The Choice Employers Face
When an employee reports discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, California employers often investigate. They then have a choice: keep that investigation confidential, or use it to defend themselves in court. A recently published appellate decision makes clear they can’t do both.
The Decision
On April 17, 2026, the California Sixth District Court of Appeal ordered publication of its decision in Paknad v. Superior Court (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., et al.). The court held that when an employer uses its own workplace investigation as a defense, it gives up more than attorney-client privilege. It also gives up protection over the investigator’s findings and witness interview notes.
What Happened
Michelle Paknad sued her employer, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The company argued that its investigation showed it took her complaint seriously and that any harm could have been avoided. At the same time, it refused to turn over the investigation report and witness notes, calling them privileged.
California law has addressed this for nearly 30 years. Under Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997), an employer can’t point to its investigation as proof it did the right thing while hiding what the investigation found.
The trial court still sided with the company. The case went to the California Supreme Court twice, and each time it was sent back with instructions to apply Wellpoint and the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in People v. Superior Court (Jones). Even after the trial court found a waiver, it let the company black out the most important parts of the report. The Sixth District rejected that approach entirely.
Why This Ruling Matters
Before Paknad, no published decision had applied Jones to an employment case. That left trial courts inconsistent and let employers claim a waiver in name only while still withholding witness statements and the investigator’s conclusions. The ruling is now binding law: if an employer relies on its investigation, the full investigative record has to come out.
What It Means for California Employees
Workplace investigations sit at the center of most discrimination, harassment, and retaliation cases. Paknad gives employees stronger grounds to see what an investigation actually found, not just that one took place.
Concerned about how your employer handled an investigation? Contact Aiman-Smith & Marcy for a free consultation at (510) 760-7005.
Source: Paknad v. Superior Court (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 1256, Case No. H052652, California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. Decided March 24, 2026; ordered published April 17, 2026.