California Court Says Employers Can't Have It Both Ways on Harassment Investigation Records
/
When an employer investigates a harassment complaint and later points to that investigation as proof it did the right thing, can it also refuse to hand over what the investigation actually found? A California appeals court said no.
Case: Michelle Paknad v. The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara (Real Party in Interest: Intuitive Surgical, Inc., et al.)
Court: California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District
Case No.: H052652 (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 19CV350641)
Get to Know the Petitioner: Paknad v. Superior Court
Michelle Paknad made formal complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation while employed. In response, her employer retained an outside attorney to investigate her complaints. That attorney interviewed witnesses, reviewed documents, and produced two written reports containing findings and conclusions. Paknad was given only a summary of the findings — not the underlying reports themselves.
Get to Know the Real Party in Interest: Paknad v. Superior Court
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., et al. is named as the real party in interest in this writ proceeding, meaning it is the underlying defendant in Paknad's employment case, which originated in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?
This case reached the Court of Appeal as a discovery dispute stemming from Paknad's underlying employment claims. According to the case record:
● Paknad made formal complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her employment
● Her employer hired outside counsel to investigate, resulting in two written reports containing findings and conclusions
● Only a summary of the findings was shared with Paknad; the underlying reports were withheld
● After Paknad was terminated, she sued her employer and former supervisors
● The employer asserted an "avoidable consequences" defense, citing the investigation's thoroughness and independence, while also claiming the underlying investigative materials were protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine
What Was the Main Question in the Case?
The central legal question was whether an employer can simultaneously argue that its internal investigation was thorough and independent (as a defense to liability) while also withholding the underlying investigative materials as privileged. The Court of Appeal held that an employer cannot have it both ways.
Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?
This is a California discovery ruling with direct, practical implications for any California employee pursuing a discrimination, harassment, or retaliation claim.
● The ruling makes it harder for employers to use a favorable internal investigation as a shield in litigation while keeping the actual findings hidden from the employee who was investigated
● It reinforces that when an employer's defense strategy relies on the adequacy of an investigation, employees are entitled to meaningfully test that claim by seeing the underlying materials
● The decision helps level the playing field in discovery disputes, which are often a major hurdle for employees pursuing harassment and retaliation claims
● It signals to California employers that citing an internal investigation as a defense comes with real transparency obligations
A Brief Overview of the Case
● Paknad makes formal complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her employment
● Her employer's outside counsel investigates and produces two reports; only a summary is shared with Paknad
● After her termination, Paknad sues her employer and former supervisors in Santa Clara County Superior Court (Case No. 19CV350641)
● The employer asserts an avoidable consequences defense while claiming privilege over the investigative materials
● The trial court orders only heavily redacted production of the materials
● March 24, 2026: The Court of Appeal issues a writ of mandate ordering further in camera review and broader disclosure of the materials within the scope of the employer's waiver
● April 17, 2026: The opinion is modified and certified for publication
FAQs: Paknad v. Superior Court
Q: What is an "avoidable consequences" defense in a harassment case?
A: It's a defense employers sometimes raise arguing that if the employee had used internal reporting procedures, and the employer responded appropriately, some or all of the harm could have been avoided or reduced.
Q: Can an employer claim its investigation was privileged and still use it as a defense?
A: According to this ruling, not fully. If an employer relies on the investigation to defend itself, it generally can't also withhold the underlying investigative materials as privileged.
Q: What does "in camera review" mean?
A: It means a judge privately reviews disputed documents to determine what should be disclosed, without the material yet being shared with the opposing party.
Q: Why does it matter whether an employee sees the full investigation report, not just a summary?
A: The full report may contain details, inconsistencies, or conclusions that a brief summary omits, which can be critical evidence in evaluating whether the investigation was actually thorough and fair.
Q: What is "attorney-client privilege" and how does it apply to workplace investigations?
A: Attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between a client and their attorney. However, that protection can be limited or waived when the employer relies on the investigation as part of its legal defense.
Q: What should I do if I'm involved in a workplace investigation and never see the final findings?
A: Request a copy of the findings in writing, and if you later pursue legal claims related to the investigation, consult an employment attorney about whether you may be entitled to the full underlying materials.
Denied Access to Your Own Workplace Investigation Findings?
Paknad v. Superior Court shows that employees have real rights to transparency when an employer's own investigation becomes part of its legal defense. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
