HR Internal Investigations 2026 Comparisons

Internal HR investigations are usually initiated in response to complaints or suspicions of serious irregularities, such as harassment, discrimination, violence, violations of company policies or regulations, or other infringements of the law, as well as matters relating to crimes or labour disputes.

In such cases, it may be necessary to conduct a formal process to gather facts and evidence in order to determine whether misconduct has occurred and what corrective measures should be taken.

The legal basis for conducting an HR internal investigation in Mexico is mainly based on the Federal Labour Law (Ley Federal del Trabajo; LFT), the Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties (Ley Federal de Protección de Datos Personales en Posesión de los Particulares), and the provisions established in each company’s Internal Work Regulations (Reglamento Interior de Trabajo).

In addition, where applicable, the collective bargaining agreements, internal protocols, and/or the company’s Code of Ethics can serve as the guide for this kind of procedure.

Although the Federal Labour Law in Mexico does not require a specific or unique “communication channel”, employers are legally obliged to establish and communicate clear and accessible procedures for employees to raise concerns relating to safety, occupational health and psychosocial risk factors.

In Mexico, there is no single rule dictating who should conduct an internal HR investigation. The decision depends on the severity of the situation and can be made by the HR department, the compliance or audit department, or an in-house or external legal advisor.

In serious cases, the appointment of an external lawyer is recommended to avoid conflicts of interest. In less complex cases, an in-house lawyer may be more efficient, although this could also create a conflict of interest.

There are specific circumstances that make an HR investigation mandatory. This is primarily the case when there are allegations involving potentially serious legal violations or significant risks to the company.

Mandatory internal investigations are most commonly required in situations involving sexual and/or workplace harassment and discrimination, fraud, bribery or corruption, workplace violence, serious regulatory non-compliance and breaches of confidential information.

There are several circumstances in which an internal HR investigation could be postponed or suspended, or not carried out at all (either temporarily or permanently). This is primarily to avoid interfering with external legal processes, or when conflicts of interest exist.

In the absence of a specific legal obligation or prohibition, the employer will decide to conduct an internal HR investigation based on a risk assessment, the seriousness of the matter in question, the need to protect the company’s organisational culture and reputation, and whether there are indications of possible violations of internal policies or codes of ethics.

The complainant and the accused have the right to be informed of the opening of an internal HR investigation as part of a fair and transparent process.

There are no specific legal deadlines for internal investigations in the LFT, however, if the company has a protocol for handling HR investigations, this must be followed. Companies must act with due diligence and resolve the situation within a reasonable timeframe.

There are circumstances in which the results of an internal HR investigation are required to be reported to the authorities. This is specifically the case when the findings indicate the commission of a crime or a serious administrative offence. The obligation to report arises when the investigated conduct goes beyond a mere violation of internal company policies.

The kind of crime or the offence committed will determine which authority is responsible for handling the case.

Companies can usually ask people involved in an HR internal investigation to sign an NDA. These agreements are voluntary, and no one can be forced to sign them.

However, if a NDA is not signed, everyone is expected to keep the investigation confidential in order to protect the integrity of the process, as it may involve sensitive matters or personal data.

In addition, the privacy of everyone involved in the investigation must be safeguarded and participants are expected to co-operate in the process honestly.

If confidential data is disclosed, there are legal remedies (civil and/or criminal) to penalise the disclosure of that information if it causes harm to the parties, individuals or organisations.

It is possible and common, and generally recommended, for HR to conduct a preliminary assessment or investigation before launching a full, formal one. This allows them to establish whether there are grounds to proceed with a more in-depth investigation and determine whether any sanctions are warranted for the offender.

During an HR internal investigation, it is a standard practice to interview the whistle-blower, the accused and any other individuals with knowledge of the facts under investigation. This may also include the superiors of those involved, if they have relevant information. The number of people interviewed varies depending on the specific circumstances of each case, in order to establish the facts.

The interviewee cannot be compelled to participate in the investigation, but the employer may make a determination based on the information available. The employer also has the right to document this refusal and ascertain the reasons for it.

If the interviewee decides to participate, they must participate in the entire investigation, not just partially or in certain aspects of the investigation.

The interviews for an internal HR investigation can be conducted remotely via Zoom, Microsoft Teams or other video conferencing platforms. However, it is important to note that interviews are preferably conducted in person and only remotely in exceptional cases.

There are no strict rules regarding the number or characteristics of the interviewers. However, they should be someone authorised by the company to conduct interviews and, ideally, be a member of the HR department.

In terms of the size of the investigative team, it is recommended that only one person leads the procedure, but a larger number of participants is not prohibited.

It is a common practice to have a neutral person present during an internal HR investigation, often referred to as an “impartial third party” or “observer”. Depending on the severity of the situation and internal policies, this may even be considered essential to ensure the impartiality and credibility of the process.

While the LFT in Mexico does not generally require observers for all internal interviews, it is common practice for them to serve as witnesses, attesting to the conduct of the interview or investigation.

The right of an employee to be accompanied by a support person or lawyer during an interview in an internal HR investigation can vary significantly depending on factors such as labour legislation, internal company policies and unionisation. Interviewees may also be accompanied by witnesses who can testify on their behalf.

It is essential that the team of interviewers provides key information at the beginning and end of the interview to establish clear expectations, foster trust and ensure a professional process. This information should include the reason for the interview and its objectives.

It is important to note that the entire process will be recorded in the interview minutes. All participants will be asked to read and sign the minutes to confirm their acceptance of their content.

If an interviewee requests a break during an internal HR investigation interview, this will generally be granted, unless there is a justifiable reason for the interview to continue. However, the interview must resume within a reasonable timeframe.

If the interview has already been ongoing for a considerable period of time, it may be suspended at the interviewer’s request and continued on a different day and at a different time.

Administrative reports or minutes can be filed during or as a result of an internal HR investigation. These reports document any findings, deficiencies or instances of non-compliance identified during the review, and they serve as an internal company tool for monitoring compliance with labour regulations and the Internal Work Regulations (RIT).

The reports are made available for review by all parties involved, who must sign them to confirm acceptance. Anyone who chooses not to sign must note this refusal in the report itself.

Reports must be prepared by company personnel, preferably from the HR department. Therefore, it is uncommon for individuals external to the company to prepare them.

An internal HR investigation interview can be recorded by any of the individuals taking part in the conversation. Ideally, however, the consent of all participants should be obtained, both for legal and ethical reasons.

In addition to interviews, HR teams can use several techniques and mechanisms to gather and preserve evidence during internal investigations. These may include:

• reviewing and analysing documents and electronic and digital data;
• reviewing surveillance or monitoring logs (eg, closed-circuit television), if legal and justified; and
• conducting physical inspections and collecting physical evidence (eg, closed-circuit television videos held by the company) to analyse and obtain material related to the investigation.

The employer must take measures to protect the whistle-blower during an internal HR investigation as part of their general obligation to ensure the safety and physical and mental well-being of all workers in the workplace, and to prevent retaliation.

Although the LFT in Mexico does not detail specific measures for the private sector, the obligation to protect workers and prevent workplace risks is a fundamental principle.

It is common practice to separate the accused from the whistle-blower’s work area to prevent confrontation or further victimisation of the whistle-blower.

During an internal HR investigation, especially in cases of harassment or violence, the employer must take protective measures to safeguard the well-being of all individuals involved (including the accused/alleged perpetrator). However, these measures must be precautionary, proportionate and temporary, and must respect due process and the defendant’s labour rights.

If the employer fails to comply with this obligation, the affected party may assert their rights before the relevant civil or criminal authorities for breach of confidentiality or damage to their reputation.

In general, it is not recommended that an employer take formal disciplinary action, such as dismissal, before concluding an internal HR investigation. Taking disciplinary action based solely on allegations or suspicions, without first establishing the facts, significantly increases the risk that the action will be deemed unfair or improper in an employment tribunal.

The fundamental principle is that employees have the right to due process and the opportunity to present their version of events before any sanction is finalised. Conducting a reasonable and sufficient investigation is a crucial step in ensuring a fair procedure.

During an internal HR investigation, the employer must take all necessary measures to protect the lives, safety and well-being of all workers, not just those involved in the procedure. This is a mandatory obligation, not optional.

Failure to comply with these obligations may result in legal liability for the employer, whether for actions (eg, authorising an act of harassment) or omissions (eg, failing to take the necessary measures to prevent it).

Although internal HR investigations in Mexico are not judicial processes, they must adhere to the principles of due process in order to guarantee employees’ legal rights. This has been confirmed by the precedents of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which extends these guarantees to administrative and labour proceedings.

Companies must establish and follow a clear procedure that respects the following essential guarantees and steps:

• the right to a hearing and defence;
• information about the accusations;
• access to information or evidence;
• legal assistance (optional internally, but crucial if it results in dismissal or legal action);
• the right to remain silent;
• the presumption of innocence; and
• impartiality.

Employers can formalise internal regulations through an RIT, which is a valid and fundamental element of internal HR investigations in Mexico.

These internal regulations are a legal and legitimate tool that employers can and should use while conducting an internal HR procedure to ensure compliance with the organisation’s policies.

However, if these regulations are not adhered to during an investigation and an employee is dismissed, there is a risk that a labour authority will deem the dismissal to be unjustified, with the corresponding legal consequences.

In an internal HR procedure, the burden of proof usually falls on the party making the allegation. However, there are important nuances, and the required level of proof is generally flexible, seeking internal conviction rather than strict legal standards.

Burden of Proof

General rule

The responsibility for proving a fact lies with the party alleging it. For example, if an employee alleges discrimination, harassment or unfair dismissal, they must provide evidence to support their claim. If the company alleges justifiable cause for an action (such as disciplinary dismissal), the company must demonstrate the veracity of those facts.

Reversal of the burden of proof

In cases where there is evidence of discrimination (based on sex, race, etc), the burden of proof may be reversed. In this case, the employee only needs to present reasonable evidence, after which the responsibility falls on the company to prove that its actions were based on objective, non-discriminatory reasons.

There are no legal regulations establishing a fixed or maximum timeframe for concluding an internal HR investigation. The duration depends on the complexity of the case and other factors.

However, these procedures must be handled promptly, diligently, thoroughly and impartially, and are considered complete when certain practical and procedural criteria are met.

A structured procedure must be followed after an internal HR investigation to ensure the results are properly documented and communicated, and any necessary corrective actions are implemented. The key steps involved are listed below:

• prepare the final report;
• make decisions based on the results of the investigation;
• communicate the results appropriately to those involved in the investigation and to management department;
• implement corrective and follow-up actions; and
• securely archive the documentation.

Generally speaking, there are no universal legal or governmental regulations that stipulate a specific format for the final resolution of an internal HR investigation. However, it is recommended that the final decision is clearly outlined in writing and contains the reasoning used to reach the conclusion.

When conducting an internal HR investigation through written reports, there are professional guidelines and standards regarding the information that should be included to ensure the reports are effective and useful for decision-making purposes.

While specific legal requirements may vary depending on the jurisdiction and applicable regulations (such as Mexico’s LFT), these reports generally have a similar structure including background information, supporting evidence, the purpose of the report and conclusions.

Employees and employers generally have the right to receive information about the results of an internal HR investigation, including details of the findings and any corrective actions taken. Transparency and access to investigation records are essential to ensuring that the process is fair and accountable.

There are specific situations arising from an internal HR investigation that must be reported to the relevant authorities, particularly if a crime has been committed. Regardless of its internal disciplinary actions, the company has a legal responsibility to report certain findings.

The information about the conclusion of an internal HR investigation can be communicated to other departments within the company. However, the scope and level of detail varies depending on the person’s role and the nature of the investigation, while respecting confidentiality.

For example, if the investigation concludes that no wrongdoing occurred, those who participated as witnesses and other areas of the company involved in the investigation must be informed that the investigation is considered closed with respect to that individual as the investigation failed to substantiate the alleged misconduct.

If the internal HR investigation confirms the accusations, the employer may take various disciplinary measures, ranging from a verbal warning to suspension from work without pay for up to eight days (provided this is permitted by the RIT), or even termination of the employment contract in accordance with the LFT. The specific measure taken will depend on the seriousness of the offence.

It is common practice, and often advisable, for employers to implement organisational or preventative measures following an internal HR investigation, even if the initial allegations are not entirely substantiated or proven. The aim of these actions is not to punish, but to address and improve the work environment and prevent future problems.

These measures focus on the root cause or the psychosocial risk factors identified during the process (such as negative relationships, lack of control, or excessive workloads), not necessarily on individual culpability.

An employer is generally permitted to collect personal data for an internal HR investigation, provided that certain legal principles are met. These include having a valid legal basis for the collection, being transparent about the process, and limiting the information collected to what is strictly necessary for the purpose of the investigation. Employment contracts include clauses that protect employees’ sensitive data and specify the purposes for which it will be used.

Specific rules and strict principles must be observed when collecting and processing personal data for an internal HR investigation. These are primarily governed by the Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties (LFPDPPP).

The HR department must strike a balance between the need for an investigation and respect for employees’ privacy rights.

In Mexico, employees (the data subjects) can access data collected during internal HR investigations by exercising their ARCO rights (right of access, right of rectification, right of cancellation and right of opposition), in accordance with the LFPDPPP.

In other words, employees have an undeniable legal right to access their own personal data, whereas access by other parties is restricted by data protection regulations and the confidentiality associated with employment investigations.

While employers may collect this data, they cannot provide their employees’ personal data to third parties.

The use of AI in internal HR investigations in Mexico is not yet common, but it is being gradually adopted, especially in the automation of processes such as recruitment, selection and data analysis.

In Mexico, there is no single, specific federal law that regulates whistle-blower protection in the private sector and covers all situations. However, mechanisms and protections do exist, though they largely depend on internal company policies and legal interpretations, such as those related to workplace and/or sexual harassment. In the public sector, protections are more structured.

Under the LFT, harassment is defined as the abuse of power in a relationship of actual subordination of the victim to the aggressor in the workplace, expressed through verbal, physical, or both types of conduct.

Sexual harassment is defined as a form of violence in which, although there is no subordination, there is an abuse of power that leads to a state of defencelessness and risk for the victim, regardless of whether it occurs in one or multiple incidents.

In both cases, Mexico has specific legislation and protocols to protect individuals who have experienced sexual harassment or violence in the workplace, including internal HR investigations.

Mexican legislation and various protocols aim to guarantee a safe environment and prevent retaliation against complainants.

Complainants can also file criminal charges against the harasser with the relevant authorities (separate from labour authorities), who are obliged to take the necessary protective measures and launch investigations to establish whether a crime has been committed.

Mexican legislation, including the LFT, prohibits discrimination and harassment in the workplace. There are also specific protections for individuals who report cases of discrimination, whether in the workplace or at school. The focus here is on workplace harassment and the protections designed to safeguard the rights of those who report it and prevent retaliation.

These protections are enshrined in various federal and state laws and protocols, as well as in international provisions adopted by Mexico. For instance, the LFT establishes regulations to prevent and punish workplace harassment, which may also relate to the Penal Codes at federal and state levels.

In Mexico, when dealing with criminal allegations during an internal HR investigation, employers must consider various legal obligations and important factors, such as the company’s potential criminal liability, protection for whistle-blowers, and co-operation with the authorities. Labour-related matters and criminal matters are handled separately, without one depending on the other; however, the resolution of one can influence the other.

In Mexico, foreign employers do no conduct internal HR investigations; instead, this must be done by the HR department of the company established in the country, even if it has offices or a department abroad, since the internal investigation of the Mexican company should be prioritised.