A GOOD INVESTIGATION MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE

Georgia’s state agencies investigate sexual harassment according to their own internal policies and procedures. Here’s one case where the agency pushed to find out what really happened, and how its handling of the case stands out.

The investigator: Karl Reimers, an internal affairs officer working for the inspector general of the Department of Community Health. He’s also a former police officer.

Why that matters: Sexual harassment cases in some other state agencies are handled by human resources staffers; a few in recent years have been handled by the employees’ own supervisor.

Who was interviewed: The victim, the accused and three witnesses. A statement from a human resources consultant was also taken.

Why that matters: The AJC found that investigations that interview a wider range of people within the main players’ workgroup tend to find additional witnesses and other victims.

Records kept: Audio recordings of all the interviews were made and kept as part of the state’s files, along with summaries of the interviews and an overall finding by the IG.

Why that matters: State agencies’ practice on documenting their sexual harassment investigations varied widely, the AJC found. Multiple victims in other agencies said they had reported harassment but their reports were never written down and were ignored.

Corroborating stories: The investigator noted where stories converged.

Why that matters: In many harassment cases, where there are two competing narratives, no further steps are taken to determine what really happened, the AJC’s review found.

Pushing back: The investigator critically examined claims and noted when the accused couldn’t explain his behavior. The conclusion: The claim is credible.

Why that matters: In many harassment cases where only the accuser and the accused are interviewed and the accused denies the allegations, the case is ruled as unsubstantiated for lack of evidence.

The result: Cheney was eventually fired.

Why that matters: In some other state agencies, it would have been the victim’s word against Cheney’s, and with no other witnesses, the allegations would likely have been ruled unsubstantiated.