![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.hrdive.com\/static\/img\/play.svg?500116090725\")
\n Listen to the article
\n 5 min<\/p>\n
\n Listen to the article
\n 5 min<\/p>\n
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback<\/a>.<\/p>\n Employers are beginning to incorporate generative artificial intelligence into their investigations process, particularly at the planning, preparation and analysis phases, according to Leighton Henderson, senior counsel at Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. But as with other AI-in-HR use cases, there are some caveats.<\/p>\n One of the first steps to conducting effective internal investigations<\/a> of alleged misconduct or similar issues comes at the preliminary stage, when employers outline the key issues, witnesses and questions involved.<\/p>\n AI may assist with each of these tasks, from identifying persons with whom employers should speak to brainstorming potential questions for interviews, Henderson said in an interview. It also can double check any blind spots the investigative team may have.<\/p>\n Additionally, AI\u2019s transcription capabilities are relevant to a common point of debate: \u201cIf you want to start a fight with a group of investigators, ask them how to best document,\u201d Henderson said.<\/p>\n The two most common methods for documenting witness interviews, for example, are to either record them or manually take notes. Recording helps cut down on the hard work of manual notetaking but can prove expensive, as audio transcription services can cost hundreds of dollars per interview.<\/p>\n Current AI models are not yet reliably accurate enough to transcribe witness interviews word-for-word, per Henderson, but the technology could potentially reach that level of accuracy in the future and thereby eliminate a major cost for investigators.<\/p>\n Until that point, AI transcriptions can nonetheless be used to double-check notes. The tech is also helpful for putting together a timeline of events for investigations that involve a large number of events over an extended period of time, Henderson said, assuming that employers verify the results for accuracy.<\/p>\n Employers may want to consider purchasing an enterprise license for AI platforms they plan to use for investigations.<\/p>\n Getty Images<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Privacy, accuracy pose obstacles<\/p>\n When it comes to risks posed by AI in the investigations context, \u201cthe two biggest ones are privacy and accuracy, without a doubt,\u201d Henderson said.<\/p>\n Publicly accessible AI modules \u2014 such as the free version of ChatGPT \u2014 could leave sensitive information exposed to the general public. Workplace investigations very often involve personal data and information that is not public record, Henderson noted, meaning even small tasks such as asking a chatbot to generate questions for a specific witness are problematic.<\/p>\n To get around this concern, employers might want to consider paying for an enterprise license, which allows more of a \u201cclosed universe\u201d when using a given AI tool. But even in that scenario, they should only upload documentation after removing personally identifying information and fully anonymizing the data, Henderson said.<\/p>\n \u201cWhoever created that chatbot, that company still has access to this closed universe,\u201d she added. \u201cWhat if they get subpoenaed and need to turn over everything that an employer has been using the chatbot for? There\u2019s no guarantee that everything is going to remain private.\u201d<\/p>\n HR teams are likely aware of generative AI\u2019s tendency to produce hallucinations<\/a>, or inaccurate data that appear authentic. That\u2019s something to watch out for in the transcription context, where AI might mistake two common but opposite phrases like \u201cnuh uh\u201d and \u201cuh huh,\u201d Henderson said. \u201cThat could have detrimental effects on your fact finding.\u201d<\/p>\n California is among the state and local jurisdictions to regulate how employers use AI in employment decisions.<\/p>\n Getty Images<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Expect state governments to have their say<\/p>\n Though federal courts have begun to field employment law claims involving AI<\/a>, the tech\u2019s sudden rise hasn\u2019t left much time for case law to develop with respect to its use in workplace investigations. Henderson nonetheless said she anticipates such cases will show up eventually.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, state governments have passed laws and issued regulations that could affect investigation-related AI deployment.<\/p>\n In California, rules prohibiting automated decision-making systems from discriminating<\/a> on the basis of employees\u2019 protected characteristics took effect Oct. 1. Separately, the state issued consumer privacy regulations<\/a> that place requirements on the same kinds of automated systems if they are used in employment decisions such as demotion, suspension and termination.<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Z3M6Ly9kaXZlc2l0ZS1zdG9yYWdlL2RpdmVpbWFnZS9HZXR0eUltYWdlcy0xNzIyNTA4NDUxLmpwZw==.webp.webp\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Z3M6Ly9kaXZlc2l0ZS1zdG9yYWdlL2RpdmVpbWFnZS9HZXR0eUltYWdlcy0xMzk3MjQzNTk4LmpwZw==.webp.webp\"\/)
<\/p>\n