Of the twelve investigations I have done involving transgender individuals as either complainants or the subject of complaints, all have involved bathrooms. One would think that, given the confusion, bias, fear and anxiety the subject of gender identity and in particular, transgenderism seem to generate, that the issue would come down to more than facilities for personal hygiene. Nevertheless, the use or non-use of gendered bathrooms seems to be the place where a society’s equal treatment tends to be tested.

The political stalemate in Washington, as disheartening as it is, provides a good opportunity to think about the conflicts that lead to claims, and the challenges of investigating claims when individuals have staked out a position/set of beliefs that seem completely contrary to one or more coworkers or supervisors who have equally powerful perspectives/beliefs. Particularly in allegations of hostile environment or systemic discrimination, parties have spent a long time talking themselves (and likely others) into their perspectives. They become inflamed by suggestions that there might be another way to see things, and should you insist that they try, they often fold you into those they view as “the other side.”

It was at the end of a long day that my client and I headed to the airport, hoping we might take an earlier flight home at the end of a several-city road trip. We marched up to the ticket counter and stood side by side. Peter, my client, and a shareholder at a major law firm was flying economy. As a not-very-frequent traveler, he did not have “elite” status on this airline. I, on the other hand, was a high-level elite flyer whose many hours in the air had earned me an automatic upgrade. The flight attendant took our ID and looked at Peter. “Sir,” he said, ”there is a seat available on an earlier flight. I think I can get you on if you’d like.”

I can’t help thinking that the tragic shooting of public servants and innocent bystanders in Arizona must be turned from so dark a moment to a catalyst for something positive. With pundits and politicians arguing about a madman’s motives and either casting or deflecting blame, let it be sufficient to say that turning our attention to how we speak to one another can’t do any harm.

This morning catching up on back reading, I read David Yamada’s post “What if we applied the Golden Rule at Work?” It brought me back to my earliest days of educating workers and coaching “bad actors” and my struggle with the assertion by many that if we just lived by the Golden Rule, everything would be fine. I am an immense admirer of Yamada’s work and embrace fully his thinking, but perhaps it is time to modify the rule.

I am a consultant who does approximately sixty employment investigations a year. Generally, these investigations involve serious or complex claims or involve claims against corporate officers. My job is to seamlessly penetrate the workplace, interview key witnesses, review relevant documents, collect evidence, assess the credibility and find facts. In doing so, I must be scrupulously neutral and completely independent – not always easy when there are many with “skin in the game.”

Another fabulous year at the Institute. I enjoyed meeting all the attendees who took the time to chat with me, and was pleased to see that the Institute continues to offer a high-quality experience.

Thanks for everyone who attended the “Investigations School” at the Institute, and to our great actor, Camilla Hempleman for being so effective an interview subject. Look for my PP slides and answers to your questions here soon.

1. How do we validate feelings without validating the substance of the complaint?

As promised, here is a PDF version of my slides from the Intake session on Friday morning.