Templates by allegation type
Discrimination Investigation Report Template & Example
Last updated 2026-07-30
Discrimination complaints turn on a comparison: was this person treated less favorably than someone else would have been, because of a protected characteristic? That makes comparator evidence central in a way it is not in harassment matters, and it makes the employer's stated reason for the decision a specific thing to test rather than accept.
The analytical trap is asking whether the decision-maker is prejudiced. That is rarely provable and rarely the right question. The productive question is whether the stated reason holds up — whether it was applied consistently, whether it was documented at the time, and whether it shifted once challenged.
That is not an arbitrary choice of approach. It mirrors the structure US courts use for circumstantial discrimination claims under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973): the employee establishes a prima facie case, the employer articulates a legitimate non-discriminatory reason, and the employee then has the chance to show that reason is pretext. An investigation that tests the stated reason rigorously is doing, in advance, the work that will be done later if the matter is litigated — which is why a reason that was never documented, never applied to anyone else, or has changed since the complaint is the most probative material you can surface. (Note the framework is an evidentiary structure for litigation, not a standard you are applying; and some Justices have questioned its continued utility. You are testing the reason, not adjudicating a Title VII claim.)
Jurisdiction
Written primarily against US federal standards — EEOC guidance, NLRB decisions and Title VII case law — and against general investigative practice. State law, sector rules (public employers, education, regulated industries) and collective agreements impose additional requirements this page does not cover. Where a page borrows a concept from another jurisdiction it says so explicitly. Outside the US, treat the structure as transferable and the legal references as not.
Discrimination Investigation Report template
Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.
When to use this document
- Complaints about promotion, pay, allocation of work, discipline or dismissal alleged to be characteristic-based.
- Complaints about a policy applied unevenly across a team.
Worked example
Fictional scenario. A promotion complaint in the same company: a Warehouse Operative alleges she was passed over for a Team Lead vacancy because of her pregnancy, announced six weeks before the decision.
The adverse action and knowledge
ADVERSE ACTION: Non-appointment to the Team Lead (Nights) vacancy, decision taken 8 May 2026 by the Operations Manager, communicated 12 May. The role carries a £4,100 salary uplift.
KNOWLEDGE: The complainant told the Operations Manager she was pregnant on 24 March 2026, in a one-to-one, and confirmed it by email the same day (App. 3). Knowledge is therefore established and dated — and it is a threshold issue, because a decision cannot be based on a characteristic the decision-maker did not know about.
Comparators
The successful candidate is a Warehouse Operative with 4 years' service to the complainant's 6, one prior acting-up assignment to her three, and no formal supervisory qualification where she holds one.
On the stated criteria — service, acting-up experience, qualification — the complainant scored higher on all three. That does not establish discrimination. It does mean the stated reason has to do real work.
I also examined the two Team Lead appointments made in the preceding 18 months. Both went to the candidate with the longer service. That is a small sample and I have not treated three decisions as a pattern; overstating that would undermine the rest of this report. It is recorded because it bears on whether the criteria were applied consistently.
Testing the stated reason
The stated reason is that the successful candidate 'showed more leadership potential in the interview'.
Contemporaneous? Partly. Interview scoring sheets exist and were completed on the day. But the 'leadership potential' criterion does not appear on the scoring matrix circulated to candidates on 2 April (App. 6), which lists four criteria, none of them that one. It appears only in the Operations Manager's handwritten note.
Applied consistently? The same manager's notes for the two prior appointments contain no reference to leadership potential.
Stable? The reason has shifted. On 12 May the complainant was told the decision was 'very close and came down to interview performance'. On 3 June, in the grievance response, it was 'a need for someone able to commit to the full night rotation without adjustment'. That second reason is materially different, and it is the first appearance in writing of anything touching her pregnancy.
It is that shift, not any evidence of animus, that carries this finding. I have not asked whether the Operations Manager is prejudiced — that is rarely provable and it is not the question.
Finding
Allegation 1: SUBSTANTIATED to the extent that the appointment decision was influenced by the complainant's pregnancy.
Basis: a criterion introduced after the published matrix and applied to no other appointment; a stated reason that changed under challenge; and a second reason that turns directly on availability during pregnancy and the adjustment period following it.
I make no determination as to whether this constitutes unlawful discrimination under any statute. That is a legal question outside my scope. My finding is that section 2.2 of the Equal Opportunities Policy was breached.
Section-by-section guide
What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.
1.Matter identifiers
Parties, dates and who commissioned the investigation.
2.Scope and standard of proof
What you were asked to determine, what is expressly excluded, and the standard applied — ordinarily the preponderance of the evidence.
3.The adverse action or treatment
Identify precisely what happened — the decision, its date, and who made it. Vagueness here defeats the whole analysis, because there is nothing specific to compare.
4.Protected characteristic relied on
Which characteristic, and whether the decision-maker knew of it. Knowledge is a threshold issue — a decision cannot be based on a characteristic the decision-maker did not know about.
5.Comparators
Who was treated differently, and whether their circumstances were genuinely comparable. Test the comparison rigorously in both directions — an imperfect comparator weakens the complaint, but the absence of any comparator does not defeat it where other evidence exists.
6.The employer's stated reason
The reason given for the decision, and then the tests that matter: was it documented at the time or reconstructed afterwards; was it applied consistently to others; has it changed since the complaint was made. A reason that shifts under challenge is the most probative evidence available in most discrimination matters.
7.Pattern and statistical context
Where available, how similar decisions were made across the team or period. Handle small numbers carefully — a difference across six decisions is not a pattern, and overstating it damages the report's credibility.
8.Evidence summary and credibility
Lead with the documentary record — the decision paperwork, the contemporaneous notes, the comparator files — and put the accounts second. Discrimination matters are usually decided on what was written down at the time, not on what anyone recalls about it afterwards.
9.Findings of fact
One finding per numbered allegation: substantiated, not substantiated, or inconclusive, with the evidence relied on.
10.Policy analysis
Apply the facts found to the policy provisions quoted, keeping the two questions separate.
11.Investigator statement and appendices
Attestation of impartiality, the limits of the report, signature, and a numbered appendix index.
Common mistakes
The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.
Looking for evidence of prejudice
Explicit prejudice is rarely available and rarely necessary. Test the stated reason for consistency, contemporaneity and stability instead.
Accepting the stated reason at face value
The reason is the thing to be investigated, not the answer to the investigation. Ask whether it was documented at the time and applied to others.
Over-reading small-sample patterns
Three decisions is not a trend. Overstating statistical inference undermines the credibility of the whole report.
Not establishing decision-maker knowledge
Where the decision-maker did not know of the characteristic, the causal chain fails at the first link.
Questions
- There is no comparator. Can I still make a finding?
- Yes. A comparator is useful, not essential. Where none exists, the analysis rests on whether the stated reason was documented at the time, applied consistently, and stable under challenge — a reason that changed once the complaint was made is often more probative than any comparator would have been.
- What if there is no obvious comparator?
- A comparator is helpful but not essential. Where none exists, focus on whether the stated reason is documented, consistent and stable, and on any other evidence of characteristic-based decision-making.
- Should the investigation decide whether the law was breached?
- Usually not. Most mandates cover whether policy was breached on the facts found. Legal characterization is a question for counsel, and offering one exceeds most investigative scopes.
- What is the McDonnell Douglas framework and does it apply to my investigation?
- It is the burden-shifting structure US courts use for circumstantial Title VII claims (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)): prima facie case, then a legitimate non-discriminatory reason from the employer, then an opportunity to show that reason is pretext. It is a litigation evidentiary framework, not a standard an investigator applies. It is worth understanding anyway, because testing the stated reason for documentation, consistency and stability is exactly the analysis a later fact-finder will perform.
The blank template
Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.
Matter identifiers
Scope and standard of proof
The adverse action or treatment
Protected characteristic relied on
Comparators
The employer's stated reason
Pattern and statistical context
Evidence summary and credibility
Findings of fact
Policy analysis
Investigator statement and appendices
Download this template
Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.
Sources
Related templates
Workplace Investigation Report Template & Example
A complete workplace investigation report template with a filled-in example report, plus a section-by-section guide covering scope, evidence, credibility, standard of proof and findings.
Retaliation Investigation Report Template & Example
A retaliation investigation report template built around the three elements — protected activity, adverse action, and causal connection — with timeline analysis at its center.
Findings of Fact Template: Substantiated, Not Substantiated, Inconclusive
A findings-of-fact worksheet that ties each allegation to the evidence relied on, the standard applied, and a clear substantiated / not substantiated / inconclusive outcome.
This page is a documentation aid, not legal advice. Workplace investigation requirements vary by jurisdiction, sector and policy, and a template cannot tell you what your matter requires. The worked example describes a fictional scenario.