After School: CASE 7
Harassment reporting pathways and documentation
1: STORY
A student worker receives repeated unwanted comments. The case provides no wording or finding about the conduct. It supplies a timeline structure, workplace policy and report confirmation. The task is to organize a usable record and identify reporting options without filling missing details with guesses.
Source A asks for dates, times, observed words or actions, location, witnesses and saved-message identifiers. A factual record can distinguish what the worker personally observed from what someone else reported. If exact wording is remembered, it should be marked accordingly; if it is a paraphrase, it should not be presented as a quotation. An unknown detail can remain unknown.
Source B names three internal reporting options: manager, human resources or a hotline. It also prohibits retaliation for good-faith reporting under the workplace policy. That policy statement matters, but it is not proof that no harmful response could occur. Nor does the excerpt establish every external legal protection, reporting deadline or confidentiality rule that might apply.
Source C confirms receipt on September 21 and assigns case 1842. It directs safety or schedule updates to HR. It does not say the concerns were substantiated, resolved or dismissed. Save it for follow-up. The worker can ask about support and next steps without waiting to assemble a perfect record.
2: EVIDENCE
These are NPW practice documents. Real-world sources are credited separately below.
SOURCE A — Incident timeline
NPW practice document. Dates/times, exact words/actions observed, location, witnesses, saved message IDs.
What it establishes: Creates a factual record. It does not prove motive.
Question while reading: Which entries are observation and which are inference?
SOURCE B — Workplace policy
NPW practice document. “Harassment concerns may be reported to manager, HR, or hotline. Retaliation for good-faith reporting is prohibited by policy.”
What it establishes: Shows internal routes and policy statement.
Question while reading: What external protections may vary by law/jurisdiction?
SOURCE C — Confirmation email
NPW practice document. “Report received Sept. 21; case number 1842; contact HR if safety or schedule changes occur.”
What it establishes: Establishes receipt and case number, not the outcome.
Question while reading: Why should you save this?
A is a record-building tool, not an investigation outcome. Its strongest entries separate observation, attributed information and inference. A description of someone's words may support a question about conduct; it does not automatically establish the person's motive. The supplied template contains no actual incident details, so a model must not invent them.
B establishes the fictional employer's internal channels and policy. C establishes that a report was received, with a date and case number. Neither confirms what an investigation found. If a concern requires outside guidance, the relevant law, jurisdiction and agency process must be checked separately rather than inferred from the company's policy wording.
3: PRACTICE
C confirms receipt and a reference number. It supplies neither a finding nor the requirements of every possible reporting process.
Responses stay in this browser. Use “Download my notes” to keep a copy.
4: TASK
Build a factual incident record and identify reporting channels. Include one clear claim or question, at least two source references, one statement of uncertainty/scope, the person or office with relevant authority, and one realistic next step.
My incident file would have one row per event: date/time, location, observed words or actions, witnesses and saved-message ID, with unknown details marked unknown (A). I would label paraphrases and separate any interpretation from what I observed. B lists the manager, HR and hotline as internal routes; I would use a route suitable to the concern and ask about support and next steps. I would save C's September 21 confirmation under case 1842 and document any later safety or schedule changes for HR. Receipt does not establish an outcome, and B alone does not explain outside legal protections.
How would you document a concerning message when you know its content but cannot yet identify who sent it?
45–55 min core, 80–100 min full
| Criterion | Beginning | Developing | Strong | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy & scope | Repeats claim. | Mostly accurate; scope incomplete. | Accurate and properly scoped. | Accurate, scoped, and explicit about uncertainty. |
| Evidence | Little or unrelated. | Relevant source, sometimes overstated. | Explains what sources establish. | Compares sources and limits. |
| Authority | Names actor without role. | Plausible authority. | Explains who decides and why. | Maps proposal, approval, implementation, review. |
| Communication | Vague or audience-mismatched. | Main point understandable. | Clear, specific, audience-aware. | Clear, accessible, precise, well-qualified. |
