Workplace Misconduct Investigations in Sacramento, California

Sacramento Workplace Misconduct Investigations

What is a workplace misconduct investigation?

A workplace misconduct investigation is a formal, documented inquiry into allegations of employee policy violations, fraud, conflicts of interest, workplace violence threats, or other conduct that falls outside the scope of harassment or discrimination. Under California law, employers have a legal obligation to respond to credible misconduct complaints promptly and in good faith. Independent third-party investigations conducted by AWI-CH certified investigators produce legally defensible findings reports that protect employers from claims of bias, arbitrary discipline, or wrongful termination in subsequent California Civil Rights Department (CRD) proceedings or civil litigation.

I’m Andrew Blan, an AWI-CH certified workplace investigator and California attorney based in Sacramento. I conduct independent workplace misconduct investigations for public agencies, private employers, and the employment defense attorneys who advise them — delivering clear, defensible findings reports that hold up under legal scrutiny.

Not every workplace complaint involves harassment or discrimination. Many of the most complex and consequential investigations involve alleged policy violations, employee fraud, conflicts of interest, abuse of authority, or workplace violence threats — matters that sit outside the discrimination framework but carry equally serious legal and operational consequences.

I provide independent workplace misconduct investigations for California employers and employment defense attorneys. Based in Sacramento, I serve public agencies, private companies, and academic institutions throughout California — conducting misconduct investigations that are thorough, impartial, and structured to withstand legal challenge.

If the matter involves harassment or discrimination, see my dedicated pages for Workplace Harassment Investigations and Workplace Discrimination Investigations. For campus and Title IX matters, see Title IX & Campus Investigations. This page covers general workplace misconduct — the full range of policy and conduct violations that don’t fit neatly into those categories.

Andrew Blan — AWI-CH Certified Workplace Misconduct Investigator, Sacramento

Andrew Blan is a licensed California attorney and AWI-CH certified workplace investigator with extensive experience conducting complex misconduct investigations for public agencies, private employers, and academic institutions across California. A graduate of McGeorge School of Law, Andrew has spent his career at the intersection of employment law and workplace investigations — advising on, conducting, and reviewing a wide range of misconduct matters.

Before founding A.W. Blan Workplace Legal Services in Sacramento, Andrew practiced at a premier public entity law firm where he advised clients on all aspects of employment law, including misconduct investigations involving policy violations, conflicts of interest, and employee fraud. He also gained direct experience inside a California state agency and the California State Legislature — giving him firsthand insight into how public and private employers structure compliance programs, manage HR processes, and respond to employee misconduct allegations.

Andrew holds the AWI-CH (Association of Workplace Investigators Certificate Holder) designation, the gold standard credential for professional workplace investigators. Completing approximately 50 investigations per year, he brings the consistency, legal precision, and documented methodology that employment defense attorneys and employers rely on when misconduct allegations create serious legal exposure.

What Is a Workplace Misconduct Investigation?

A workplace misconduct investigation is a structured inquiry into alleged employee conduct that violates company policy, professional standards, or applicable law — but that doesn’t necessarily involve harassment or discrimination. These investigations are among the most varied and complex matters an employer can face, because the conduct in question rarely fits a single legal framework.

Common triggers include allegations of employee fraud or financial misconduct, abuse of authority, conflicts of interest, policy violations, workplace violence threats, retaliation unconnected to protected activity, or general insubordination and professional misconduct. In some cases, the alleged conduct may overlap with criminal activity — requiring careful coordination between the investigation and any law enforcement involvement.

For California employers and the employment defense attorneys who advise them, a properly conducted independent misconduct investigation accomplishes three things: it produces a factually documented record of what occurred, it demonstrates that the employer took the complaint seriously and acted in good faith, and it supports whatever employment action follows — whether that is discipline, termination, or exoneration — with a defensible evidentiary foundation.

This matters acutely in California, where employment actions are subject to significant legal scrutiny. A poorly documented misconduct investigation can expose an employer to wrongful termination claims, retaliation claims under California Labor Code Section 1102.5, or unfair labor practice charges — even when the underlying discipline was entirely warranted.

Types of Workplace Misconduct I Investigate

I investigate the full range of general workplace misconduct matters that California employers face, including:

Employee Policy Violations: Allegations that an employee violated written company policy — including attendance, confidentiality, use of company resources, social media, or conduct standards. These investigations establish whether the violation occurred, how serious it was, and whether it was isolated or part of a pattern.

Conflicts of Interest: Allegations that an employee has a financial, personal, or professional interest that compromises their objectivity or loyalty to the employer — including undisclosed outside employment, vendor relationships, or personal relationships with subordinates that create favoritism.

Employee Fraud and Financial Misconduct: Allegations of theft, expense fraud, falsification of records, misuse of employer funds, or unauthorized financial transactions. These investigations require careful documentary review and, in some cases, coordination with forensic accounting resources or law enforcement.

Abuse of Authority and Supervisory Misconduct: Allegations that a manager or supervisor misused their position — through favoritism, arbitrary discipline, intimidation of subordinates, or conduct that falls short of the legal threshold for harassment but still constitutes a serious policy violation or breach of professional standards.

Workplace Violence Threats: Allegations that an employee made threatening statements, engaged in intimidating behavior, or created a credible threat of physical harm. These investigations require both factual documentation and sensitivity to the safety implications of the findings.

Retaliation Not Connected to Protected Activity: Allegations that an employee or manager retaliated against a coworker for reasons unrelated to a discrimination or harassment complaint — such as internal whistleblowing, reporting safety violations, or workplace disputes. For retaliation claims connected to protected activity under FEHA, see the Workplace Discrimination Investigations page.

Insubordination and Conduct Violations: Allegations of repeated insubordination, disruptive workplace behavior, or professional misconduct that creates a hostile or dysfunctional work environment for colleagues — even where the conduct does not meet the legal threshold for harassment.

Public Sector and Government Employee Misconduct: Misconduct investigations involving California state or local government employees carry additional procedural requirements under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights, the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights, and other California statutes governing public employee discipline. Andrew’s background advising Sacramento-area public agencies gives him specific expertise in this area.

The Workplace Misconduct Investigation Process

Every misconduct investigation I conduct follows a structured, documented process. The specific approach varies depending on the nature of the allegations — a financial fraud investigation looks different from a workplace violence threat investigation — but the core methodology is consistent across every matter:

01 Initial Consultation & Scope Definition

I meet with referring counsel or the employer to define scope, confirm my independence and the absence of conflicts, identify the allegations and applicable legal framework (company policy, California Labor Code, FEHA, public sector statutes, or relevant criminal statutes), and align on timeline. For public sector matters, I confirm that applicable procedural rights — including Skelly rights for disciplinary investigations — are identified at the outset.

02 Evidence Gathering & Document Review

I review all relevant documentary evidence: personnel files, written policies, prior disciplinary records, communications (email, text, internal messaging), financial records, access logs, and any other documentation relevant to the specific allegations. For misconduct investigations, the documentary record is often the strongest evidence — and gaps in that record are equally significant findings.

03 Witness Interviews

I conduct structured, documented interviews with the subject of the investigation, the complainant or reporting party, and all relevant witnesses. Every interview is documented. For public sector investigations, I ensure that applicable employee rights — including the right to union representation in certain circumstances — are observed.

04 Credibility Assessment

I assess credibility using objective, consistent criteria — corroboration, consistency over time, plausibility, motive to fabricate, and demeanor. In misconduct investigations where documentary evidence is strong, credibility analysis supplements the paper record rather than replacing it.

05 Preponderance Analysis

I apply the preponderance of the evidence standard — whether it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred — to determine whether each allegation is substantiated, unsubstantiated, or inconclusive. For public sector matters with a specific evidentiary standard in the applicable statute or MOU, I apply that standard instead.

06 Findings Report

I deliver a comprehensive written findings report covering scope and methodology, a summary of evidence reviewed, factual findings for each specific allegation, credibility assessments with objective reasoning, and conclusions for each allegation. The report is structured to support whatever employment action follows — and to withstand challenge in an administrative appeal, arbitration, CRD proceeding, or civil litigation.

07 Follow-Up Consultation

I am available to discuss the findings with referring counsel or the employer’s HR team after delivery. If discipline or termination follows and is challenged, I am available to testify as a fact witness on the investigation process and findings, or as an expert witness on workplace investigation methodology and California industry standards.

The final report is written with California’s legal standards in mind — including the employer’s obligations under FEHA, the Labor Code, and any applicable public sector statutes. It is designed to withstand challenge at every stage, from an internal appeal to civil litigation.

Why California Employers Use an Independent Investigator for Misconduct Complaints

Many employers treat misconduct investigations as internal HR matters — handled by a manager or HR generalist without formal documentation or a structured process. In California, that approach creates serious legal exposure. Here is why employment defense attorneys and their clients increasingly rely on an independent, AWI-CH certified investigator for misconduct matters:

Protects against wrongful termination claims: In California, an employee who is terminated following a misconduct investigation can challenge both the investigation process and the findings. An independent investigation with a documented, structured process significantly reduces the grounds on which that challenge can succeed.

Eliminates bias arguments: When an HR employee or in-house attorney conducts the investigation, opposing counsel will argue that the investigator had a stake in the outcome — protecting the company at the expense of fairness. A true third-party misconduct investigation eliminates that argument.

AWI-CH certified methodology: Andrew’s AWI-CH designation signals that the investigation followed recognized professional standards — not an informal HR process. This matters in arbitration, administrative proceedings, and civil litigation.

Critical for public sector employers: California government employers face heightened procedural requirements when investigating and disciplining employees. A procedural error — failing to provide adequate notice, conducting a biased investigation, or not following applicable MOU provisions — can result in discipline being overturned on appeal. Andrew’s experience advising Sacramento-area public agencies means he understands these requirements and builds them into the investigation process.

Supports subsequent employment actions: If the findings support discipline or termination, the investigation report becomes the foundation for that action. A well-documented report from an independent, credentialed investigator is significantly more defensible than an internal HR memo — in an arbitration, a DFEH complaint, or civil litigation.

Why Employment Defense Attorneys Refer Misconduct Cases to Andrew Blan

AWI-CH Certified: The AWI-CH designation is the recognized professional standard for workplace investigators. It signals to a tribunal, an arbitrator, or a court that the investigation was conducted by a qualified, trained professional following established methodology.

Attorney Background: Unlike non-attorney investigators, Andrew understands the legal implications of every factual finding — including how findings will be used to support or defend an employment action in California courts or administrative proceedings. His reports are written with litigation in mind.

True Independence & Neutrality: Andrew does not represent employees or employers in litigation. His sole role is independent investigator. That neutrality is critical for the credibility of the report — whether the matter proceeds to arbitration, a DFEH complaint, or civil litigation.

California-Specific Expertise: With experience advising public entities, including Sacramento-area agencies and the California State Legislature, Andrew understands the distinct legal frameworks that apply to public employers, private companies, and academic institutions under California law.

Sacramento-Based, Statewide Coverage: Andrew is based in Sacramento and conducts misconduct investigations throughout California — including Sacramento-area employers, Bay Area companies, and Central Valley organizations. Remote interview options are available where appropriate.

Consistent & Reliable: Completing approximately 50 investigations per year, Andrew provides realistic timelines, regular communication, and final reports that arrive when promised. No surprises, no delays that create additional legal exposure for your client.

When to Refer a Misconduct Complaint for Independent Investigation

Not every misconduct complaint requires an outside investigator. But many do — particularly when the stakes are high, the employment action is likely to be challenged, or the internal investigation process lacks credibility. Here are the situations where employment defense attorneys most often refer misconduct matters to Andrew Blan:

• The complaint involves a manager, director, or senior employee whose termination or discipline is likely to be challenged.
• The employer’s HR team has a prior relationship with either the subject or the complainant.
• The matter involves financial misconduct, fraud, or potential criminal activity where documentation is especially critical.
• The employer is a California public entity — including Sacramento-area government agencies, school districts, or state departments — subject to statutory procedural requirements for employee discipline.
• Prior internal investigations at the organization have been overturned or challenged for procedural deficiency.
• The misconduct overlaps with potential FEHA claims — for example, a supervisor abuse-of-authority complaint that may also involve elements of discrimination or retaliation.
• The subject of the investigation has retained counsel or signaled intent to file a complaint with the DFEH, NLRB, or another agency.
• The matter involves workplace violence threats where documentation of the investigation process is critical for both safety and legal defensibility.
• The investigation will be subject to scrutiny in arbitration, administrative proceedings, or civil litigation.

Frequently Asked Questions About Workplace Misconduct Investigations

What is the difference between a misconduct investigation and a harassment investigation?

A harassment investigation specifically addresses complaints of unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic — sex, race, age, disability, and so on — under California FEHA or Title VII. A misconduct investigation covers a broader range of conduct that violates company policy or California law but may have nothing to do with a protected characteristic — fraud, policy violations, conflicts of interest, workplace violence threats, or abuse of authority. Both require the same structured, documented process and the same professional standard of care. If you are unsure which type of investigation applies, most cases are easy to classify in an initial call. For harassment-specific matters, see the Workplace Harassment Investigations page.

How do you investigate misconduct in the workplace?

A workplace misconduct investigation follows a structured 7-step process: scope definition with referring counsel, documentary evidence review, structured witness interviews, credibility assessment, preponderance analysis, a written findings report, and follow-up consultation. The specific approach depends on the nature of the allegations — a financial fraud investigation requires a thorough document review and analysis of financial records, while a workplace violence threat investigation focuses more heavily on witness accounts and pattern-of-behavior evidence. Every step is documented and the methodology is explained in the final report.

Does a California employer have to investigate employee misconduct complaints?

California law requires employers to investigate harassment and discrimination complaints promptly and in good faith under FEHA. For general misconduct complaints, there is no single statute that mandates investigation in every case — but the failure to investigate a credible misconduct complaint can create significant legal exposure. In California, if an employer terminates an employee for misconduct without a documented investigation, that termination is significantly more vulnerable to a wrongful termination or retaliation claim. And for public sector employers in California, failure to follow applicable statutory procedures — including investigation requirements in employee MOUs or civil service rules — can result in discipline being overturned on appeal.

What is the standard of proof used in a workplace misconduct investigation?

California workplace misconduct investigations apply the preponderance of the evidence standard — meaning whether it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred. This is the same standard used in California civil proceedings and FEHA investigations. For public sector investigations where an applicable statute, civil service rule, or MOU specifies a different standard, I apply that standard instead and document it clearly in the report. Every findings report I produce states the standard applied and explains how it was used to reach conclusions on each allegation.

Can an employee be fired based on the results of a misconduct investigation?

Yes — but in California, how the investigation was conducted matters as much as what it found. California is an at-will employment state, but employees are protected from termination that violates FEHA, the Labor Code, or public policy. A well-documented misconduct investigation conducted by an independent, AWI-CH certified investigator significantly strengthens the employer’s position if the termination is challenged. The findings report becomes the evidentiary foundation for the employment action — and a report from a credentialed, independent investigator is far more defensible than an internal HR memo in an arbitration, DFEH proceeding, or civil lawsuit.

What happens if the misconduct involves potential criminal activity?

When alleged misconduct potentially involves criminal activity — theft, fraud, embezzlement, threats — the employer faces a choice about whether to involve law enforcement in addition to conducting an internal investigation. I can conduct the workplace investigation in parallel with a law enforcement investigation, or after a criminal matter has concluded, depending on what makes sense for the specific situation. I work closely with referring counsel to ensure the investigation process does not interfere with any parallel criminal matter and that the documentary record is preserved appropriately. Every case with a criminal dimension is approached with particular care for documentation and evidentiary integrity.

Do you investigate misconduct at California public agencies and school districts?

Yes. Public sector misconduct investigations are a significant part of my practice. California government employees have statutory procedural rights that apply to disciplinary investigations — including rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights, the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights, and applicable civil service rules and MOUs. These requirements impose specific obligations on the investigation process that are distinct from private sector investigations. My background advising Sacramento-area public agencies and working inside California state government gives me direct experience with these requirements. I conduct misconduct investigations for Sacramento-area public agencies, school districts, and other California public entities.

How long does a workplace misconduct investigation take in California?

A standard single-subject misconduct investigation typically takes 3-5 weeks from intake to final report. More complex matters — involving financial records, multiple subjects, or extensive documentary evidence — may take longer. Public sector investigations with applicable procedural timelines may have external constraints that affect the schedule. I provide a realistic timeline at intake, communicate proactively throughout the process, and flag any issues that may affect the timeline as soon as they arise.

Can you serve as a witness or expert if the misconduct investigation leads to litigation?

Yes. If an employment action following a misconduct investigation is challenged — through arbitration, an administrative proceeding, or civil litigation — I am available to testify as a fact witness regarding the investigation process, the evidence reviewed, and the findings. In appropriate matters, I can also serve as an expert witness on workplace investigation methodology, California industry standards, and the defensibility of the investigation process. This is a significant advantage of using an independent, AWI-CH certified investigator rather than an in-house HR team.