Balance Magazine

As a Black investigator, I am sometimes specifically requested when a Black employee or someone of African descent comes forward with a complaint of anti-Black racism. The reason is often simple but profound: there is a belief that I might “understand” in a way others do not, that I might see what has been invisible to others. Underneath that request, however, lies an unspoken expectation: that I will naturally sympathize with them as a matter of fact.

At the same time, my role demands something very different. It requires me to enter the process with a clear head, empathy yes, but also an even higher level of rigor in how I assess facts, weigh evidence, and interpret meaning. That tension (between a complainant’s distrust of a system they feel has silenced them before and my duty to be impartial) is one of the most difficult aspects of these investigations.

Why Anti-Black Racism Is Hard to Prove

The Government of Canada defines anti-Black racism as:

“Prejudice, attitudes, beliefs, stereotyping and discrimination that is directed at people of African descent and is rooted in their unique history and experience of enslavement. Anti-Black racism is deeply entrenched in Canadian institutions, policies and practices, such that anti-Black racism is either functionally normalized or rendered invisible to the larger white society. Anti-Black racism is manifested in the legacy of the current social, economic and political marginalization of Black people in Canada in society such as the lack of opportunities, lower socio-economic status, higher unemployment, significant poverty rates and overrepresentation in the criminal justice system.”

This definition is clear, but applying it in a workplace investigation is rarely straightforward. Why? Because investigators must assess allegations on a balance of probabilities. We do not have a “stereotyposcope” (yes, I just invented a new word) that lets us peer into someone’s mind and measure the weight of stereotypes, prejudice, or unconscious bias. Instead, we are left with the same investigative tools as in any other case: interviewing, documentation, consistency testing, and credibility assessment.

The challenge is that racism is often subtle, cumulative, and pattern-based. One remark or one decision might not cross the line by itself, but when taken together with other behaviours, a picture emerges. And that picture can have real, lasting impacts on someone’s career, dignity, and sense of belonging.

Four Ways Investigators Can Be More Attuned

When investigating anti-Black racism, it may not be enough to simply follow the same checklist used for other workplace conflicts. Investigators dealing with such matters may benefit from being especially attuned to the nuances of systemic bias and cultural context. Here are four ways that I think could strengthen that lens:

1. Pattern Recognition Look beyond isolated incidents and examine whether there is a pattern of treatment. For example, a Black employee with a stellar record for 20 years suddenly becomes labeled a “troublemaker” only after raising concerns about missed promotions. Alone, each management decision may appear defensible. Taken together, the sequence may point to something more profound.
2. Language Sensitivity Pay attention to the language used to describe the complainant. Terms like “aggressive,” “not a team player,” or “difficult” are disproportionately used against Black employees. An investigator must ask: are these descriptors based on facts, or are they influenced by cultural stereotypes? It might be nothing, but it also might be something.
3. Contextual Awareness Situate the complaint within the broader organizational and societal context. Reports such as the IRCC Anti-Racism Employee Focus Groups or findings from the Privy Council Office show that many Canadian workplaces still struggle with systemic stereotyping and exclusion. These external realities can help inform how plausible certain dynamics are within the case you’re investigating.
4. Empathetic Neutrality This might sound redundant or played out, but empathy does not mean abandoning neutrality. It means listening deeply, acknowledging the lived experience of the complainant, and still applying the same fact-finding rigor as in any investigation. This balance reassures both complainant and respondent that the process is fair because sometimes, the allegation of anti-Black racism cannot be substantiated by the evidence gathered during the investigation.

A Sharper Lens

This post is not meant to divide or shame. Society as a whole is wrestling with the ongoing reality of racial discrimination and the work required to move forward. In investigations, when faced with claims of anti-Black racism, we have a duty to “call a spade a spade” if the facts support that conclusion.

You don’t need to be Black to do this work well. What is required, I believe, is strong emotional intelligence, cultural awareness, and a willingness to recognize subtle patterns that others might miss. The nuances matter — they are often the difference between dismissing a complaint as “unsubstantiated” and acknowledging a reality that has been overlooked for far too long.

If you are an HR professional, lawyer, or investigator, I encourage you to sharpen your lens. Read widely. Listen deeply. Ask whether the tools you rely on are enough to uncover bias and discrimination when it’s hiding in plain sight. And most importantly, make sure that your process builds trust, especially for those who have historically had very little reason to trust it.