Nearly a third of American workers have been bullied at work, according to a 2024 survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI).  Thirty-two percent of respondents in the WBI survey reported experiencing “abusive conduct that is threatening, intimidating, or humiliating; work sabotage or verbal abuse” in their current job or work history.  Such bullying not only affects the employees involved, but also creates challenges for employers and workplace investigators.  Claims of bullying are different from allegations of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, which implicate specific employment laws.  By contrast, bullying is not prohibited under federal or state law, so there is…
Continue Reading Bullying Investigations: Key Considerations for Workplace Investigators

Our neutral, fact-finding investigations are most commonly detailed tools that enable employers to make employment decisions. It is therefore critical we remain up-to-date regarding the changing legal landscape to understand which facts are relevant to reaching an informed decision. While we investigate a variety of employment-related concerns, a specific form of retaliation, known as whistleblower retaliation, sometimes crosses our desks. What is Whistleblower Retaliation? Whistleblower retaliation occurs when an employer takes negative employment action against an employee who reported conduct by their employer that they reasonably believe is against the law. In California, Labor Code Section 1102.5 (California’s whistleblower statute)…
Continue Reading Who Are Considered “Employees” With the Right to Sue Under California’s Whistleblower Statute? According to the California Supreme Court, Not Elected Officials.

Read the Article

Permalink
Continue Reading Anti-Corruption Report: Why Modern Corporations Need Investigative Memory

In an era wherein social media is omnipresent, employees, like everyone, post myriad opinions on widespread topics across their social media platforms.  Employers may receive complaints related to their employees’ social media activity and have to decide whether discipline is appropriate.  While the First Amendment does not restrain private employers from restricting employee speech, the First Amendment does place some restraints on government employers’ ability to do so.  However, this does not mean that a government employee’s right to freedom of speech is without limitations. As neutral investigators, we do not advise or make decisions regarding whether government employers should…
Continue Reading Employees’ Social Media Posts And The First Amendment: What Is A Government Employer To Do?

In today’s fast-paced corporate environment, what begins as a workplace grievance can sometimes uncover something equally or even more consequential.  Consider this.  You are a healthcare institution, employing 8,000 employees in the Midwest, generating between $50–100 million annually.  You received a complaint from a 10-year employee, citing bullying and unfair treatment related to gender. You begin the investigation, and the story takes a twist. You find a deeply hidden financial fraud scheme. This case not only highlights the value of structured investigations but also underscores how behavioral red flags and credibility assessments can open the door to deeper organizational risks.Initial…
Continue Reading Case Study: Conducting Workplace Investigations That Uncover Hidden Financial Fraud Risks

How External Investigators Evaluate “Conduct Unbecoming” CasesEmployee discipline in “at-will” employment is fairly simple—an employee can be disciplined for any reason or no reason, just not for an unlawful reason (race, sex, religion, whistleblower retaliation, etc.).  In public employment and unionized workplaces, however, the dynamic is different.  Due process rights and collective bargaining agreements usually mean discipline can only be imposed “for cause.”  This puts employers and rule-makers in the position of having to list, justify, and possibly negotiate what “for cause” means.  As a practical matter, there is no list comprehensive or exhaustive enough to cover every conceivable act…
Continue Reading This Looks Bad

Organizations lose approximately $3.6 billion annually to fraud, with median losses reaching $250,000 per incident. What’s more concerning is that these schemes often go undetected for an average of 18 months, causing significant financial damage and lasting reputational harm.The Fraud Triangle—a proven framework examining pressure, opportunity, and rationalization—offers organizations a practical approach to understand, prevent, and detect fraudulent activities before substantial damage occurs.The Fraud Triangle ExplainedThe Fraud Triangle breaks down the three essential elements typically present when fraud occurs: Pressure Pressure is what often drives individuals to commit fraud. Pressure can stem from personal financial hardships, addictions, demanding performance…
Continue Reading Preventing Financial Fraud: How the Fraud Triangle Framework Can Protect Your Organization

This month’s VM Recommends brings us selections from Senior Attorney Investigator and Adjudicator, Christina Petricca.What is a book you would recommend? I read Kristin Hannah’s The Nightingale a while ago and it is still one of my favorite books.  The Nightingale is a historical fiction that describes the difficulties faced by two sisters during World War II. The book moves between present day and the past and each chapter leaves you hanging to find out what happens next. I’ve read several of Kristin Hannah’s books and I really enjoy her writing style. What is your favorite place to visit…
Continue Reading VM Recommends – Bay Area Edition

At Van Dermyden Makus, many of our attorney investigators have experience conducting investigations into allegations of misconduct made by employees against elected officials.  These investigations present unique challenges and require special skills to navigate.  Elected officials are not employees of a public agency.  Therefore, they cannot be compelled by an employer to participate in an investigation into complaints made against them.  Nor can they be disciplined by the public agency.  Nevertheless, California employers have a legal obligation to take steps to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against employees.  An employer can be held liable for not promptly and thoroughly investigating…
Continue Reading Investigating Alleged Misconduct by Elected Officials

Getting More Out Of This Common Response In Public Safety InterviewsPart 1 of this series provided some context and perspective about why “I don’t recall” responses seem more common in public safety investigations—and why investigators should not rush to attribute a high volume of such responses to bad faith. In Part 2, we explore some practical tips and techniques to facilitate recall, elicit more accurate information, and better distinguish between a bona fide lack of recall and selective memory. While most of these tips can be used in any investigation, this blog post centers on some of the unique features…
Continue Reading “I Don’t Recall” – Part 2

This is the first in a two-part series discussing our Firm’s experience with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). This two-part series will not cover how GenAI works, what tools are available on the market, or what regulating bodies, like the State Bar of California, or state legislatures are doing with respect to GenAI. Rather, the focus is our philosophical approach to exploring and effectively implementing GenAI. We know that all of you will do the research to use GenAI responsibly and with caution.Workplace investigators have a complicated relationship with report writing. It is often the most difficult to master, the most…
Continue Reading AI in Workplace Investigations: Cautiously Optimistic

A Perspective On Interviews With Public Safety Employees

There is no published data on how frequently interviewees in workplace investigations respond to questions with, “I don’t recall,” or, “I don’t remember.”  However, most seasoned investigators would likely agree those phrases are far and away the words they hear most in interviews.  Amongst investigators who specialize in public sector investigations, there is a sense that one type of interview tends to elicit more “I don’t recall” responses than any other – interviews of public safety employees.  A cynical outsider to the world of public safety might rush to conclude this phenomenon…
Continue Reading “I Don’t Recall” – Part 1

Part Two[1]: Part One of this blog highlighted the two most impactful aspects of SB 2.  Specifically, SB 2 (1) provided substantial, new power to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST); and (2) significantly increased law enforcement agencies’ reporting obligations when faced with “serious misconduct” allegations.  In case you missed it, find it here.Part Two of this blog focuses on key, practical takeaways for investigators, internal and external alike.  Law enforcement agencies, and external investigators working with them, need to understand how key provisions of SB 2 will impact their investigations.  Do not get…
Continue Reading What Is Senate Bill 2 And Why Should Investigators And Law Enforcement Agencies Who Conduct Investigations Into Alleged Police Misconduct Be Paying Close Attention To Its Provisions?