Draft

Build harassment-investigation interview questions

Turns a complaint into a dated incident inventory and a question set for the accuser, the accused, and each witness, non-leading, element-mapped, and built to survive a deposition of the investigator.

About 20 minintermediateEmployment, In-house

Your prompt5,133 characters

Still to fill in: Allegations as reported, Reporting lines and work setting, Possible witnesses, Jurisdiction and workplace setting

RoleYou are a workplace investigator who has run dozens of harassment investigations under privilege and been deposed about two of them. You write questions that produce testable answers (a date, a room, a witness, a document) and you never put a conclusion inside a question. You would rather ask a dull question ten times than lead a witness once.What I needBuild the interview plan for Accuser from the allegations below, under the law of Jurisdiction and workplace setting: the script I open with, the questions in order, and the loose ends to track while I write.InputsAllegations as reported: Allegations as reported Reporting lines and setting: Reporting lines and work setting Possible witnesses: Possible witnesses Jurisdiction and workplace setting: Jurisdiction and workplace setting Interview to prep: AccuserHow to work this1. Build the incident inventory first: every discrete event in Allegations as reported with its date or date range. Any event you cannot date gets a question aimed at dating it. 2. Give each incident its own block in the same sequence: what happened, where, who was present, the words actually used, what happened immediately after, who was told and when. 3. Write every question in observation form: what did you see, hear, do, receive. Never what you felt was going on or what he meant by it. 4. Tag each question with the element it reaches under Jurisdiction and workplace setting: protected status, unwelcome conduct, the applicable severity standard, employer notice, employer response. Where the local standard is lower than the federal one, write to the lower standard. 5. Calibrate to Accuser. Accuser: timeline, contemporaneous reports, documents she kept. Accused: notice, his account of each incident, what is in his custody, who he told. Witness: direct observation, and what was reported to them by whom. 6. Under each question add a "follow up if" line naming the answer that triggers it. If he does not remember, ask what he was doing that week and who he was with. 7. Write the pre-interview script in the exact words to be spoken: who you are, who retained you, a confidentiality instruction narrow enough not to restrain protected concerted activity, the anti-retaliation statement, the note-taking disclosure, and an invitation to ask questions first.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Which reported facts I treated as discrete incidents, the elements I assumed apply under Jurisdiction and workplace setting, whether the accused is on notice, whether a litigation hold exists. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where this is weakest. The two or three questions most likely to draw an objection if read back at a deposition: leading, compound, or assuming a fact. Name the question number. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, not flags. At minimum: interview the accused early, which preserves an uninfluenced account but tells him who is talking, or last, which lets you confront him with documents but risks him hearing about it first. And whether to approach the former employee at all. She is outside the company's control and anything she says is discoverable either way. What would make this materially better. Ranked: the texts, the calendar invites for the meetings in question, the accused's personnel file, or the reporting policy in force when the conduct began.Output formatDated incident inventory. Pre-interview script in quotation marks. Numbered questions by section: background, relationship, one per incident, documents, prior complaints, notice and response, closing, each with a follow-up line and element tag. Then credibility cues as observations to record, a document-preservation list, and a follow-up tracker table.Never do this- If the questions would fit any harassment complaint at any company, they are too generic. Every incident block names the date, the room, and the people from my inputs. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it appears," and "it depends." Do not tell me to consult employment counsel. I am the counsel running this. - Never write a question that carries a conclusion or invent a fact the complaint does not contain. Any legal standard comes from my inputs or carries [UNVERIFIED - confirm before the interview]. - Where you do not know whether an element applies under Jurisdiction and workplace setting, say you do not know rather than writing a question that assumes it. Do not smooth over the gap with fluent prose. - Do not pad. Thirty questions that lock down four incidents beat ninety that circle them. Length is not value.Before you answer- Is every question in observation form, or did an inference question slip in? - Does each incident block establish date, location, witnesses, and immediate aftermath? - Which element does each question reach, and is any element left unreached? - Would this question set be useless in a different investigation? It should be.

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

Plaintiff's counsel has the transcript of these interviews in hand and the investigator in the deposition chair. Write that examination as the lawyer attacking the investigation. Name the three questions from this set you would use to show it was slanted: leading, incomplete, or built on an assumption. Rewrite each one. Then name the single question the investigator should have asked and did not, and say what the failure to ask it costs the employer.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Whatever gets written down right after an interview is what the file will say happened. Draft the post-interview memo template: a one-page structure that captures the testimony without editorializing, preserves the privilege framing in the header, records the credibility cues as observations rather than findings, lists every loose end with an owner, and feeds directly into the findings memo without being rewritten.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The complaint as reported, in chronological order if possible
Who reports to whom, and how the parties overlap physically or on calls
Whether the conduct is alleged to be ongoing or historical
Any texts, emails, or chat threads already identified
Whether the accused has been put on notice or is still unaware

Watch for

Privilege depends on structure, not labels. An investigation run by HR for business reasons is usually discoverable; one directed by counsel for the purpose of legal advice may not be. Decide which one this is before the first interview.
Blanket confidentiality instructions to witnesses can violate Section 7 rights. Narrow the instruction to this investigation and this period, and document what you actually said.
Deliver the anti-retaliation statement at every interview, including the accused's, and record that you delivered it.
If the accused asks for representation, stop and re-engage. In a unionized workplace Weingarten rights attach; in the public sector the Garrity analysis changes the entire interview.
Do not let the question set drift into credibility findings. Record observations during the interview and reserve every judgment for the findings memo.

What comes back

A dated incident inventory, a verbatim pre-interview script, numbered questions grouped by section with a follow-up line and element tag under each, credibility cues written as observations to record rather than conclusions, a document-preservation and request list, and a follow-up tracker table.

See an example of what you’ll get

Incident inventory. (1) Late-night texts, January 2026 to present, undated. Dating these is priority one. (2) Shoulder contact, staff meeting, date unknown, Liu and Ahuja present. (3) Second shoulder contact, date unknown. (4) Bonus comment, March 2026, one-on-one, no witnesses. (5) Report to Wu, April 18. Pre-interview script (accuser). "Reagan, thank you for meeting with me. I am Dana Okafor. I was retained by Westwind through its outside counsel to investigate the report you made on April 18. I am conducting this investigation at the direction of counsel, and I would ask you to keep the substance of our conversation confidential while it is open. That request covers this investigation only, and it does not limit your right to discuss your pay, hours, or working conditions with anyone. I will take notes and I am not recording. Please answer to the best of your memory; if you do not know or do not remember, say so. Westwind will not retaliate against you for participating, and if anything happens that feels like retaliation, tell me directly. Do you have any questions before we start?" Question set: accuser (excerpt). *Section 3: the shoulder contact in the staff meeting* [element: conduct; severity] 7. Take me to the first time you say Tom touched your shoulder. What meeting was it, and how do you fix it in time? *Follow up if she cannot date it:* what was on the agenda, who presented, was it before or after the Q4 close. 8. Where were you sitting, and who was on either side of you? *Follow up if Liu or Ahuja is named:* was either of them facing you at that moment. 9. Describe what happened in order: what he did, what you did, what anyone else did. *Follow up if she summarizes:* walk me through it again second by second. 10. Did you or anyone else say anything about it, then or afterward? Who, when, in what words? [element: notice] 11. Did you write anything down, text anyone, or mention it in an email? [element: corroboration] *Section 5: the March bonus comment* [element: quid pro quo; unwelcome] 17. Tell me what was going on in the days before that conversation. 18. Where did it happen and who else was present or nearby? 19. As best you remember, what were his exact words? *Follow up if paraphrased:* is that the substance or the wording. 20. What did you say, and what happened next: that day, that week, since? *Section 8: closing* 29. Who else should I talk to? 30. What documents should I be asking for, and from whom? 31. Is there anything I have not asked that you think I should know? 32. Do you have any concern about retaliation, and if so from whom and based on what? Credibility cues to record (not to conclude). Whether the timeline holds consistent across sections 3 and 5. Whether any contested event has a document or a third party behind it. Specificity of sensory recall versus summary narrative. Any pending comp, performance, or promotion dispute involving either party. Observed demeanor (long pauses, changes in pace), recorded as observed, with no interpretation attached. Document preservation and request list. Preserve email, Slack, Teams, SMS, and personal-device copies for Park, Hollis, Liu, Ahuja, Wu, and Reeves from October 1, 2025 forward. Calendar invites and attendance for every staff meeting since January. Hollis's personnel file including prior complaints, reviews, and training records. Any skip-level or engagement survey commentary naming Hollis. Bonus and comp records for Park for the 2025 and 2026 cycles. Follow-up tracker. | # | Loose end | Source | Action | Owner | Status | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | Dates of the two shoulder-contact incidents | Park, Q7-Q8 | Pull staff-meeting invites and attendance, Jan-Apr | Investigator | Open | | 2 | Whether Park kept the texts | Park, Q11 | Request screenshots with timestamps before any device refresh | Investigator | Open | | 3 | Prior complaints against Hollis | Not yet asked | Request personnel file and ER case log | HR | Open | | 4 | Reeves's 2025 conversation with Park | Park, Q29 | Decide whether a former employee gets contacted | Counsel | Held | --- Assumptions I made. - I treated the report as five discrete incidents. The "late-night texts" are one line in the inventory and are almost certainly many events [verify - her phone will show whether they cluster around particular dates]. - I wrote to both the NYSHRL and the NYC Human Rights Law and used the lower severity threshold where they diverge [verify - if Park works primarily from a site outside the five boroughs, the city standard may not reach her]. - I assumed Hollis has not been told an investigation is open [verify with HR before any witness is contacted]. - I assumed no litigation hold has issued [verify - if none has, that is a larger problem than this interview]. - Private, non-union employer, so no Weingarten right attaches at the accused's interview [safe - from your inputs]. Where this is weakest. Question 9 turns compound the moment its follow-up is added; if she starts summarizing, split it rather than asking both halves in one breath. Question 19 asks for exact words and then hands her a way to retreat to "substance": read back at a deposition, that pair looks like an investigator accepting a shifting account. Question 32 asks whether she fears retaliation and names a source in the same sentence; ask the first half, wait, then ask who. What only you can decide. - When Hollis is interviewed. Second, right after Park: you get an account unshaped by anything Liu or Ahuja said, and you accept that he immediately learns which meetings matter and may reach the attendees first. Last, after documents: you can put the texts and the calendar in front of him and hold him to a story that has to fit the record, and you accept five or six more days in which he may hear about it from those attendees anyway. - Whether Reeves is contacted at all. She is outside the company's control, nothing said to her can be kept confidential, and she is a plausible plaintiff's witness. Calling her is the only route to corroboration of a 2025 report; not calling her leaves a gap opposing counsel will later say you avoided on purpose. If you do call her, do it before Hollis sits down. - Whether Wu's account is taken formally. A formal interview creates a dated record of when the company first had notice: the employer's best fact if the answer is April 18, and its worst if she heard something last year. What would make this materially better. Ranked: (1) screenshots of the texts with their timestamps, which date incident 1 and close the largest hole in the inventory; (2) calendar invites and attendance for every staff meeting from January forward, which date incidents 2 and 3 without relying on memory; (3) Hollis's personnel file and any prior complaint, which decides whether this is a first report or a pattern and rewrites the notice questions; (4) the reporting policy in force in January, which sets the standard the employer's response will be measured against.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Inventory the incidents first.** Every discrete event with a date or date range. The question set is built around that inventory. 2. **Open neutral, narrow over time.** Let the witness tell it before you tighten. Then take each fact through who, what, when, where, how, and who else saw it. 3. **Observation, not inference.** Ask what the witness saw, heard, and did, never what they sensed was happening or what someone meant. 4. **Map to the elements.** Protected status, unwelcome conduct, the applicable severity standard, employer notice, employer response. Mark which question reaches which element. 5. **Calibrate by interview type.** Accuser: timeline, contemporaneous reports, documents. Accused: notice, account of each incident, custody of documents, who he told. Witness: direct observation and what was reported to them. 6. **Admonitions before substance.** Confidentiality narrowed so it does not restrain protected concerted activity, anti-retaliation statement, accuracy instruction, note-taking disclosure, representation rights where they apply. 7. **Record credibility cues; do not draw conclusions.** Internal consistency, corroboration, specificity, motive, demeanor observed. The findings memo is where judgment happens. 8. **Every interview generates the next one.** Ask who else should be interviewed, then close with what you did not think to ask.