| Course | HR420 Workplace Law, Labor Relations, and HR Risk Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Workplace investigation report |
| Length | About 910 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HR420 Unit 6
Two Allegations Substantiated, One Not: A Unit 6 Workplace Investigation Report on Accent Mockery
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HR420: Workplace Law, Labor Relations, and HR Risk Management
Unit 6 Workplace Investigation Report
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Wapsi Valley Car Wash, its staff and every interview and record are composite and illustrative; the statute and guidance cited are real.
Summary
Complaint received. April 2, from a detailer at the Waterloo site, about the Saturday shift lead.
Allegation 1. The shift lead mocked the detailer's accent, including in front of customers. Finding: substantiated.
Allegation 2. The shift lead assigned her to the outdoor drying station at the exit far more often than other detailers. Finding: substantiated.
Allegation 3. Her hours were cut after she objected. Finding: not substantiated.
Scope
Interviews, each conducted by the human resources generalist with a note-taker present, within nine days of the complaint: the detailer, April 3; the shift lead, April 5; two other detailers, April 6; a cashier, April 7; the site manager, April 9. Documents reviewed: daily station charts for the eighteen Saturdays and Sundays in the period, schedules and payroll hours for twelve weeks, and the site's customer comment cards.
Each witness was told that the company prohibits retaliation against anyone who reports or takes part in an investigation, and that what they said would go no further than the people responsible for resolving the complaint.
Interview Summaries
The detailer. She said the shift lead repeated words she had said in an exaggerated imitation of her accent at least five times since January, twice while customers waited for their cars, and once asked whether she needed a translator to read a work order. She said she was put at the drying station, outdoors at the exit, most weekends, including in February cold.
The shift lead. He said he joked with everyone and that she had never objected to him directly. He denied the translator remark. He said station assignments rotate and that she is fast at drying.
Detailer A. She heard the imitations "a few times" and once saw a customer laugh. She did not see station assignments being made.
Detailer B. He did not hear any remarks about accents. He said the shift lead "makes jokes about everybody" and that he himself had been teased about his weight.
The cashier. She heard the translator remark at the pay station in March. She did not know about station assignments.
The site manager. He was unaware of the remarks until the complaint. He said stations are supposed to rotate weekly and that he does not review the charts.
Documents
Station charts for eighteen weekend days show the detailer assigned to the exit drying station on fourteen. The other five detailers on those shifts averaged four exit assignments each. Payroll shows her weekly hours fell from 34 to 30 in late March, the same week three detailers with more seniority returned from winter leave. Schedules for all detailers changed that week in seniority order.
Findings
The standard is the preponderance of the evidence: whether each allegation is more likely true than not.
Allegation 1, substantiated. Two witnesses independently heard imitations or the translator remark. The shift lead's explanation that he joked with everyone does not account for remarks aimed at her accent, which concern a characteristic linked to national origin. Harassment based on accent can be harassment based on national origin (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2016).
Allegation 2, substantiated. Fourteen exit assignments in eighteen days against an average of four is a pattern the rotation the site manager described cannot explain.
Allegation 3, not substantiated. The drop in hours coincided with seniority-based schedule changes that affected every detailer.
A finding of not substantiated is a finding about the evidence, not a judgment that the complainant was dishonest, and the report says so to her as well as to the file.
Credibility
Federal harassment guidance lists factors for weighing credibility, among them plausibility, corroboration, motive and past record (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2024). The detailer's account was specific and corroborated on the remarks and station pattern. The shift lead's denial of the translator remark is contradicted by the cashier, who has no stated reason to favor either person. Detailer B's account does not contradict the others; he was simply not present for the remarks.
Process Notes
The investigation began the day after the complaint, and the shift lead was moved to weekday shifts at another site during the investigation, at the same pay, so the detailer would not work under him while it was open. That move is not a finding or a sanction, and he was told so. The detailer was offered the choice of continuing at her current schedule, which she accepted. Each interview was documented the same day, and each witness was given the chance to review a summary of their own interview for accuracy. Two witnesses corrected small details, which are noted in the file.
What This Report Does Not Do
It does not recommend discipline. That decision belongs to the operations director, who will receive this report. The report recommends only that station charts be reviewed by site managers monthly and that the detailer be told the outcome of each allegation. Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate in terms and conditions of employment because of national origin (Unlawful Employment Practices, 2018), and assignments to the least desirable station are a term of employment.
References
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). EEOC enforcement guidance on national origin discrimination. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/eeoc-enforcement-guidance-national-origin-discrimination
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2024). Enforcement guidance on harassment in the workplace. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-harassment-workplace
Unlawful Employment Practices, 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-2 (2018).
HR420 Unit 6 instructions, in plain terms
The sixth HR420 assignment asks you to write a workplace investigation report. Open with a summary of the complaint, each allegation as a numbered issue and the finding on each. Set out the scope: who was interviewed, when and by whom, and what documents were reviewed. Record the protections given to witnesses. Summarize each interview neutrally, including what witnesses did not see. Present documents with the figures that bear on each allegation. State the standard of proof and apply it to each allegation, citing the law where it defines the conduct. Weigh credibility in its own section, using recognized factors. Record process steps such as interim measures. State what the report does not do, such as recommend discipline. About six to seven pages in the order investigators use is common.
How this HR420 Unit 6 example is built
The sample's summary lists three allegations and findings. The scope section dates six interviews and lists station charts, schedules and payroll, and a margin note records the retaliation warning. Neutral interview summaries include what two witnesses did not see. Station charts show fourteen exit assignments in eighteen days against an average of four, and payroll ties the cut in hours to seniority scheduling. Findings apply the preponderance standard, citing EEOC guidance that accent harassment can be national origin harassment. The highlighted sentence explains what "not substantiated" means. Credibility factors from the 2024 guidance weigh conflicting accounts, with a margin note, followed by process notes and the report's limits.
Reading the HR420 Unit 6 grading rubric
Points in the HR420 investigation report go to fairness, thoroughness and clear findings. The summary should state each allegation and its finding. Scope should show prompt interviews of relevant witnesses and the documents reviewed. Recording protections against retaliation shows compliance with law and policy. Interview summaries should be neutral and include gaps in each witness's knowledge. Documents should be quantified where they bear on allegations. Applying a stated standard to each allegation separately earns credit. A credibility section using recognized factors shows rigor. Interim measures and the report's limits show professional practice. Cite the agency guidance and the statute in APA 7, and make sure each number in the findings matches the station charts and payroll reviewed.
HR420 Unit 6 help from the desk
Many HR420 investigation reports tell the story of the complaint and end with an overall conclusion. Others summarize interviews in loaded language or omit what witnesses did not see. Students often skip documents that could confirm or contradict accounts. Credibility is decided without stated factors. Reports recommend discipline, mixing fact-finding with decision-making. Number each allegation, set the scope, record protections, write neutral summaries, quantify documents, apply the standard to each allegation, weigh credibility with factors and keep discipline out. Share the complaint and the records you hold, and our team can help structure the report section by section.
Get an HR420 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Complaints, witness lists and any documents the Unit 6 case includes supply the material, so send all of them with the rubric. Within 24-48h the sample arrives with interviews summarized, evidence weighed under a stated standard and findings kept apart from any decision. A first one is on the house. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HR420 papers and BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) samples
- HR420 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HR420 Unit 2: Employment Law Case Analysis
- HR420 Unit 3: Discrimination Claim Analysis
- HR420 Unit 4: Accommodation Process Memo
- HR420 Unit 5: Wage and Hour Review
- HR420 Unit 7: Labor Relations Brief
- HR420 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- HR420 Unit 9: Supervisor Guidance Document
- HR420 Unit 10: Risk Management Plan
- HR410 Unit 6: Delivery Method Comparison
- HR400 Unit 6: Structured Interview Guide
HR420 Unit 6 questions, answered
Why does the report not recommend discipline?
Because many organizations separate fact-finding from decision-making, and many rubrics reward a report that respects that line. The investigator establishes what happened; the general manager and human resources director decide the consequence. The example names both recipients. If your assignment explicitly asks for recommendations, they belong in a separate section placed after the findings.
What standard of proof does the example use?
Preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not, which is the standard most workplace investigations apply. The report states it in the scope section and uses it in every finding. Higher standards belong to criminal proceedings and would leave an employer unable to act on credible complaints that fall short of certainty.
Can I base the report on a real complaint I handled?
Only once the matter is closed, nothing you learned came to you in confidence, and names, dates and places have all been altered. Workplace investigations involve private information about several people at once. A composite built from the pattern of a real case, as the example is, keeps the learning without exposing anyone involved.
Where can I find a free HR420 Unit 6 sample paper?
A complete HR420 Unit 6 workplace investigation report is on this page, with six interviews, station charts and a finding on each of three allegations.
Can mocking an accent be national origin harassment?
Yes. Federal guidance treats harassment based on accent as potentially harassment based on national origin, since accent is closely linked to it.