Among the challenges involved in running a business, employers of large-scale operations field a large volume of internal complaints. Many of these may seem petty and inconsequential. For example, an employee who has consistently failed to improve their performance dislikes that their supervisor has now placed them on a PIP. Hence, a formal complaint. Or, perhaps an employee disagrees with a new policy implemented by their recently hired supervisor, and they submit a complaint. It is easy for employers to hold a default mindset of, “this is not worth our time,” when in receipt of dozens upon dozens of such complaints each month.
One thing to keep in mind for employers is the importance of reading beyond the face of a complaint, which may not be communicated in the most effective way by the complainant. Is the new policy to which the complainant objects being applied inconsistently across the organization? Is the complainant a member of a protected class? Or, is that employee upset about their PIP saying they’ve performed the same as their teammates, who might not be of a protected class?
‘Yes’ answers to these questions should set off alarm bells and trigger an official investigation bearing the hallmarks of a quality workplace investigation: prompt, thorough, and impartial. Complainants need not include specific language, like “discrimination,” “harassment,” or “retaliation” to communicate concerns that implicate Title VII. If an employer is on notice that an employee is, in effect, communicating concerns that they are being treated unfairly on the basis of protected characteristics, the law requires a proper investigation into the situation. In that vein, water cooler talk or workplace rumors of potentially unlawful conduct could legally put an employer on notice that an investigation is in order, even if there has been no formal complaint.
Sometimes, the internal HR or Employee Relations representatives who receive hundreds of complaints per year are too burned out to take a fresh look at a complaint that might expose the company to liability. That is especially true when the complaining party is a “frequent flyer” who has brought several prior concerns to their attention. But, sometimes the loudest employees have a point. Bringing in an outsider who is unaware of internal frustrations at the parties and unaffected by the tedium of the normal course of voluminous internal complaints can help ensure that the complaint receives the attention it requires.