Workplace Investigations

There is no specific law governing workplace investigations in Brazil, but Law 14.457/2022 states that companies must have rules that relate to sexual and other forms of harassment in their internal policies, address the rules for receiving and processing accusations, assess the facts, and discipline any individuals directly and indirectly involved in acts of sexual harassment or violence.

If the investigation has any connection with anticorruption matters, the investigation procedure must comply with Law 12846/2013 (Brazilian Anticorruption Act) and Decree 8420/2015.

As a result, Brazilian employers usually follow the rules determined by internal corporate policies, which often result from international regulations and principles that differ from the Brazilian ones, which inadvertently expose the Brazilian subsidiary to liability. The answers below will highlight common examples of this, when appropriate.

While there are no specific laws that regulate a workplace investigation, there are several laws that companies should consider when conducting a workplace investigation concerning alleged employee misconduct.

One key example is the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). The WPA provides legal protection to a whistleblower if their allegations are raised in good faith and are in the public interest as specified under the WPA. If the WPA applies, certain obligations apply to the company, including but not limited to the following:

• the obligation to protect the confidentiality of the whistleblower’s identity;
• protecting the whistleblower if the whistleblower suffers or is likely to suffer serious harm to life or health as a result of whistleblowing and the whistleblower requests protection; and
• refraining from taking retaliatory action on the whistleblower.

Therefore, if an employee raises allegations of another employee’s misconduct, the company should review whether the allegations fall under the WPA.

There are also special laws that impose obligations on the company if there are certain types of allegations (eg, sexual harassment, workplace harassment).

In addition, when collecting and reviewing employees’ electronic data, such as emails or files stored in work laptops or company servers, which may contain personal information, the company should comply with data privacy laws discussed in more detail in questions 7 and 8.

Companies may also have internal policies (eg, whistleblower protection policies, Code of Conduct) that may apply to workplace investigations, aside from the requirements under Korean law.

Workplace investigations usually commence on the receipt of an allegation, which can be presented orally or in writing to an assigned member of the company (usually, within the HR, Compliance or Legal Departments, or to a direct supervisor) or via an external channel, as determined by the company’s policy.

There are many different ways a workplace investigation concerning employee misconduct could commence. Below are some key examples from our experience:

• an employee reports allegations concerning another employee’s misconduct through an ethics hotline or other means (eg, email, phone call);
• an outsider such as a former employee or a vendor reports allegations concerning employee misconduct to a company officer;
• an internal audit reveals potential employee misconduct;
• media reports raise allegations of employee misconduct; and
• an external investigation begins (eg, by criminal authorities or administrative agencies) concerning alleged employee misconduct.

Yes, an employee can be suspended during or before a workplace investigation. However, suspending an employee is not a legal requirement in Brazil. It is also not standard business practice and entails legal risk, as detailed below.

While internal policies in line with a company’s global investigation approach may determine whether investigated employees are suspended during an investigation, the suspension of an accused employee is not recommended. The only exception is when the accused employee, upon becoming aware of the existence of the investigation, poses a clear and imminent risk of physical danger to other employees or interfering with the investigation.

The suspension of an employee during an investigation makes it difficult for the company to keep the investigation confidential, because the absence of the investigated employee will have to be explained to his or her colleagues and business contacts. As a result, the investigated employee may be exposed to the stigma of being associated with potential misconduct.

Even if the accusation is confirmed and the individual is terminated with cause, the employer cannot disclose the reason for the termination or that the contract was terminated for a cause or violation in the employee’s employment records. Also, if the employer shares such information with prospective employers they may be liable for damages.

Termination for cause on the grounds of dishonest conduct, if not upheld by the labour court, usually leads to liability for damages to the former employee due to the accusation and the stigma associated with it. 

Therefore, if the company decides to suspend the employee during the investigation and terminate his or her employment at the end of the investigation, the suspension will be associated with wrongdoing, and the individual will have grounds to claim damages for the association between the termination, the investigation and wrongdoing, which will likely be presumed by a labour court (damage in re ipsa).

On the other hand, if the accusation is deemed groundless, the connection between the employee and potential wrongdoing resulting from his or her suspension can be used as grounds for damages because of the resulting environment at the workplace or the development of mental health conditions such as depression or anxiety by the investigated employee due to the investigation and uncertainty about the negative effect of it on his or her reputation. 

Because suspension during an investigation is not a disciplinary measure, if the company decides to suspend, the employee’s salary cannot be affected. Also, the suspension period must be as short as possible, and can in no circumstance be longer than 30 days. If it exceeds 30 days, it would trigger termination for cause by the company, which increases the amount of statutory severance due to the employee.

The company may place an employee who is subject to a workplace investigation under administrative leave if this seems necessary or appropriate to ensure the integrity of the workplace investigation. While administrative leave can take different forms, one way is to issue a “standby order” to the relevant employee, instructing him or her not to come into work and prohibiting contact with other employees or customers while the workplace investigation is ongoing.

Administrative leave is not a disciplinary action, but rather an exercise of the company’s authority to take personnel management measures. This authority is generally subject to a “reasonableness” test, with the Korean courts balancing the employer’s business necessity in placing the employee on administrative leave with the inconvenience caused to the employee. In conducting the balancing test, the Korean courts have considered whether the employee receives pay during the leave and the duration of the leave, among other things. In general, if the duration of the leave is not excessive and is with full pay and benefits, the employer’s management prerogative is likely to be recognised.

The company doesn't need to obtain the employee’s consent but, in practice, a company should consider getting the employee’s acknowledgement that they have received the administrative leave notice.

In addition to Korean labour law, other factors such as the company’s rules of employment or a collective bargaining agreement (if any) may affect the company’s ability to place the employee on administrative leave, by providing for prescribed procedures for placing an employee on administrative leave or requiring the company to obtain the union’s consent if a union leader or executive is involved.

There is no statutory rule, and therefore the investigator can be chosen by the company.

In sensitive matters, it is recommended that attorneys undertake the investigation due to legal privilege. Engaging external lawyers increases the confidence of witnesses and parties in the independence and lack of bias of the investigation process, especially when the allegations involve senior employees.

Additionally, attorneys are trained to collect information based on legal thresholds that apply to the allegations, allowing the decision-makers to understand the events as they would be posed before a labour judge or a prosecutor, and enabling them to clearly assess the legal risk involved in the situation.

While there are no laws that set minimum qualifications for who should conduct a workplace investigation, companies often engage external legal counsel to ensure the investigation is conducted in an unbiased and professional manner. If the company itself undertakes the workplace investigation, the company should take precautions such as ensuring that the person conducting the investigation is not biased and not involved in the alleged wrongdoing. If the person conducting the investigation cannot converse in the native language of the employee under investigation, the company may consider arranging for an interpreter when conducting interviews, to minimise the risk of misunderstanding.

Employees are not legally prohibited from bringing legal action, but because investigations are within an employer’s powers, a legal action to broadly stop an investigation (as opposed to an injunction to prevent a limited measure within an investigation, such as the review of private messages) would likely be deemed groundless.

An employee under investigation cannot bring legal action (eg, an injunction) to stop a workplace investigation. However, there have been instances where an employee under investigation raised legal challenges concerning the investigation (eg, breach of privacy). Please see question 19. While the company would not be legally compelled to stop the investigation when legal challenges are raised, they may face penalties under the relevant laws if it is determined they have committed a violation.

Employees cannot be compelled to act as witnesses. Employers may have trouble enforcing internal policies stating that employees who refuse to participate in investigations will be disciplined (warned, suspended or have their contract terminated for cause), but can terminate their contract without cause.

There are no explicit legal protections for employees acting as witnesses, but it is common best practice to have witnesses’ identities protected to the extent necessary for the investigation, and to protect them from retaliation.

While there are no laws to compel co-workers to act as witnesses, the company may have internal policies (eg, rules of employment, code of conduct) that require employees to cooperate with company actions such as a workplace investigation. That said, it would be difficult to enforce such policies even if the employee refuses to cooperate (eg, taking disciplinary action against an employee who refuses to act as a witness).

There may be instances when the company is required to provide certain legal protection to employees acting as witnesses in an investigation. For example, if a whistleblower falling under the WPA is required to act as a witness, they would be entitled to legal protections as discussed in question 1. The company may also have internal policies that provide protection to employees acting as witnesses in an investigation.

The Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD) does not have specific rules or principles that apply to internal investigations conducted within private organisations. Despite that, the general principles and obligations set forth by the LGPD apply to any processing of personal data carried out within the context of such investigations. As a result, the company must ensure the transparency of such processing activities through a privacy notice addressed to the data subjects; only process the personal data that is necessary for the investigation; define the lawful basis that applies to such processing activities (especially for sensitive data); and apply any other obligations established by the LGPD.

It may be difficult for a company to search and collect physical items that personally belong to the employee.

While the company may search and gather electronic data, such as emails or files stored in work laptops or company servers, there are requirements and restrictions under the Criminal Code, the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), and the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilisation and Information Protection, etc (Network Act), among other laws. 

Article 316(2) of the Criminal Code states that accessing the contents of another person’s documents, pictures, special media records, etc, that are sealed or designated as secret using technical means may constitute the crime of accessing electronic records.

Under the PIPA, consent must be obtained from the information owner to collect or use personal information, or to provide such information to a third party. Consent must be separately obtained for sensitive information or unique identification information. There are strict requirements as to the format and contents of the consent forms under the PIPA.

The Network Act prohibits accessing an information and communications network without rightful authority or any intrusion that goes beyond the permitted authority for access. Although this may not be an issue if a company directly manages the email accounts at issue, if an employee’s email account is protected by a password or through other means, accessing emails from that account without obtaining the employee’s consent could constitute unlawful intrusion under the Network Act as well as under the Criminal Code as discussed above.

No; employers are only generally allowed to search the work tools they provide to employees, such as company mobile phones, electronic files, and company email and other electronic communications. However, they may also request that employees turn over any company documents in their possession.

Searches of employees’ private possessions or files during an investigation can only occur with the verifiable consent of the employee.   

As discussed in question 7, it may be difficult for a company to search an employee’s personal possessions. The company may search and gather electronic data stored in work laptops or company servers, subject to legal requirements and restrictions (eg, obtaining consent). 

The PIPA provides specific guidance on the requirements for obtaining consent. Under the PIPA, to collect or use an individual’s personal information, the information holder must be informed of and consent to:

• the purpose of the collection or use;
• the personal information that will be collected;
• the period of retention and use; and
• his or her right to refuse to provide consent and any disadvantages that may result from such refusal.

There are separate requirements for obtaining consent to provide an individual’s personal information to a third party. Also, consent must be obtained separately for the collection, use or provision of sensitive or unique identification information.

Under limited circumstances, personal information may be collected, used, or provided to third parties without obtaining the consent of the information holder. For instance, a company may collect and use personal information without obtaining consent where obtaining the information is necessary to achieve the company’s “legitimate interests”, which clearly exceed the information holder’s right to his or her personal information, and the collection and use are carried out within reasonable bounds. The term “legitimate interests” in this context is generally understood as a concept similar to “justifiable act” under the Criminal Code. The Korean Supreme Court has held that under exceptional circumstances such as the following, the company’s collection and review of employee data may constitute a “justifiable act” under the Criminal Code:

1. the company had specific and reasonable suspicion that the employee had committed a crime and the company had an urgent need to verify the facts;
2. the scope of the company’s review was limited to the suspected crime through the use of keywords, etc;
3. the employee had signed an agreement stating that he or she would not use work computers in an unauthorised manner and that all work products would belong to the company; and
4. the company’s review uncovered materials that could be used to verify whether the employee committed the alleged crime.

If the investigation involves matters within the scope of a specific whistleblowing policy, the policy rules should prevail against the general investigation rules if there is a conflict.

Aside from the legal obligations imposed on the company when dealing with a whistleblower who is subject to the WPA as discussed in question 1, there are also practical considerations the company should keep in mind when dealing with a whistleblower, regardless of whether the whistleblower falls under the WPA.

For example, there have been instances where an employee who raised allegations filed a complaint with Korean authorities (such as the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) or the Labour Office) that the company took retaliatory action against the whistleblower. The company should carefully review the legal risks before taking action, such as personnel action or civil or criminal action, against an employee who raises allegations if that employee was also involved in the wrongdoing.

Law 14.457/2022 states that companies must guarantee the anonymity of accusers. As a result, it is best practice that companies allow for anonymous submissions, or allow accusers to voluntarily disclose their identity while acknowledging that they agree that it will be kept confidential to the extent required by the investigation.

Also, companies should have internal rules stating that all parties involved in an investigation (accusing party, accused party, witnesses, investigators, and any other person that has any contact with the investigation) must keep the existence of the investigation and of the events related to the investigation confidential to the extent required by the investigation, and discipline any individuals that violate this.

It is general practice in Korea for a company to require interviewees to maintain confidentiality concerning a workplace investigation and instruct them that they are not permitted to discuss the matter under investigation with other employees, etc. If an employee violates this instruction, it may be possible for the company to take disciplinary action against them under the company’s rules.

Further, the company or its employees who have engaged in an investigation for sexual harassment or workplace harassment in the workplace are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the investigation. Failure to comply with such requirements may lead to an administrative fine from the Ministry of Employment and Labour for the company or its registered representative.

There may be some exceptions to the confidentiality obligation, such as when an employee is required by government authorities to provide relevant information in a parallel investigation.

There is no obligation to inform an employee under investigation that this is the case, and it should not happen automatically.

While some policies require that the investigated employee be informed about the allegations against them at the beginning of the investigation, from a local perspective it is recommended that the accused employee be notified about the existence of the allegations if, after a reasonable review, there are elements that suggest that the accusation may be material.

In this context, the employee should be informed about the accusation and be allowed to confirm, deny, provide further context or justify each reported or identified event; offer evidence; and indicate persons or sources of information that could corroborate his or her defence. Information about the accusation must be focused on facts rather than on how the company obtained the information.

If the accusation is found to be groundless after initial review, involving the accused employee at the beginning of the process may have triggered unjust and unnecessary stress and a disruption in the employment relationship that may not be satisfactorily repaired by a determination that the accusation was void. This may result in a legal liability for the company or HR issues that could otherwise have been avoided.

There is no requirement to notify an employee under investigation concerning the allegations against him or her when requesting cooperation with a workplace investigation (eg, requesting the employee’s consent to review electronic data, or requesting an interview).

However, the company may strategically consider explaining the general purpose of the investigation before requesting consent to review electronic data or when requesting an interview. This may help increase the likelihood of cooperation and also reduce the risk of the employee raising objections to the company’s findings from the investigation by saying he or she was not properly informed of the purpose of the investigation, or that the investigation was conducted in a coercive manner.

Yes, the identity of the complainant, witnesses and sources of information for the investigation should be kept confidential.

As discussed in question 1, if the whistleblower falls under the WPA, the whistleblower’s identity should be kept confidential. Even if the WPA does not apply, the company may wish to keep the identity of the whistleblower and other key witnesses confidential to the greatest extent possible.

Yes, NDAs may be executed to reinforce the confidentiality obligations outlined in the company's policies and reinforced in interviews.

Some companies require an employee subject to investigation to sign an NDA or other similar documents (eg, a pledge of confidentiality) agreeing not to disclose information relating to the investigation to outside parties.

Privilege attaches to investigation materials when attorneys conduct interviews and take notes, and when they write reports and recommendations.

However, if other persons participate in an interview or write a report, and they are not attorneys, they can be required to testify about what they witnessed while participating in the interview or to discuss or disclose their investigation report.

For this reason, when starting an investigation, and depending on the matters to be investigated, it is important to determine whether it is convenient to allocate lawyers to certain roles to increase the company’s control of corporate confidentiality resulting from third-party involvement in the investigation.

Attorneys should also clearly state to participants of the investigation that they are attorneys representing the company and that their work papers fall under attorney-client privilege and will not be shared with them.

No law recognises the common law concept of “attorney-client privilege” in Korea. However, communication with an attorney is protected to some extent under certain laws, such as the Constitution, the Attorney Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Civil Procedure Act. This protection is based on the attorney’s confidentiality obligation, which prohibits an attorney from divulging confidential matters acquired in the course of representing clients, unless otherwise prescribed by law. This confidentiality obligation generally allows an attorney to refuse to testify or comply with document production orders for information or materials the attorney obtained in the course of his or her duties that relate to the confidential information of clients.

In addition, there could be instances where materials from an investigation conducted in Korea may become subject to discovery outside of Korea. It is, therefore, important to ensure investigation materials are privileged under the relevant non-Korean laws in the jurisdictions where attorney-client privilege is recognised (eg, the US).

Legally, a minor or someone with limited mental capacity must be represented by his or her parents or legal guardian in a meeting at work. Besides that, employers are not legally required to allow any external person to accompany employees during investigations, since these are internal proceedings and, generally, employee participation should be voluntary and not subject to retaliation, including if the employee refuses to participate.

While the company cannot prevent an employee from engaging his or her legal counsel, there is no legal obligation for a company to allow an employee to bring his or her legal counsel to an interview, for example. If the employee expresses his or her intention not to participate in the interview session without his or her legal counsel, the company may consider explaining to the employee that such refusal to participate in the interview may constitute a breach of reasonable work-related orders and may be subject to disciplinary action. However, the company should consider the possibility of the employee claiming that he or she was not given a proper opportunity to explain the allegations during the investigation because they were prevented from obtaining legal assistance.

No, there is no such right.

While a labour union does not have a legal right under Korean law to be informed or involved in the investigation, unless otherwise required under the relevant collective bargaining agreement, there have been instances where the labour union raised complaints that the company did not properly investigate an employee, who is a member of the labour union, particularly if the company took disciplinary action against that employee based on the findings of the investigation. The company should consider such a practical risk when conducting a workplace investigation.

If the investigation was conducted based on a claim filed by an employee to the Grievance Handling Committee (which is a sub-committee of a works council), the members of that committee have a right to be informed of the results of the investigation.

It is highly recommended that investigation interviews are conducted in the interviewed person’s native language, even if the individual speaks the language used for business within the company, to ensure that there is no miscommunication or loss of accuracy in the determination of the facts. Also, speaking their native tongue reduces the discomfort of participating in the interview and potential extra work due to post-interview correction or confirmation. Depending on the scope of the investigation, the company can have attorneys who speak both the individual’s language and the company’s business language conducting interviews.

There could be some instances where an employee involved in an investigation may be entitled to support from the company. To give an example, there have been some cases where a whistleblower claimed they suffered workplace harassment or their employer took retaliatory action (eg, wrongful transfer) and they sought damages or other relief.

If unrelated matters are revealed as a result of the investigation, the company must be notified and must start a new investigation regarding them per the appropriate rules, without affecting the original investigation.

Sometimes, the company discovers other potential misconduct in addition to the specific allegations that trigger a workplace investigation. No law limits the scope of the company’s investigation to the allegations that were initially raised.

If the object of the grievance is connected to the ongoing investigation, the investigator may pursue that grievance within the same procedure or open a separate matter, under the company’s rules governing such a situation.

If the object of the grievance is not connected to the investigation, the employee must report the matter, or the investigator can do it, if the company’s policies allow it.

It is not uncommon for an employee under investigation to raise grievances during or after the investigation. Below are some examples of claims an employee may raise:

• that the company reviewed the employee’s electronic data without obtaining the requisite consent;
• that witnesses or the company committed defamation in violation of the Criminal Code;
• that the employee was coerced to comply with the investigation in violation of the Criminal Code;
• that the employee was disciplined without just cause; or
• that the employee was harassed by other employees for providing information during the investigation.

The actions the company should take would vary depending on the grievance raised.

Sick leave suspends the employment agreement, and as a rule the employee should not be contacted during such a suspension. The investigation may continue without the participation of the investigated employee while that employee is absent, have its conclusion suspended while he or she is on leave, and resume once the employee returns to work.

The company should review whether the employee under investigation is requesting sick leave under appropriate procedures and for a legitimate reason and may consider ways to persuade the employee to cooperate with the investigation. If the employee applies for sick leave following company policy, the company would need to grant such sick leave and suspend the investigation during the sick leave.

The company may be required to share information or documents with authorities such as a judge, the police, or the Public Attorney's office, or be subject to a government authority’s dawn raid. Workplace investigations can and in most cases should continue, and in such circumstances client-work privilege will be essential to enable the employer to control information being shared with third parties.

There is no obligation to stay the workplace investigation while the parallel criminal or regulatory investigation is being conducted. In practice, companies often proceed with, or even accelerate, the workplace investigation to find out the facts and defend themselves against the parallel criminal or regulatory investigation being conducted. The company should be careful not to engage in activities that may raise suspicions as to whether the company is impeding the government investigation or concealing or destroying evidence.

While the investigation report would typically not be privileged, the company may consider explaining to the authorities that the investigation findings are not conclusive, should the police or regulator request the internal investigation report.

There is no legal obligation to inform them of the outcome. Any obligation would come from the company's policies.

There is no legal obligation for a company to disclose the outcome of an investigation to the employee who was subject to it. Having said that, if the company wishes to take disciplinary action against the employee based on the outcome of an investigation, it is required to disclose sufficient detail on the employee’s wrongdoing that is subject to disciplinary action. This information should be provided to the employee before the disciplinary action committee (DAC) hearing to provide the employee with sufficient time to present and defend his or her position during the DAC hearing.

There is no legal requirement or recommendation for the company to share the full or partial report or findings. It is also not a recommended measure. Therefore, unless the internal rules determine that the company must do it, any answer to queries should be limited to the fact that the investigation was concluded, and the company took the appropriate action.

As discussed in question 22, when taking disciplinary action against an employee based on the outcome of an investigation, the company would need to disclose sufficient detail on the employee’s wrongdoing. However, this does not mean that the full investigation report would need to be shared with the employee to be disciplined. Key details of the investigation findings that apply to the relevant employee due to be disciplined should be shared, and not other findings concerning other persons.

There is also no requirement under Korean law for a company to disclose the investigation report or investigation findings to the whistleblower. If the company discloses the personal identity of the target employees, such disclosure could constitute a violation of the PIPA , libel or defamation under the Criminal Code. If the whistleblower strongly requests that the company share the investigation report or the findings, the company may consider providing a summary of the key findings concerning the allegations that the whistleblower raised, without disclosing personal information.

If investigators conclude that a breach has occurred, the company may determine the appropriate response, which may include verbal or written warnings; the suspension of employment without payment (for up to 29 days) or termination of employment without or with cause; a review of policies or operational protocols; and new training modules or the updating of training modules.

If the investigators conclude that a breach has not occurred but determine that the report was made in good faith, the case must be set aside. If the investigators determine that the report was made in bad faith, the employer must determine how to respond to the bad-faith reporter.

After completing an investigation, the company may consider the following measures, among others:

1. taking disciplinary action against the relevant employees;
2. taking legal action (eg, criminal action, civil action) against the relevant employees; and
3. taking appropriate remedial measures (eg, strengthening existing policies and establishing new policies, and conducting training).

The company may also consider making a voluntary report to the relevant authorities as discussed in question 25.

There are no legal requirements for the company to share the investigation findings with any party, including the reporter and the investigated party, so the employer must carefully consider the pros and cons of doing so on a case-by-case basis. Interview records can generally be kept private if interviews were conducted by an attorney.

There is generally no obligation to report violations to the Korean authorities, subject to limited exceptions (eg, financial institutions are required to report certain types of wrongdoing to the financial regulator; if there was a leak of an industrial technology developed through a national research and development project or a national core technology, this leak should be reported to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy and the National Intelligence Service). However, even in the absence of a self-reporting obligation, the company may consider strategically deciding to make a voluntary report. For example, there have been instances where the police or prosecutors’ investigations were conducted in a more limited manner where the company filed a voluntary report and cooperated with the investigation. Also, for certain types of violations (eg, cartel activities), self-reporting to the relevant authority may entitle the company to leniency provided under the law.

In certain instances, the company may also consider reporting violations to the relevant foreign authorities, in addition to, or instead of, the Korean authorities. For example, if the company found potential violations of US law such as sanctions law or the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act, the company may want to self-report these violations to the relevant authorities such as the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or the US Department of Justice.

The existence of the investigation should be kept on file for at least five years from the date of its conclusion. All information related to the investigation should be kept on file for the same period, but not on the employee’s record, to avoid the risk of accidental access by unauthorised individuals.

There is no legal requirement on how long the records of the investigation (eg disciplinary action) should be maintained by the company. Many companies maintain a record of disciplinary action throughout the employment period.

The employer’s legal exposure resulting from errors during the investigation depends on the error and the victim or victims affected. It may range from paying damages to a witness who was harassed because the company did not prevent retaliation from occurring; to the reversal of a termination for cause if a court determines that the evidence collected during the investigation did not meet the legal threshold to uphold it; to indemnification for a violation of privacy; or criminal prosecution because of unauthorised access to private communications.

As mentioned in question 19, employees may potentially raise claims, such as that the company violated data privacy laws in reviewing employee data, committed defamation, coerced the employee to comply with the investigation, and that witnesses or the company committed defamation in violation of the Criminal Code or disciplined the employee without just cause.