If you are in the insurance business, it doesn’t take long until you discuss “fraudulent claims” with a client. Several times a year I field this issue with a client and it certainly is a delicate issue.

Before discussing procedure, understand that this is as much of an emotional issue as it is procedural.  Business owners feel violated in this situation. Below is what I hear from clients in this situation.

  1. They feel as if they are being stolen from (time, money).
  2. They resent having to keep this person employed while on the claim.
  3. They are afraid and unsure of how to proceed. Someone who would file a fraudulent claim would certainly file a fraudulent lawsuit if they are fired.

These feelings of anger and fear are understandable and warranted. Let’s discuss how to proceed before any rash moves are made.Read More

The California Supreme Court issued a ruling in April 2012 regarding an employer’s obligation to “provide” its employees with meal breaks. The decision (Brinker Restaurant Corp. vs. Superior Court) requires employers only “provide” a meal period rather than “ensure” that employees take a meal period, as previously enforced. The Brinker decision does not change most compliance standards associated with meal periods, only technically, relieves employers from paying meal penalties. Under Brinker, an employer meal period is “provided” when:
  1. Employer relieves the employee of all duties.
  2. Employer ceases control over the employee’s activities during this time.
  3. Employer provides an uninterrupted 30-minute break.
  4. Employer does not impede or discourage an employee from taking a 30-minute break

Read More