Notices, letters and closure templates
Notice of Investigation Letter to an Employee: Template & Example
Last updated 2026-07-30
Until the interview begins, this letter is the whole of the respondent's notice of the case against them. It carries the fairness burden alone for however many days sit between it and the interview room, and it is the first document produced when the adequacy of that notice is challenged.
The free templates in circulation are not neutral. Acas — the UK conciliation service — publishes a template letter telling an employee they are the subject of an investigation, and two of its sentences travel: "If it is found that there is a case to answer, you will be invited to attend a formal disciplinary hearing", and "So that the investigation can be conducted as fairly as possible, we request that you keep the matter confidential. Any breach of confidentiality may be considered a disciplinary matter." Both are quoted verbatim from the Acas template linked in the sources below. Search either string and you will find them on US-hosted template pages. The first announces the disciplinary route in the document that opens the fact-finding; the second is a blanket rule with a threat attached, drafted for a jurisdiction that has no Section 7.
This page rebuilds the letter for US practice and shows the letter as actually sent — plus the supplementary notice that had to follow it five days later when the scope was extended, which is the situation the template farms never address.
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.
Notice of Investigation Letter to an Employee: 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
- As soon as the scope is settled and before any interview with the respondent is arranged.
- Where an interim measure has already changed the respondent's duties and they know something is happening but not what.
- When the scope is extended or a new allegation emerges that the respondent has not yet been given in writing.
- Where the respondent supervises the complainant or any witness, so the no-contact and non-retaliation instruction exists on paper before the risk materializes.
Worked example
Fictional scenario, continuing the dispatch-team matter (RW-2026-038). Complaint dated 29 May 2026 and received 30 May; acknowledgment 1 June; investigation opened and plan written 2 June; interim measure decided 3 June by the Director of HR, effective 4 June; complainant interviewed 9 June. This is the notice R. Hall, HR Business Partner and investigator, sent to Sean Whelan, Team Lead, on 11 June — followed by the supplementary notice of 16 June, the day the scope extension was approved.
The notice letter — 11 June 2026
PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL — ADDRESSEE ONLY
Sent to personal email at Mr Whelan's request, 11 June 2026
Dear Mr Whelan,
Re: Matter RW-2026-038
Why you are receiving this letter. A complaint has been made that concerns your conduct, and an investigation into it began on 2 June 2026. This letter sets out what is being looked at, invites you to an interview, and explains what happens next. No finding has been made about any of it. This is not a disciplinary letter and it does not start a disciplinary process.
What is being investigated. Two matters:
1. That between approximately February and May 2026 you made comments about a colleague's appearance on repeated occasions. She describes five occasions, and comments to the effect that she looked good or looked nice, made in the dispatch office and by message.
2. That on or about Friday 17 April 2026, in the corridor between the dispatch office and the loading bay, you stood in her path and did not move to let her pass.
The complainant is Nadia Okafor, Dispatch Coordinator. I am telling you her name because you could not fairly answer either matter without it.
These two matters are the whole of what I am authorized to investigate today. If the scope is extended, or a further matter is identified, you will be given it in writing before you are asked to answer it. You will not be handed something new for the first time in the room.
How any finding will be made. If I make a finding on either matter it will be on the preponderance of the evidence — whether it is more likely than not that the conduct occurred. That is the standard for an internal workplace finding. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is not a legal determination of liability.
Your interview. I would like to interview you on Wednesday 17 June 2026 at 10:00 in Meeting Room 2 at the depot. I expect it to take up to two hours. Present will be me and a note-taker, J. Byrne, who takes no other part in the investigation. I have set the date six days from this letter so that you have time to consider the two matters above and gather anything you want me to see. If that date does not suit you, or you want longer, tell me by 15 June and I will move it. Asking to reschedule will not be held against you and will be recorded as a scheduling change and nothing else.
Who you may bring. If you are in a bargaining unit represented by a union at this site and you want a union representative present, ask and it will be arranged; that does not depend on whether you are a member. Company policy separately allows you to bring a colleague who is not involved in the matter. Whoever attends is there to support you and may ask me to clarify something; they are not there to answer for you. Please tell me by 16 June if someone is attending, so the room is right.
Confidentiality. So that accounts are not influenced and evidence is not affected, I ask you not to discuss the details of this investigation with Ms Okafor or with anyone you know or believe may be a witness, for as long as the investigation is running. That does not prevent you from discussing your own terms and conditions of employment with colleagues, from speaking to a union, from taking legal advice, or from contacting any government agency.
Contact and retaliation. Do not contact Ms Okafor about this matter, directly or through anyone else. The same applies to any person you believe may be a witness. You remain team lead for other purposes, which is exactly why this instruction is in writing. Any action taken against a person because they made a complaint or gave evidence is prohibited — shift allocation, work allocation, training access, performance review, overtime, or the way they are spoken to. The test is not whether the action is severe; it is whether it would discourage a reasonable employee from complaining or from supporting a complaint. Anything meeting that description would be treated as a serious matter in its own right, whatever the outcome of this investigation. If you are unsure whether an ordinary supervisory decision falls inside that instruction, ask me before you make it and I will tell you.
Documents. Please keep any messages, emails, rosters or notes relevant to the two matters above, including anything on a personal device, and do not delete them. If there is something you want me to see, bring it on 17 June or send it beforehand.
The arrangement already in place. On 3 June the Director of Human Resources told you in person that shift allocation for the dispatch team would move temporarily to the Shift Supervisor with effect from 4 June. That decision was hers, not mine. It is precautionary, it implies no finding, it is not recorded on your file as discipline, and she will review it on 30 June. This letter follows it rather than preceding it because the matters to be investigated were not settled until I had interviewed the complainant on 9 June. I should have told you on 3 June that a letter would follow, and I did not; I am telling you now.
What happens next. After your interview I may need further information from you or from others, and if so I will come back to you. I expect to conclude by mid-July and you will be given the outcome in writing. If either matter is substantiated, a separate process would follow and you would have an opportunity to be heard in it. That is a different process from this one and no part of it has been started.
Support. The Employee Assistance Program is available on 0800 555 0117.
If anything in this letter is unclear, call me on extension 2287.
Sincerely,
R. Hall
HR Business Partner, and investigator in Matter RW-2026-038
The supplementary notice — 16 June 2026
Dear Mr Whelan,
Re: Matter RW-2026-038 — supplementary notice
Further to my letter of 11 June, the Director of Human Resources extended the scope of this investigation in writing today. Until today the matter below was outside what I was authorized to investigate, which is why it is not in my letter of 11 June. I am giving it to you in writing now rather than putting it to you for the first time in the interview.
3. That the comments described at item 1 of my letter of 11 June continued after Ms Okafor asked you to stop. She states that she asked you to stop in the first week of April 2026, and that comments were made on approximately two occasions in the two weeks that followed.
This is a separate matter from item 1, not a restatement of it. Item 1 concerns whether the comments were made. Item 3 concerns whether they continued after a request to stop. You may accept item 1 in whole or in part and still dispute item 3; they turn on different evidence.
Your interview was set for 17 June. I am moving it to Friday 19 June 2026, same time and place, so that all three matters are put to you at one interview rather than your being called back for a second one. That leaves you three days on this item as against eight on the others. If you want longer on this item, tell me by 12:00 on 18 June and I will either take it at a second session in the week beginning 22 June or move the whole interview. If I do not hear from you I will proceed on 19 June with all three, and you may still ask for more time on this item once we reach it.
The numbering above is for correspondence only. In the report the matters will be set out in chronological order, so this item will appear as Allegation 2 and the corridor matter as Allegation 3. I mention it so that you are not later comparing two documents with different numbers and wondering what changed.
Everything in my letter of 11 June — confidentiality, contact, retaining documents — continues to apply unchanged.
Sincerely,
R. Hall
What was withheld, and the reason written down for each
Three things were kept out of the 11 June letter, and each has a reason recorded in the investigation plan on the day the decision was made. A reason written later is an argument; a reason written on 11 June is a record.
Witness A's identity. Withheld because she is the respondent's subordinate and he controls her rota, which is a live evidence-integrity concern rather than an inconvenience. Note the limit of what that achieved: he was told a colleague in the dispatch office corroborated comments on dates he could place, and three coordinators were in the team in that period. Withholding a name is not the same as protecting a witness. The instruction against retaliation and the review of her rota do that work; the omission of the name only slows the inference down.
The text of the 14 March message. Withheld because it was going to be put to him in the interview and it was his own message, so authorship was not in genuine doubt. Holding back a document he would need time to reconstruct or contextualize would be a different decision and a worse one — the saving is tactical and the cost is his ability to answer.
Ms Okafor's exact words. Withheld because the substance was given instead. Handing over the complaint document fixes a version of the allegations the complainant may not have intended as final, and puts her characterizations in front of the respondent as though they were the case against him.
What was not withheld: her name. The business asked that she not be identified. That could not be honored. Item 2 is an allegation about a specific interaction with a specific person in a specific corridor, and there is no version of it a respondent can answer anonymously. She was told that on 1 June, at the acknowledgment stage, rather than on 11 June when it would have read as a decision taken against her.
The confidentiality paragraph, and the sentence it replaced
The company's existing template said this:
"So that the investigation can be conducted as fairly as possible, we request that you keep the matter confidential. Any breach of confidentiality may be considered a disciplinary matter."
That is the Acas sentence, verbatim. It is drafted for a jurisdiction with no Section 7, and under Stericycle a rule of that kind has a reasonable tendency to chill: an employee who depends on the job could read "keep the matter confidential" as covering the investigation, the underlying conduct, or the company's handling of it — all protected concerted activity — and the disciplinary threat is what makes that reading consequential. The employer would then have to prove a legitimate and substantial interest no narrower rule could serve, and "as fairly as possible" states no interest at all.
Worth knowing why this template survived so long unchallenged. Between December 2019 and August 2023, Apogee Retail made investigative-confidentiality rules presumptively lawful, and a great deal of US template stock was written or left alone in that window. Stericycle overruled Boeing and the rules cases resting on it, which is the ground Apogee stood on. Anything drafted to the 2019 position is drafted to a superseded one, and it will not be obvious from the document that it was ever current.
The replacement does four things the original does not: names the interest (accounts not influenced, evidence not affected), bounds the duration, names who it covers rather than everybody, and carves out in terms the four things the respondent may do anyway.
And it drops the threat. The instruction that carries a consequence in this letter is the no-contact and non-retaliation instruction, which is about conduct toward people rather than speech to colleagues, and which is a legitimate instruction to give a supervisor. Keeping the consequence where it belongs, and out of the confidentiality paragraph, is most of the fix.
Five sentences the letter deliberately does not contain
"An allegation of harassment has been made against you." A legal label attached to no facts. He cannot answer a label, and whether the conduct amounts to harassment is the question — putting the answer in the notice letter signals that the outcome is fixed.
"If it is found that there is a case to answer, you will be invited to attend a formal disciplinary hearing." The Acas sentence again. It schedules the disciplinary route in the document that opens the fact-finding, and every later assurance that no finding has been made is read against it.
"We take these matters extremely seriously and expect a swift resolution." Reads as a commitment to a result. A date is information; a sentiment is a hint.
"Please continue to attend work as normal." Innocuous in intent, but it raises suspension as a live possibility nobody had mentioned. If no measure is contemplated, do not mention the absence of one.
"Please provide a written account of your version of events before the meeting." Constantly requested and a bad trade. It produces a document drafted against the allegation before any evidence has been put, hardening a position the respondent then has to defend rather than revise. Invite documents; do not commission a statement.
Section-by-section guide
What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.
1.Letter header and matter identifiers
Matter reference, date, and a subject line that survives being read over someone's shoulder. Date it the day it goes out, not the day it was drafted. Send it by a route the respondent controls — a letter about allegations sitting in a shared printer tray is a disclosure the organization made, not one the respondent did.
2.Purpose of the letter, and what it is not
One short paragraph doing two jobs: confirming that an investigation into the respondent's conduct has begun, and stating that no finding has been made and this is not a disciplinary letter. Say the second part first rather than burying it at the end, because the respondent's reading of every sentence that follows is set by what they think the letter is. Where the respondent is the complainant's supervisor, the date on this letter also does work for the employer: Burlington Industries v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton make the employer's exercise of reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment part of the affirmative defense, and prompt notice is the visible start of correcting it.
3.The allegations, and what you withhold
That the respondent must be told enough detail to answer is the requirement the respondent interview page sets out; what this letter adds is the decision about what stays out of it. Each allegation gets the conduct in plain terms, the date or period, and the location or medium. Describe the conduct; do not name the offense. Where you withhold something — a witness identity, a document, the complaint itself — write the reason down at the time. If the reason is that disclosure would tip off the respondent, that is not a reason, that is a fairness problem described in tactical language. And be honest about what withholding a name achieves: a respondent who is told a colleague in the dispatch office corroborated a comment made on a named date can often work out who that was from the rota.
4.What has and has not been decided
State that no conclusion has been reached, that the purpose of the interview is to obtain their account before any finding, and that the investigator has no decision-making authority over discipline. Then state the standard: any finding will be made on the preponderance of the evidence — more likely than not. Respondents assume one of two things, that nothing is proved without a confession or that the outcome is already fixed, and a sentence naming the standard is cheaper than an interview spent arguing with either assumption.
5.Interview invitation and notice period
Date, time, location or platform, expected duration, and who will be present — then an express statement that a reasonable request to reschedule will be accommodated and will not be held against them. Private-sector employers face no statutory notice period, but two things can supply one: a collective bargaining agreement, which routinely specifies notice for investigatory interviews, and public employment, where Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill requires notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond before deprivation of a property interest in the job. Check both before you pick a date. Where neither applies, the question you will actually be asked is whether the time given was adequate to prepare, and the only good answer is a specific number of days with a reason behind it.
6.Who may accompany the respondent
"The right to be accompanied" is a UK statutory right — section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 — and has no general US equivalent; templates that assert it are borrowing from a system you are not operating in. In the US there are two sources. NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975) gives an employee in a union-represented bargaining unit the right to request a representative at an interview they reasonably believe may lead to discipline. The right attaches to representation, not to membership — in a right-to-work state a non-member in the unit has it. The employee must invoke it; the employer is not obliged to advise them of it; nobody can invoke it for them. Under IBM Corp., 341 NLRB 1288 (2004) the right does not extend to unrepresented employees — a 3-2 decision that itself overruled Epilepsy Foundation, 331 NLRB 676 (2000), and the NLRB's own Weingarten page records that the General Counsel has asked the Board to return to the earlier rule. Draft on the current position and expect to revisit it. The second source is your own policy, which may grant a support person to anyone; whatever it grants, say so in the letter.
7.Confidentiality, scoped rather than blanket
Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), the General Counsel must prove that a work rule has a reasonable tendency to chill Section 7 activity, read from the perspective of an employee subject to the rule, economically dependent on the employer, and contemplating protected concerted activity; if a coercive reading is reasonable the rule is presumptively unlawful even where a non-coercive reading is also reasonable, and the employer must then prove a legitimate and substantial business interest that no more narrowly tailored rule could serve. Note what changed: Apogee Retail LLC, 368 NLRB No. 144 (2019) had held investigative-confidentiality rules presumptively lawful, and it did so by placing them in Boeing Category 1. Stericycle overruled Boeing "and the work rules cases relying on them, including those that placed rules into an 'always lawful' category based simply on their subject matter." A confidentiality paragraph drafted to Apogee is drafted to a superseded standard. A paragraph that survives Stericycle names the interest (evidence integrity), bounds the duration (while the investigation is running), names the people it covers (the complainant and known witnesses), and expressly carves out discussing terms and conditions of employment with colleagues, contacting a union, seeking legal advice, and contacting a government agency. Then drop the disciplinary threat — the threat is what does most of the chilling work.
8.Non-retaliation and no-contact instruction
Separate from confidentiality and stated as an instruction, not a request. Use the US standard: under Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) a retaliation claim turns on a materially adverse action — one that well might dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge — which is a lower bar than a change in pay or grade and a different bar from the UK's "detriment". The respondent is usually the complainant's supervisor, so the instruction has to name conduct they might otherwise perform in the ordinary course: shift allocation, work assignment, training access, performance review, tone. Add a line inviting them to check with you before doing anything they are unsure about — it converts an ambiguous supervisory decision into a documented question rather than a retaliation allegation.
9.Preservation of evidence
Ask them to retain anything relevant — messages, emails, rosters, notes — including on personal devices, and not to delete it. Also invite them to send anything they want considered. A respondent who deletes a thread after receiving a letter that said nothing about preservation has a defensible explanation; one who deletes it after this paragraph does not.
10.Any interim measure already in place
The memo recording the measure is a separate document with its own reasoning; what this letter does is connect it to the investigation, because otherwise the sequence the respondent experienced was: their job changed, then silence, then a letter. Restate briefly that the measure is precautionary, implies no finding, is not recorded as discipline, and has a review date, and name who decided it — if that was not you, say so in terms. If there is a gap between the measure and this letter, explain what filled it. An unexplained gap reads as a decision taken without them.
11.What happens next and indicative timeframe
What follows the interview, an indicative completion range you can meet, and confirmation that the outcome will be given in writing. State that if any allegation is substantiated a separate process would follow in which they would be heard. That is a conditional statement about a process that has not started; it is not the Acas sentence, which schedules a disciplinary hearing before a single fact has been found.
12.Support, contact and signature
A named contact with direct details, and any support available. Sign it from whoever is running the process — and if a separate person decided the interim measure, do not blur the two signatures, because a letter that appears to come from the decision-maker undercuts what it says about no finding having been made. Keep the copy list to people who need to act on it; every name on it is a person who knew about the allegations before any finding.
Common mistakes
The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.
Dating the letter the day it was drafted and sending it three days later
Every deadline in the letter — the reschedule cutoff, the days of preparation you will later say you gave — is counted from the date on the page. A three-day drafting lag silently converts eight days' notice into five, and when the respondent points out the postmark it looks like backdating rather than a slow signature.
Emailing it to a work account you are about to cut off
Interim measures and IT changes are often actioned by different people on different days. A respondent whose access is suspended before they open the letter is a respondent who did not attend an interview they never saw scheduled, and the file records a non-attendance rather than a delivery failure. Send to an address they will still control next week and confirm receipt.
Letting the respondent's manager pre-brief them verbally
It is meant kindly and it always drifts — "they're saying you harassed her", or "it's nothing, it'll blow over". The organization's first notice then becomes an unrecorded conversation with a different meaning from the letter, and the only account of it is the respondent's. If someone must be told a letter is coming, give them the sentence to say.
Copying the line manager as a courtesy
Everyone on the distribution list is a person who knew about unproven allegations, and one of them will write a performance review three weeks later. In a subsequent retaliation claim the copy list is early disclosure and it is very hard to explain why a manager with no role in the process needed it.
Answering the "who told you this?" call informally
The respondent phones the day the letter lands and the investigator, wanting to be helpful, says more than the letter does. That call is now the notice, it is unrecorded, it contradicts the withholding decision, and the respondent's recollection of it is the only version in existence. Take the question, say it will be answered in writing, and answer it in writing.
Mentioning Weingarten in some matters and not others
You are not obliged to advise a represented employee of the right, and either position is defensible — but a file showing it volunteered to some respondents and not others is discoverable and reads as selective. Pick a position and apply it to every matter.
Renumbering allegations between the notice and the report without saying so
A reader comparing the two documents sees Allegation 2 mean something different in each and concludes the case shifted. One sentence in the supplementary notice, and a line in the report's allegations section, closes it permanently.
Questions
- The respondent sent a five-page written response before the interview. What do I do with it?
- Log it as evidence, read it before the interview, and still hold the interview. It is his account and it is admissible material, but a document drafted against the allegations is a prepared position, and the value of the interview is what happens when specific evidence is put to it. Do not treat the response as agreement to anything it does not expressly concede, and do not let it shorten the interview to a checklist — put each allegation anyway and record where the oral account and the written one differ, because that difference sometimes matters later.
- Do I have to tell the respondent who made the complaint?
- Usually yes, because most allegations cannot be answered without it. An allegation about a specific interaction with a specific person on a specific date has no anonymous version. Where the complainant asks for anonymity, say at the acknowledgment stage that you will protect it as far as the allegations allow and that in most cases they will not allow it — the worst moment to have that conversation is after you have sent the notice. Witness identities are a different question and can more often be withheld, though a respondent with a rota and two dates can frequently infer them anyway.
- The respondent's attorney has written asking to attend the interview. Do I have to allow it?
- In a private-sector, non-union workplace, generally no. Weingarten covers a union representative in a represented bargaining unit, not counsel of choice, and nothing else obliges you to admit an attorney to an internal investigatory interview. Whether you should is a separate question: refusing can escalate a matter that was containable, and admitting counsel usually slows the interview without changing what it produces. Where you refuse, do it in writing, offer the accompaniment the policy does allow, and expect any subsequent disciplinary stage to be a different negotiation.
- Something new came up after I sent the notice. Do I send another letter?
- First decide whether it is genuinely new. Additional detail about an allegation already given — a fourth instance of the same conduct in the same period — is particularization, and you can put it in the interview provided the respondent had fair notice of the allegation itself. A different allegation is a scope question before it is a correspondence question: get the extension approved by whoever owns scope, then send a supplementary notice stating the new matter with the same particularity as the original, acknowledge the shorter preparation time, and offer either a second session for that item or a rescheduled interview.
- Do I need to send a letter at all, or can I just call the respondent in?
- Send the letter. Verbal notice cannot be produced later, and the first question in any fairness challenge is what the respondent was told and when. There is a second reason: a respondent called in cold receives their notice and their opportunity to respond in the same minute, which is not a genuine opportunity to respond to anything. If circumstances force an immediate conversation — a safety issue, evidence at risk — hold it, then confirm in writing the same day what was said.
- The respondent has gone off sick since receiving the letter. What do I do?
- Pause the interview, not the investigation. Continue with evidence that does not require him, confirm in writing that the process is paused as to his interview and that no finding will be made without hearing from him, and set a review point rather than an open-ended wait. If absence continues, offer alternatives — written questions, a shorter session, a neutral location, a representative attending on his instructions — and record each offer and the response. Proceeding to findings without his account is sometimes unavoidable; doing it without a documented trail of offers is not defensible.
- The respondent forwarded my letter to the whole team. Can I discipline him for that?
- Tread carefully. If your paragraph asked him not to discuss the matter with the complainant and believed witnesses, forwarding it to the team breaches that only as to the people covered — and disciplining him for the rest starts to look like enforcing the blanket rule Stericycle prohibits, particularly if colleagues read the forward as an invitation to discuss how the company is handling it. What you can do immediately is manage the consequences: check whether anyone who received it is a witness you have not yet interviewed, get to them quickly, and record the disclosure and its date in the evidence log, because it will affect how you weigh later accounts.
The blank template
Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.
Letter header and matter identifiers
Purpose of the letter, and what it is not
The allegations, and what you withhold
- [Item 1 — conduct described, date or period, location or medium]
- [Item 2 — ...]
- [Whether the complainant is named, and if not, why not]
- [Anything withheld, and the reason recorded for withholding it]
- [A line committing to give any further matter in writing before it is put to them]
What has and has not been decided
Interview invitation and notice period
Who may accompany the respondent
- [Union representation, where the respondent is in a represented bargaining unit — stated by reference to the unit, not to membership]
- [Any support person permitted by company policy, and any limits on who]
- [The accompanying person supports and may seek clarification; they do not answer on the respondent's behalf]
- [How to notify the investigator in advance]
Confidentiality, scoped rather than blanket
Non-retaliation and no-contact instruction
- [No contact about the matter with the complainant or any person known or believed to be a witness]
- [No materially adverse action — shifts, allocation, training, performance review, access, manner]
- [That retaliation is a separate matter in its own right regardless of the investigation's outcome]
- [Named contact for the respondent to check a supervisory decision before making it]
Preservation of evidence
Any interim measure already in place
What happens next and indicative timeframe
Support, contact and signature
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
- Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) — full decision (NLRB)
- NLRB — Board Adopts New Standard for Assessing Lawfulness of Work Rules (Stericycle, 2023)
- Apogee Retail LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Store, 368 NLRB No. 144 (2019) — full decision (NLRB)
- NLRB — Board Approves Greater Confidentiality in Workplace Investigations (Apogee, 2019)
- NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975) — Cornell LII
- NLRB — Weingarten Rights (current position: only union-represented employees)
- NLRB — Concerted Activity (Section 7 rights)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) — Cornell LII
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) — Cornell LII
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) — Cornell LII
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) — Cornell LII
- EEOC — Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues (2016)
- EEOC — Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (1999, still operative)
- EEOC — Harassment
- Acas (UK) — Letter telling an employee they're the subject of an investigation (source of the two quoted sentences)
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.
Complaint Acknowledgment Letter Template & Sample
A letter acknowledging receipt of a workplace complaint — confirming what will happen next, the confidentiality position and the non-retaliation commitment.
Suspension Pending Investigation & Interim Measures Memo
A memo recording interim measures during an investigation — the risk addressed, why the measure is not punitive, who decided, and when it will be reviewed.
Workplace Investigation Plan Template & Example
An investigation plan template covering scope, allegations, witnesses, evidence, sequencing and interim measures — written before the first interview.
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.