HA 625 Unit 5 workplace investigation report example

"Speak American" on a Telemetry Unit: A Workplace Investigation Report on National Origin Harassment, Assignment Fairness and a Schedule Change After the Complaint

Student Name

Health Care Administration, Herzing University

HA 625: Healthcare Law and Ethics

Instructor Name

February 12, 2026

"Speak American" on a Telemetry Unit: A Workplace Investigation Report on National Origin Harassment, Assignment Fairness and a Schedule Change After the Complaint

Executive Summary

On November 3, 2025, a registered nurse on the telemetry unit of a composite Ohio hospital complained to human resources that a charge nurse had mocked her accent and national origin for several months, had given her heavier patient assignments because of her origin, and, after she raised concerns informally, had moved her off her regular shift pattern. The investigation opened on November 5 and closed on December 12. Using the preponderance of the evidence standard, it finds Allegation 1 (harassing comments) substantiated, Allegation 2 (assignments) not substantiated, and Allegation 3 (schedule change after the complaint) substantiated. Remedial actions, each with an owner and date, appear at the end.

Parties and Jurisdiction

Complainant: staff registered nurse, telemetry unit, born in the Philippines, employed four years. Respondent: charge nurse, same unit, employed eleven years. The respondent assigns patients each shift and drafts the unit's six-week schedule for the nurse manager's approval, but cannot hire, fire, demote or change pay.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination because of national origin, including harassment severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment, a prohibition codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and it applies because the hospital has far more than the 15 employees the statute requires. It separately prohibits retaliation against an employee who opposes a practice the statute makes unlawful, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. Ohio law, at Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02, also prohibits discrimination because of national origin and ancestry by employers of four or more persons. Hospital policy prohibits harassment on any protected basis and requires managers to report complaints to human resources within one business day.

Which Liability Standard Applies

Employer liability for harassment depends on who the harasser is. If the harasser is a supervisor, meaning someone the employer has empowered to take tangible employment actions such as hiring, firing or demotion, the employer is liable unless it can show it exercised reasonable care and the employee, without good reason, did not use the complaint process it offered (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998). If the harasser is a coworker, liability attaches through negligence: the employer answers for the conduct if it was aware of it, or ought to have been, and did not act promptly and effectively to end it. The Supreme Court has held that authority to direct daily work, without power over tangible employment actions, does not make someone a supervisor for this purpose (Vance v. Ball State University, 2013). The respondent assigns patients but cannot take tangible actions, so the coworker standard applies. The hospital's exposure therefore turns on what it knew and how quickly it acted, which makes the timeline in this report part of the hospital's defense.

Methods

Interim measure: from November 6, the complainant and respondent were placed on different shifts, at the complainant's choice of shift, with no loss of hours or differential. Interviews: the complainant, the respondent, the nurse manager, and six staff who worked shifts with both (four registered nurses, one nursing assistant, one unit secretary). Documents: the unit's assignment sheets for July through October, with patient acuity scores from the electronic record; the six-week schedules for August through January; the complainant's text messages to a coworker describing incidents as they happened; and the nurse manager's email file. Requested but unavailable: security video of the nurses' station, which is kept for 30 days and had been overwritten.

Allegation 1: Harassing Comments

Evidence. The complainant described repeated comments from July through October: imitating her accent when she gave report, calling her "the import," and on at least two occasions telling her in front of patients' families to "speak American." Four of the six coworkers heard one or more of these comments; two described the accent imitation as happening "most shifts she was on." The complainant's contemporaneous texts, dated July 19, August 30 and October 2, describe the same incidents. The respondent acknowledged "joking around" about accents but denied the phrase "speak American" and said the complainant never objected.

Credibility. The complainant's account is preferred. It is detailed, consistent across two interviews, matched by texts written at the time, and corroborated by four coworkers with no evident reason to favor her. The respondent's partial admission is consistent with the complainant's account, and the claim that she never objected is contradicted by a coworker who heard her ask the respondent to stop in August.

Finding. Substantiated. The comments were directed at the complainant's national origin, were repeated over about four months, and included remarks made in front of patients' families, which carry humiliation beyond private remarks. Federal guidance treats mocking an accent and demands to speak English in this way as conduct that can create a hostile environment based on national origin (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2024). Whether or not a court would find the conduct severe or pervasive, it violates hospital policy, which draws the line earlier than the statute.

Allegation 2: Patient Assignments

Evidence. The complainant believed she received heavier assignments than other nurses. Assignment sheets for 61 shifts she worked with the respondent as charge nurse were compared with acuity scores. Her average assigned acuity was 2.9 on the unit's four-point scale, compared with 2.8 for the other nurses on the same shifts. She received the unit's highest-acuity patient on 14% of those shifts, compared with 13% expected from rotation alone.

Finding. Not substantiated. The assignment data do not show a difference beyond what the normal rotation produces. The complainant's perception is understandable given the comments, and the report records that her concern was reasonable to raise.

Allegation 3: Schedule Change After the Complaint

Evidence. On October 14, the complainant told the nurse manager informally that the respondent's comments were bothering her and asked for help. On October 20, the respondent drafted the schedule for the next period, moving the complainant from her fixed Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday pattern, held for three years, to rotating days that included weekends she had not previously worked. The nurse manager approved the draft on October 22. The respondent said the change was to "balance weekends." No other nurse's pattern was changed in that period. The nurse manager said she had mentioned the October 14 conversation to the respondent "so she'd tone it down."

Analysis. Retaliation is analyzed separately from the underlying harassment and can be established even when the original complaint is not. The complainant's October 14 report was protected opposition. A retaliatory act need not be a firing; it is enough that it might dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination (Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 2006). Losing a long-held fixed schedule for rotating weekends meets that standard for a nurse with young children, as the complainant is. The change followed the protected report by six days, was made by the person complained about after she learned of the report, and applied to no one else.

Finding. Substantiated. The October 14 conversation was also a complaint the nurse manager should have forwarded to human resources within one business day; it was not forwarded until the complainant went to human resources herself on November 3.

Remedial Actions, Monitoring and Records

The complainant's fixed schedule is restored effective with the next period; owner, nurse manager; by December 19. The respondent is removed from charge nurse duties and from schedule drafting, receives a final written warning, and completes individual training on harassment and retaliation; owner, director of nursing; by January 9. The nurse manager receives a written warning for failing to report the October 14 complaint and for sharing it with the respondent, and completes manager training on complaint handling; owner, director of nursing; by January 9. Human resources will meet with the complainant at 30, 60 and 90 days to ask about any further conduct or adverse treatment, and will review the unit's schedules and assignments for the complainant for the same period.

The investigation file, including notes, the assignment analysis and this report, will be kept for seven years under the hospital's records schedule, which exceeds the one-year minimum federal rules set for personnel records. The hospital and people are composite; the legal standards are summarized from the cited sources and should be applied by counsel to any real matter.

References

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (2025).

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).

Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.02 (2025).

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2024). Enforcement guidance on harassment in the workplace. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-harassment-workplace

Vance v. Ball State University, 570 U.S. 421 (2013).