A good investigator should always reach a conclusion. It is important to remember that the standard for most workplace investigations is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that if the investigator concludes that it is more likely than not that the allegation is true, it should be substantiated. If not, the allegation should be unsubstantiated.
But what do you do with a he-said/she-said situation? The EEOC has provided excellent guidance on what factors to consider in determining which witness is more credible in such cases.
- Inherent Plausibility
Does one witness’ story make little or no sense? It’s okay to be skeptical. If the witness’ story seems hard to believe, there’s a good chance it’s not true.
- Demeanor
Is one witness more nervous, evasive, or uncooperative? Has he or she displayed one or more deception cues? If so, it’s a good indication that he or she might not be telling the whole truth. (See last month’s article for more on deception cues.)
- Motive to Falsify
Which witness has reason to lie or more to lose? Or, conversely, which witness doesn’t have reason to lie or has nothing to lose?
- Corroboration
Which witness’ story is backed up by others? The more witnesses agree with one version of events, the more likely it is to be true. This is especially true if the witnesses don’t know or have a close relationship with each other.
- Past Record
Does one witness have a history of behaving in a certain manner? Or is his or her behavior completely out of character? Past behavior is often a predictor of future behavior.
Not all of these factors will impact your assessment, but chances are at least one or two will, and that will likely be all you need to draw a conclusion, even in a he-said, she-said case.