Planning and scoping templates
Workplace Investigation Plan Template & Example
Last updated 2026-07-30
The investigation plan is written before anyone is interviewed and revised as the matter develops. Its purpose is to make the investigator's choices deliberate and recorded: who will be interviewed and in what order, what evidence will be sought, what falls outside scope, and what interim measures are needed while the investigation runs.
A note on the authority here: the EEOC rescinded its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace on 22 January 2026 (a 2–1 Commission vote), after parts of it had already been vacated in Texas v. EEOC in May 2025. No replacement has been issued. The underlying statutes and Supreme Court precedent are unchanged, and the EEOC's surviving guidance still assesses an investigation on promptness, the neutrality of the investigator, and whether it was thorough enough to reach 'a reasonably fair estimate of the truth'. A written plan is not itself a legal requirement — it is the cheapest way to be able to demonstrate all three afterwards. More practically, the plan is what stops scope drift — the slow expansion of an investigation into adjacent grievances that nobody commissioned and the report then has to explain.
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.
Workplace Investigation Plan 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
- At the outset of any formal investigation, before the first interview.
- When an investigation is reassigned and the new investigator needs the reasoning so far.
- When scope is contested and the mandate needs to be agreed in writing with the commissioning party.
Worked example
Fictional scenario. The plan as written on 2 June 2026, before any interview in the dispatch-team matter — and then the amendment made on 16 June, showing what a live plan looks like rather than a retrospective one.
Scope — in and out (as written 2 June)
In scope: whether the conduct described in the complaint of 29 May 2026 occurred, and if so whether it breached the Respectful Workplace Policy.
Out of scope: what disciplinary action, if any, is appropriate; whether any legal liability arises; the complainant's ongoing performance review, which the Director raised and which I have declined to fold in.
Witnesses and interview sequence
1. Complainant (planned 9 Jun) — to itemize the allegations, which the written complaint does not do.
2. Witness A, dispatch coordinator (planned 12 Jun) — named by the complainant as present for two incidents.
3. Witness B, dispatch coordinator (planned 12 Jun) — named by the complainant, relevance unknown.
4. Respondent (planned 19 Jun) — last, so he can be put to the complete case rather than a partial one.
Departure from sequence: none planned.
Evidence to obtain — short retention first
IMMEDIATE (retention risk):
- Corridor CCTV covering the route between dispatch and the loading bay, 15–20 April. Request to Facilities today. Retention believed to be 30 days, so this is already marginal.
- Door access logs, same corridor, same window.
STANDARD:
- Respectful Workplace Policy v3 with effective date and the respondent's signed acknowledgment.
- Any prior complaint involving either party.
- The complainant's messages of Feb–May, with her consent.
Interim measures
The respondent is the complainant's team lead and sets her shift allocation. That is a specific, articulable risk to the integrity of the investigation, not a general concern about atmosphere.
Proposed: shift allocation for the dispatch team moves temporarily to the Shift Supervisor. The respondent's pay, grade and duties are otherwise unaffected. The complainant's shift pattern does not change — moving her would be read as retaliatory whatever the intention, and I have recorded that I considered and rejected it.
Decision to be taken by the Director of HR, not by me. Review date: 30 June.
Amendment — 16 June 2026
During her interview on 9 June the complainant raised, for the first time, that she had asked the respondent to stop and that comments continued afterwards. That is a distinct allegation and it is not in the written complaint.
I requested a scope extension on 15 June. The Director agreed in writing on 16 June. Allegation 2 was added and the respondent's interview was held back to 19 June so he could be put to it at the same time as the rest.
Recording the amendment, the reason and the approval is what distinguishes a scope change from scope drift.
Section-by-section guide
What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.
1.Matter and mandate
Who commissioned the investigation, under what authority, and what they asked you to determine. If you are an external investigator, this is where the engagement terms are summarized — including anything agreed about privilege.
2.Allegations to be investigated
Itemized and numbered from the outset. Do this before planning interviews, because the allegation list determines who needs to be interviewed and about what. If the complaint is narrative rather than itemized, break it down here and confirm the breakdown with the complainant.
3.Scope — in and out
Two explicit lists. The 'out' list matters more than the 'in' list, because it is the one you will point to when someone asks why an adjacent issue was not pursued.
4.Conflicts and impartiality check
Record any prior relationship with the parties, any reporting line that could compromise independence, and the conclusion you reached about whether you can investigate impartially. An investigator who reports to the respondent is a structural problem best identified on day one.
5.Witnesses and interview sequence
List witnesses with what each is expected to speak to, and set an order. The conventional sequence is complainant first, then witnesses, then respondent — so the respondent can be put to the fullest version of the allegations. Record the reason if you depart from it.
6.Documentary and electronic evidence to obtain
What you need, who holds it, and — importantly — anything at risk of deletion. Retention periods for CCTV, access logs and messaging systems are often measured in weeks. Identify and request those first; a plan that gets to them in week three is a plan that loses them.
7.Interim measures
Whether any separation, schedule change or suspension is needed while the investigation runs, and the reasoning. Interim measures should not be punitive and should not, on their face, presume the outcome — which is why moving the complainant rather than the respondent is so often criticized.
8.Confidentiality and non-retaliation
What each participant will be told about confidentiality — and this is a live legal issue in US workplaces, union or not. In Stericycle, Inc. (2 August 2023) the NLRB overruled Boeing and abandoned the categorical treatment that had made investigative-confidentiality rules presumptively lawful. Under the current standard a rule is presumptively unlawful if an employee, viewed as someone economically dependent on the employer, could reasonably interpret it to chill Section 7 activity; the General Counsel bears that initial burden, and the employer must then prove the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest and that it is unable to advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored rule. The practical effect is that a blanket 'do not discuss this with anyone' instruction is hard to defend, while a specific, time-limited instruction tied to an articulated integrity-of-the-investigation interest is much easier. Record the exact wording you will use, plus the non-retaliation reminder each participant receives.
9.Timeline and review points
Target dates for each phase and the date the plan will be revisited. Promptness is assessed by reference to the facts of the matter, and an unexplained gap in a timeline is difficult to defend after the fact.
Common mistakes
The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.
Writing the plan after the first interviews
The plan's value is in shaping the investigation, not in documenting one that already happened. A retrospective plan is a formality and reads like one.
Not identifying short-retention evidence on day one
CCTV and access logs are frequently overwritten within weeks. Evidence lost to a retention policy is indistinguishable, in the report, from evidence nobody looked for.
Imposing interim measures that burden the complainant
Moving the person who complained rather than the person complained about is routinely read as retaliatory, regardless of intent.
Treating the plan as fixed
Scope legitimately changes when new allegations surface. What matters is that the change, the reason and the approval are recorded — not that the original plan survived.
Questions
- The complainant says my scope is too narrow. Do I have to expand it?
- Not unilaterally — scope belongs to whoever commissioned the investigation. But take it seriously and put it back to them in writing, because a complainant who says an issue was ignored is describing the criticism most likely to land later. Record the request, the decision and the reason either way.
- How long should a workplace investigation take?
- There is no fixed period, and promptness is judged on the facts of the matter — its seriousness, its complexity, and whether any delay had a legitimate cause. What matters more than the elapsed time is whether every gap in the timeline has a recorded reason. A six-week investigation with a documented two-week wait for a witness returning from leave is defensible; a three-week investigation with an unexplained silence in the middle is harder to explain.
- Who should be interviewed first in a workplace investigation?
- Conventionally the complainant, so the allegations can be fully itemized, then witnesses, then the respondent — who can then be put to the complete case rather than a partial one. Departing from that order is sometimes justified, for example where there is an urgent safety issue, but record why.
- Can we tell employees not to discuss the investigation with anyone?
- Not as a blanket instruction, in most US workplaces. The NLRB's 2023 Stericycle decision overruled Boeing and removed the categorical protection investigative-confidentiality rules previously enjoyed: a rule is presumptively unlawful if an employee could reasonably read it as chilling protected concerted activity, and the employer must then justify it as narrowly tailored to a legitimate and substantial business interest. A confidentiality request tied to a specific interest — witness recollection, evidence integrity — and limited to the duration of the investigation is far more defensible than a general prohibition. This applies to non-union workplaces too. As of mid-2026 Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) remains operative and is still being applied by Regional Offices and ALJs — but the Board regained quorum in January 2026 with a changed composition and is widely expected to revisit it. Confirm the current position before relying on this.
- Do employees have a right to representation in an investigatory interview?
- In unionized workplaces, yes. Under NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), an employee may request a union representative at an investigatory interview they reasonably believe may result in discipline. The right must be invoked by the employee — the employer has no duty to offer it. Once it is invoked you have exactly three lawful options: grant it and wait for a representative; end the interview immediately; or give the employee a clear choice between continuing without a representative and ending the interview. What you may not do is deny the request and keep questioning — that is itself an unfair labor practice. The representative assists the employee and may seek to clarify facts, but you need not bargain with them. The right does not extend to non-union employees (IBM Corp., 341 NLRB 1288 (2004)).
The blank template
Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.
Matter and mandate
Allegations to be investigated
Scope — in and out
- [In scope: ...]
- [Out of scope: e.g. disciplinary recommendation, legal liability, unrelated performance concerns]
Conflicts and impartiality check
Witnesses and interview sequence
Documentary and electronic evidence to obtain
- [Short-retention items to request immediately: CCTV, door access logs, call records, chat history]
- [Standard items: personnel file, policy versions with effective dates, prior complaints, emails]
Interim measures
Confidentiality and non-retaliation
Timeline and review points
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
Allegation Matrix Template & Example
An allegation matrix template that tracks every allegation to its evidence and its finding, so nothing is left unaddressed in the final report.
Investigation Evidence Log & Chain of Custody Template
An evidence log template recording what was collected, from whom, when, and how it was preserved — including evidence sought but not obtained.
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.
Workplace Investigation Checklist: Phases, Clock and Disruptions
A phase-by-phase workplace investigation checklist with the promptness clock, the five-day gap rule, and protocols for when the process is interrupted.
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.