Interview and statement templates
Complainant Interview Questions & Template
Last updated 2026-07-30
The complainant interview has a job the other interviews do not: it converts a grievance into a list of discrete, provable allegations. A complaint arrives as a story — "he's been making my life difficult since January" — and the investigation cannot proceed until that story is broken into specific assertions with dates, witnesses and policy hooks.
The second job is expectation-setting. This is where the complainant learns what the process will and will not do, including that the investigator determines facts rather than outcomes, and that confidentiality has limits. Getting this wrong at the outset produces most of the friction that surfaces later.
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.
Complainant Interview Questions 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
- The first substantive interview in almost every investigation.
- Re-interviewing when new allegations emerge or a witness contradicts the original account.
Worked example
Fictional scenario, continuing the dispatch-team matter. The point in the 9 June interview where an open narrative gets converted into itemized allegations — and where a question about contemporaneous records surfaces the evidence that later decides the matter.
Open narrative first
INV: Tell me in your own words what's been happening. Take as long as you need — I'll ask questions afterwards.
COMP: It's been since about February. He makes comments. About how I look, what I'm wearing. At first I thought I was being oversensitive so I didn't say anything. Then it kept happening and in April I told him to stop and he did it again anyway. And there was the thing in the corridor.
[Narrative taken in full without interruption; four minutes. Only then did I begin to itemize.]
Itemizing
INV: You said 'he makes comments'. I need to take those one at a time. Can you tell me about a specific occasion you remember clearly?
COMP: The clearest one is a message. He texted me.
INV: Do you still have it?
COMP: I think so.
[Message thread located on her handset during the interview; dated 14 March; photographed with her consent and logged as item 4.]
INV: You mentioned telling him to stop in April. Did you tell anyone else at the time?
COMP: I told Priya. I think I texted her about it.
INV: Would you be willing to look?
COMP: ...here — 8th of April. 'Said something to him yesterday, we'll see if it makes any difference.'
[Logged as item 5. This message was created before any complaint existed and is the strongest corroboration in the matter. She had not mentioned it in her written complaint and would not have volunteered it — it surfaced only because the question was asked directly.]
What the itemization produced
The written complaint said 'he has been making comments since February'. That is not a provable assertion and it cannot be put to a respondent fairly.
After itemization:
1. Repeated comments about appearance, Feb–May 2026 (five occasions described; one in writing, 14 March).
2. Comments continued after she asked him to stop in early April 2026.
3. Physically blocked her path in the corridor, approximately 17 April 2026.
Allegation 2 did not exist before this interview. It emerged from the narrative, required a scope amendment, and is one of the two allegations ultimately substantiated.
Section-by-section guide
What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.
1.Interview details
Logistics recorded contemporaneously, including who else was present.
2.Opening script and admonitions
Read this, do not improvise it, and record that you read it. Cover: who you are and who engaged you; that you are impartial and do not decide discipline; that the organization will receive your findings; the confidentiality expectation and its limits; the non-retaliation commitment; and that they should tell you if they remember something later.
3.Open narrative
Let them tell it uninterrupted first. Resist structuring too early — premature questioning shapes the account and you lose detail the complainant would have volunteered. Take the narrative down, then go back and itemize.
4.Allegation-by-allegation detail
Now itemize. For each incident: what happened, exact words where possible, when, where, who else was present or nearby, what they did afterwards, who they told, and whether anything was recorded in writing at the time. Contemporaneous records — a text to a friend that evening, a diary note — are disproportionately valuable and complainants often forget they exist.
5.Impact and effect
What changed for them at work. Keep this focused on workplace effect rather than inviting detailed medical or psychological disclosure, which is rarely within scope and creates handling obligations you may not be equipped for.
6.Prior reports and organizational knowledge
Whether they raised any of this before, to whom, and what happened. Prior notice to the organization is frequently the most consequential fact in the whole investigation, because it changes what the organization knew and when.
7.Witnesses and evidence identified
Who they say can speak to each incident, and what documents or messages exist. Ask specifically rather than generally — 'who else was in the room' produces better recall than 'who are your witnesses'.
8.Outcome sought and closing
Ask what resolution they are looking for — it informs interim measures and sometimes reveals that the complaint is about something adjacent to what was written down. Close by confirming next steps and the route for adding information later.
9.Note verification
Record whether the notes were read back or provided for review, and any corrections the interviewee made. Corrections are not a weakness in the notes; an absence of any record of review is.
Common mistakes
The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.
Structuring the account before hearing it
Early questioning shapes the narrative and loses volunteered detail. Take the open account first, then itemize.
Promising confidentiality you cannot deliver
The respondent must be put to the allegations, which usually means the source becomes apparent. Promising anonymity you cannot maintain destroys trust at exactly the wrong moment.
Not asking about contemporaneous records
A text sent the same evening is often the strongest corroboration available, and complainants routinely do not think to mention it.
Skipping the question about prior reports
Whether the organization was already on notice can matter more than the incidents themselves.
Questions
- The complainant wants to withdraw the complaint. Do I stop?
- Not automatically. Ask why — a withdrawal prompted by pressure or fear of retaliation is itself a serious matter. Whether the investigation continues depends on the seriousness of what was alleged, any risk to others, and what the organisation knows; that decision belongs to whoever commissioned it, not to the complainant and not to you. Record the request, the reason given and the decision.
- Can the complainant bring a support person to the interview?
- Policy and jurisdiction vary, and in unionized workplaces representation rights may apply. Decide the approach before the interview, apply it consistently to both parties, and record who was present and in what capacity.
- Should investigation interviews be recorded?
- Practice differs. Recording produces an unimpeachable record but can suppress candour and creates a discoverable artifact. If you do record, get consent, check the applicable consent rules, and apply the same approach to every interview in the matter.
- What if the complainant asks to remain anonymous?
- Explain early that the respondent must be given a fair opportunity to answer the allegations, which usually makes the source identifiable. Anonymity can sometimes be preserved for peripheral witnesses, but rarely for a complainant.
The blank template
Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.
Interview details
Opening script and admonitions
- [Investigator's role, who engaged them, and that they do not decide discipline]
- [What will happen to the information and who will see the report]
- [Confidentiality expectation, stated carefully, and its limits]
- [Non-retaliation reminder and how to report retaliation]
- [Invitation to correct or supplement at any point]
Open narrative
Allegation-by-allegation detail
- [Incident 1 — date, location, what was said or done, witnesses, aftermath]
- [Did you tell anyone at the time? Who, when, and what did you say?]
- [Is there anything in writing from around that time — messages, notes, emails?]
Impact and effect
Prior reports and organizational knowledge
Witnesses and evidence identified
Outcome sought and closing
Note verification
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
Investigation Interview Questions for the Accused Employee
A respondent interview template covering notice, the right to respond to each allegation, and the questioning sequence that makes a finding defensible.
Witness Interview Questions & Template
A witness interview template with an opening script, non-leading question structure, and a record of what the witness could and could not speak to.
Workplace Investigation Plan Template & Example
An investigation plan template covering scope, allegations, witnesses, evidence, sequencing and interim measures — written before the first interview.
Workplace Investigation Interview Questions by Allegation Type
Investigation interview questions grouped by allegation type — harassment, discrimination, retaliation, bullying — plus the sequencing logic behind them.
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.