Templates by allegation type
Harassment Investigation Report Template & Example
Last updated 2026-08-14
A harassment investigation has to establish more than that the conduct occurred. Depending on the policy and the legal framework in play, it may need to address whether the conduct was unwelcome, whether it was based on a protected characteristic, whether it was severe or pervasive enough to matter and, critically for the organization's own exposure, when the employer knew.
That last element is frequently the most consequential and the most overlooked. An investigation that establishes the conduct but never asks who in management knew and when has left out the fact that most affects the organization's position. And whose knowledge counts is not a detail — it turns on whether the respondent was a supervisor in the sense the case law uses, which is a question about actual authority rather than about job title.
The worked example below is the findings half of a report in a fictional dispatch-team matter. It is included because the failure mode in harassment reports is not bad writing, it is collapsing separate questions into one conclusion: deciding the conduct happened and treating unwelcomeness, policy basis, pervasiveness and notice as settled by that. The example keeps them apart, and it works through the supervisor-status question rather than assuming it. It also leaves two things open, which is deliberate — real reports contain unresolved questions, and an example that ties off neatly teaches the wrong habit.
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.
Harassment 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
- Any complaint alleging harassment, whether or not a protected characteristic is expressly named.
- Complaints framed as 'hostile work environment' or a pattern of conduct over time, where the pattern rather than any single incident is the allegation.
- A single serious incident, where the question is severity rather than accumulation.
- Any matter where the respondent has some authority over the complainant, because supervisor status changes both the notice analysis and the organization's exposure.
- Complaints that arrive after the complainant has already mentioned the conduct to someone in management, formally or otherwise.
Worked example
Fictional scenario. Matter RW-2026-035 — a separate matter from the dispatch-team investigation (RW-2026-038) used elsewhere in this library, at the Northgate depot and involving different people: four numbered allegations against R. Mensah (Shift Lead) by A. Doyle (Dispatcher), covering conduct between January and April 2026. It is set out here rather than in the shared matter because the shared one turns on unwelcomeness and this one turns on supervisor status, and no single matter demonstrates both well. The example shows the elements addressed separately rather than collapsed into one conclusion, and works the supervisor question through rather than assuming it. Two questions are left open at the end.
Allegations and the elements each engages
Allegation 1: that between January and April 2026 the respondent made repeated comments about the complainant's appearance, in the dispatch office, in the hearing of others. Engages unwelcomeness and pervasiveness. Allegation 2: that on or about 14 March 2026 the respondent placed his hand on the complainant's lower back while she was seated at the console. Engages unwelcomeness and severity. Allegation 3: that the respondent altered the complainant's shift pattern in April 2026 after she asked him to stop. Engages the tangible-action question and is also pleaded as retaliation, which is dealt with in the separate retaliation report and not here. Allegation 4: that the comments were based on the complainant's sex. Engages the protected-characteristic element.
Setting the allegations out this way before the evidence summary showed that Allegation 4 had almost no evidence attached to it, which is addressed below.
Unwelcomeness
I find the conduct in Allegations 1 and 2 was unwelcome. The complainant asked the respondent to stop in early April 2026 (see Conflict 1 in the credibility analysis), and told Witness A at the time that she had done so. The respondent's characterization of the comments as compliments goes to his intent, not to whether the conduct was welcome to her; the two are separate questions and a finding on the second does not require any finding about the first.
I have given no weight to the fact that the complainant did not object to the earliest comments. A delay in objecting to someone who directs your daily work is unremarkable and does not indicate the conduct was welcome. I have likewise given no weight to two occasions, both described by Witness B, on which the complainant laughed at a comment. Witness B's account is that the laughter was brief and that the complainant left the room shortly afterwards on both occasions, which is at least as consistent with discomfort as with welcomeness.
Protected characteristic and policy basis
On Allegation 4 I make no finding. The complainant's account is that the comments were about her appearance and that she believed a male colleague would not have received them; she was unable to point to an instance of the respondent commenting on a male colleague's appearance or declining to, and no witness addressed the point either way. That is not enough to find the conduct was based on sex, and it is not enough to find it was not. The allegation is recorded as not substantiated on the evidence available, which is a statement about the evidence and not a finding that the conduct was not characteristic-based.
The findings on Allegations 1 and 2 do not depend on that. Section 4.1 of the Respectful Workplace Policy prohibits 'comments about a colleague's physical appearance that a reasonable person would find unwelcome', and section 4.4 prohibits 'unnecessary physical contact', neither by reference to any characteristic. The findings are made under those provisions. I express no view on whether the conduct would meet the legal definition of harassment under any statute — that is outside my scope and is a legal question.
Severity or pervasiveness
I have assessed Allegation 1 as a pattern rather than incident by incident. The complainant identifies eleven occasions; she dates four of them specifically and describes the remainder as 'most weeks' over a fourteen-week period. Witness A recalls 'five or six' and Witness C recalls 'a couple'. The respondent accepts making comments 'now and then' and disputes the frequency. Taking the accounts together I find the comments occurred on at least eight occasions across roughly fourteen weeks, in a shared workspace, in the hearing of colleagues.
No single comment in Allegation 1 would be serious enough on its own. That is not the test I have applied. Assessed cumulatively — frequency, the fourteen-week duration, the public setting, and their continuation after Witness A's evidence is that the complainant had visibly stopped responding to them — I find the conduct was pervasive within the meaning of section 4.1. I record that had I evaluated the eleven occasions separately, each would have appeared trivial, which is precisely the error the policy's reference to a 'course of conduct' is directed at.
Allegation 2 I have assessed on severity rather than pervasiveness, as a single incident. It is not established: see the credibility analysis, where the conflict on this allegation could not be resolved.
Respondent's status: supervisor or co-worker
The respondent's title is Shift Lead. That title does not answer the question, so I asked what he could actually do. From the Dispatch Operations Manual and from the Operations Manager: the Shift Lead builds the weekly roster and assigns console positions and routes; he can send a dispatcher home mid-shift on safety grounds; he can raise a performance concern on a standard form, which goes to the Operations Manager. He cannot hire, cannot dismiss, cannot impose any disciplinary sanction, and cannot alter pay, grade or benefits. The Operations Manager's evidence is that a Shift Lead's performance concern is 'looked at, not rubber-stamped', and she gave two instances in the last year where she took no action on one.
On that basis I find the respondent was not a supervisor in the Vance sense in relation to the complainant: he was not empowered to take tangible employment actions against her. I record that this is not a clear-cut determination. His authority over rostering and console assignment is real, and a reassignment can amount to a tangible employment action where it carries significantly different responsibilities. It is the foundation of Allegation 3. My finding is that the routine exercise of that rostering authority is not tangible-action authority; whether the specific April roster change crossed that line is the subject of Allegation 3 and I have not decided it here.
Employer notice
I asked about prior reports because the complaint did not address them. The complainant states she mentioned the comments to the Shift Supervisor in March 2026 in passing, and did not make a formal report. The Shift Supervisor recalls a conversation but describes it as the complainant 'venting', and did not escalate or record it. I find that a report was made to a member of management in March 2026 and that it was not escalated.
Separately, and whether or not that conversation is characterized as a report: the comments in Allegation 1 were made in an open dispatch office on at least eight occasions, and two of the three witnesses recall them without prompting. I find the conduct was sufficiently open that management would have been aware of it had anyone been attending to it. That finding does not depend on the March conversation.
On the organization's response after the formal complaint of 21 April 2026, the account is different: the complaint was acknowledged within two working days, this investigation was commissioned on 24 April, and the respondent was moved to a different shift pattern on 25 April with the complainant's roster left unchanged. I make no finding on whether the Shift Supervisor's handling of the March conversation breached policy, as that was outside the scope I was given; I have recorded it under Matters Outside Scope for the organization's attention.
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.Allegations with the elements each engages
Number each allegation and identify, for each, which elements it would need to satisfy. Doing this before the evidence summary keeps the analysis honest, because you can see which elements have no evidence attached.
4.Unwelcomeness
Whether the conduct was unwelcome to the complainant, and how that is evidenced: an express request to stop, avoidance behavior, a contemporaneous complaint to a colleague. Take care with participation: someone who responded in kind, or who did not object at the time, may still have found conduct unwelcome, and there are well-understood reasons why people do not object to a superior in the moment.
5.Protected characteristic or policy basis
Whether the conduct was based on a protected characteristic, or engages a policy that covers conduct regardless of characteristic. Many workplace policies prohibit disrespectful conduct generally, meaning a finding can be made under policy even where the legal harassment elements are not met. Say which basis you are applying.
6.Severity or pervasiveness
A single serious incident can suffice; so can an accumulation of individually minor ones. Assess the pattern as a whole rather than dismissing incidents one at a time. Evaluating each in isolation is the classic route to under-finding a pervasive pattern.
7.Respondent's status: supervisor or co-worker
Determine this expressly rather than inferring it from the org chart, because it changes which notice analysis applies. A supervisor, for these purposes, is someone the employer empowered to take tangible employment actions against the complainant — to hire, fire, fail to promote, reassign with significantly different responsibilities, or cause a significant change in benefits (Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (2013)). Authority to direct daily work is not enough on its own. Titles settle nothing: a 'team lead' or 'shift lead' may or may not qualify, and the answer comes from what the person could actually do, so ask who signs off on discipline, who approves reassignment, and whether a recommendation from this person is ordinarily acted on without independent review. Record the evidence for the determination. If it is genuinely borderline, say so and say which way you have resolved it — a borderline call recorded as borderline survives review, and one presented as obvious does not.
8.Employer notice and response
Who in management knew, when, and what they did. Establish this even where nobody asked you to. A prior report to a supervisor that went nowhere is usually the single most important fact in the matter. Which analysis applies follows from the section above. Where the respondent is a supervisor and the harassment culminated in a tangible employment action, the employer is vicariously liable regardless of what it knew. Where it did not, the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense may be available and the notice analysis becomes central: what the employer did to prevent and correct the conduct, and whether the complainant had a reasonable route to report that she did not use. Where the respondent is a co-worker, liability turns on whether the employer knew or should have known and failed to act. Note that 'should have known' does not require a report at all — conduct open enough that management would have seen it can suffice.
9.Evidence summary
Accounts and documents, attributed and dated, without analysis. In harassment matters organize this by incident rather than by witness. The pattern is the evidence, and a witness-by-witness layout hides it.
10.Credibility assessment
Harassment matters are disproportionately one-to-one, so credibility usually decides them. Apply the objective factors and record the reasoning.
11.Findings of fact
One finding per numbered allegation: substantiated, not substantiated, or inconclusive, with the evidence relied on.
12.Policy analysis
Apply the facts found to the policy provisions quoted, keeping the two questions separate.
13.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.
Evaluating incidents one at a time
Individually minor incidents can be pervasive in aggregate. Dismissing each in isolation systematically under-finds pattern harassment.
Treating a lack of contemporaneous objection as consent
There are well-understood reasons people do not object to a superior in the moment. Absence of objection is weak evidence of welcomeness.
Not establishing when the employer knew
Prior notice that went unactioned is usually the most consequential fact for the organization, and it is rarely in the written complaint.
Making a legal conclusion about statutory harassment
Most investigative mandates cover policy, not law. State which policy provision applies and leave the legal characterization alone.
Taking the respondent's job title as the answer on supervisor status
The question is what the person was empowered to do, not what they were called. A 'team lead' with no authority over hiring, discipline or reassignment is a co-worker for this purpose, and a report that assumes otherwise applies the wrong notice analysis to every finding that follows.
Treating 'no report was made' as the end of the notice question
Where the respondent is a co-worker the test is whether the employer knew or should have known. Conduct open enough that management would have seen it can establish notice with no report at all, so the absence of one is not a stopping point.
Recording a borderline determination as though it were obvious
Close calls on supervisor status, pervasiveness and credibility are normal. One recorded as close, with the reasoning, holds up on review; the same call asserted flatly invites the reader to find the difficulty you did not mention.
Questions
- The respondent has resigned. Do I finish the investigation?
- Usually yes, and the reasons are practical. The complainant is entitled to an outcome, a pattern may involve others still employed, the organization may need the findings if a claim follows, and stopping can itself look like a failure to take the complaint seriously. What changes is the purpose. There is no disciplinary decision to inform, so confirm the scope with whoever commissioned it before continuing.
- Does harassment have to be based on a protected characteristic?
- Under most statutory frameworks, yes. But most workplace policies also prohibit disrespectful or bullying conduct regardless of characteristic, so a policy finding is often available where a statutory one would not be. Be explicit about which basis you are applying.
- Can a single incident amount to harassment?
- It can, where it is sufficiently serious. Severity and pervasiveness are alternatives rather than cumulative requirements — one serious incident or an accumulation of lesser ones.
- What if the complainant participated in the conduct?
- Apparent participation is relevant to unwelcomeness but not decisive. Consider the power dynamic, whether participation was a coping response, and whether the complainant objected later. Record the reasoning rather than treating participation as an answer.
- How is a hostile work environment complaint different to investigate?
- The unit of analysis changes. A single-incident complaint asks whether that incident was serious enough; a hostile work environment complaint asks whether an accumulation of incidents, most of which look minor on their own, amounts to a course of conduct. That has two practical consequences for the report. Organize the evidence summary by incident rather than by witness, because a witness-by-witness layout hides the pattern that is the allegation. And make the pervasiveness finding explicitly cumulative, saying so on the page — a report that assesses eleven occasions one at a time will find eleven trivial incidents and miss the case.
- Does it matter whether the respondent was the complainant's supervisor?
- Yes, and it is worth determining even when nobody asks you to, because it decides which notice analysis applies to everything that follows. The test is about authority rather than title: whether the employer empowered the person to take tangible employment actions against the complainant — hire, fire, fail to promote, reassign with significantly different responsibilities, or significantly change benefits. Authority to direct someone's daily work does not by itself qualify. Where the respondent is a co-worker, the question becomes whether the employer knew or should have known and failed to act.
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
Allegations with the elements each engages
Unwelcomeness
Protected characteristic or policy basis
Severity or pervasiveness
Respondent's status: supervisor or co-worker
Employer notice and response
Evidence summary
Credibility assessment
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
- EEOC — Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999) — flagged on the EEOC site as superseded in 2024 by guidance since rescinded; carries the Vance notice
- Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013) — the supervisor definition: empowered to take tangible employment actions
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) — the affirmative defense where no tangible employment action was taken
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) — what counts as a tangible employment action
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.
Credibility Assessment Template & Example (Workplace Investigation)
A structured credibility assessment template using objective factors (plausibility, corroboration, consistency and motive) with a filled-in worked example showing the reasoning written out.
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.
Discrimination Investigation Report Template & Example
A discrimination investigation report template covering the adverse action, the protected characteristic, comparators and the employer's stated reason.
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.