An Administrator's Guide to California Private School Law

Chapter 12 - Investigations

An investigation might also be triggered by the following:

 When a person, other than the aggrieved person, complains about harassment;  When someone indicates that inappropriate conduct is occurring, even if the word “harassment” is not used;  When a supervisor personally observes inappropriate conduct or language that would violate the school’s policy on harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, or learns about this from some else or otherwise has general knowledge of this type of conduct In this situation, the supervisor must request that any inappropriate conduct cease and that an investigation be conducted.

The investigation should proceed even when the alleged victim or other complainant does not file a formal complaint, does not request or consent to an investigation, or if the alleged victim requests that the school do nothing.

LCW Practice Advisor

Jameson v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1923 Pacific Gas and Electric Company terminated Steve Jameson after an investigation by the company concluded that Jameson had retaliated against another employee for raising a safety issue about him. Jameson argued his termination was improper because the investigation was procedurally flawed and the investigator reached incorrect conclusions. The California Court of Appeal held that the standard of review is not whether the investigation could have been better or more comprehensive or whether the investigator’s conclusions were correct. Rather, the employer could not be held liable for wrongful termination because there was no evidence that the investigation was not inherently fair or that the employer’s reliance on the investigation report was unreasonable or in bad faith. Swenson v. Potter 1924 Melanie Swenson believed a co-worker was sexually harassing her but she did not report it to anyone. Once management became aware of Swenson’s complaints, they spoke to the alleged harasser and commenced an investigation. The investigation did not find sufficient evidence to support formal discipline. Swenson then sued for sexual harassment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose rulings apply to California employers, held the employer could not be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The employer’s prompt response once it learned of the alleged harassment and the fair and unbiased investigation fulfilled its duty to Swenson.

An Administrator’s Guide to California Private School Law ©2019 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 430