Security Investigations and Consulting

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace and Ethics Considerations
Investigations of high-ranking members of an organization are uncomfortable and potentially harmful for the reputation of the firm. They can also ruin a high-ranking individual’s career if anything illegal is brought to light. Allegations once made cannot be put back in the box. Thus, it should be with great care and consideration that any investigation into a high-ranking leader in a firm is conducted; information should be verified; evidence should be collected and documented; and facts should be permitted to tell their own story.
Because this case, however, relies upon witness testimony, the facts are not going to be as clear as what one might find in a case of money laundering, where there is a paper trail. This case will rely on eye witness testimony and the testimony of a manager to whom was confided the information of harassment by the victim. The victim did not wish to file a complaint—that was made clear to the manager to whom she told what was happening with a certain high-ranking executive every time he would visit the unit. The victim feared reprisal and did not want an ordeal. The manager came forward after Internal Affairs gave a presentation supervisory responsibilities to pass along information on sexual harassment so as to avoid being caught in a compromising situation later on if events come to light and it is found that the manager did not report them to Internal Affairs.
Thus, the manager did the correct thing in reporting the case. However, the case cannot proceed without facts. The victim is not cooperating with investigators and maintains that she does not wish to come forward to make a complaint. What is the solution therefore moving forward? What the security team has is an eye witness—not of harassment but rather of the victim in tears; the other piece of evidence is hearsay—a report by the manager, who says he was told by the victim in confidence that a high-ranking executive was sexually harassing her every time he would visit. That is all. The victim has not gone on record and does not wish to do so.
Because no official complaint has been lodged by the victim, the security team must adhere to ethical guidelines and standards and not engage in any misrepresentation of the facts (Nemeth, 2019; Sennewald, 2004). Although the report given by the manager is compelling, it has not been corroborated by the victim. However, it has been corroborated by a witness who alerted the manager that something was going on with the female employee and the high-ranking executive. This witness could be considered an indirect victim of sexual harassment. This witness can thus corroborate what the manager is reporting.
The remarks of the witness should thus be recorded, signed and documented. These will serve as the evidence of what has been seen in conjunction with the executive’s visits to the unit. This witness testimony can be used in conjunction with the testimony of the manager to create a case against the executive. The direct victim of the harassment should be protected against reprisal, as should the eye witness and the manager who reported the case.
The question is: Should the investigation proceed and the accusation be made against the executive even though the direct victim herself has asked for nothing of the sort? What is the moral thing to do in this situation?
References
Nemeth, C. P. (2019). Private Security and the Investigative Process, 4th Edition. Florida: CRC Press.
Sennewald, C. A. (2004). Security Consulting, 3rd Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann.