged in workplace misconduct.

The employee denied the allegations and argued the employer could not prove the misconduct actually occurred. The court reached a different conclusion.

Rather than asking whether the employer proved the allegations with absolute certainty, the Court examined whether the employer conducted a fair investigation and reached an honest and reasonable belief that misconduct occurred based upon the evidence available at the time the decision was made.

That distinction matters. Internal Affairs investigators are not criminal prosecutors. Administrative investigations are not criminal trials.

The goal is not proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The goal is conducting a professional investigation that gives decision-makers sufficient reliable evidence to reach a fair and defensible administrative conclusion.

That principle remains one of the strongest protections available to employers who conduct quality investigations.

Another landmark decision reinforces this point from a different perspective.

In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, the United States Supreme Court established what employment attorneys commonly refer to as the Faragher-Ellerth Defense.

The decisions recognized that employers place themselves in a significantly stronger legal position when they:

Together, these cases establish two expectations every public safety agency should understand. Conduct fair investigations. Build an organization prepared to respond when misconduct is reported.

Experienced investigators approach allegations differently than inexperienced investigators.

New investigators often begin by asking, "How do I prove this allegation?"

Experienced investigators ask a different question.

"If this investigation is reviewed by an arbitrator, civil service board, jury, or federal judge two years from now, will they believe this process was fair?"

That question changes every investigative decision. It changes how interviews are conducted. It changes how credibility is documented. It changes how evidence is evaluated. It changes how discipline is recommended.

The investigation itself becomes evidence.

Every interview summary. Every email. Every investigative note.

Every supervisory review. Every unexplained delay. Every witness who was interviewed—or wasn't.

Those documents often receive more scrutiny than the misconduct itself. Courts understand that investigators rarely possess perfect evidence.

What they expect is an investigative process demonstrating impartiality, professionalism, consistency, and sound judgment.

⚠️ RISK RADAR

Review your most recent Internal Affairs investigation.

Would an outside reviewer identify any of these warning signs?

🚩 The outcome appeared predetermined before interviews began.

🚩 Witness credibility was never explained.

🚩 Evidence favorable to the employee was omitted from the report.

🚩 Similar misconduct resulted in different discipline without explanation.

🚩 Key witnesses were never interviewed.

🚩 Supervisory reviews consisted only of signatures rather than meaningful oversight.

🚩 Investigation delays were never documented.

One issue alone rarely determines a lawsuit.

Several together often become the foundation for allegations of unfair treatment, retaliation, discrimination, or arbitrary discipline.

Before your next complaint arrives, select one recently closed investigation.

Review it using these questions.

If any answer gives you pause, your agency has identified an opportunity to improve before the next allegation arrives.

Chiefs, Sheriffs, Fire Chiefs, Corrections Directors, and Human Resources Executives should ask themselves one important question.

Is our greatest liability the employee is our investigative process?

✅ Policies establish expectations.

✅ Training develops investigators.

✅ Supervision maintains accountability.

✅ Quality control protects organizations.

Courts rarely expect employers to conduct perfect investigations.

They expect employers to conduct fair investigations. That principle has remained remarkably consistent for decades.

The next lawsuit filed against your agency will not begin when attorneys exchange discovery. It will begin the moment someone reports employee misconduct.

The decisions your organization makes during the hours and days that follow will determine whether your investigation becomes your strongest legal defense or the plaintiff's strongest piece of evidence.

Editorial Standard

The Internal Affairs Intel Report is committed to accurate, evidence-based reporting for public safety leaders. Every legal analysis is developed using primary legal authorities whenever available, including court opinions, statutes, regulations, and official government guidance. Practical recommendations are informed by recognized professional standards, current employment law, and established Internal Affairs best practices. Our mission is to provide police, fire, corrections, and Human Resources professionals with actionable intelligence that strengthens accountability, reduces organizational risk, and supports fair, defensible employee misconduct investigations.