California Sets Precedent: No More Hiding Behind Bogus PEOs – Workers Rights Compliance, Precedent Set: Employers Can’t Outsource Accountability – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Draws the Line: Fraudulent PEO Coverage Doesn’t Cut It – Workers Rights Compliance, New Legal Benchmark: PEO Schemes Won’t Shield Employers – Workers Rights Compliance, Garcias Pallets Case Becomes First-Ever DLSE Precedent – Workers Rights Compliance, Historic First: California Labor Commissioner Issues Precedent Ruling on PEO Fraud – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Makes It Official—No Valid Workers’ Comp, No Excuses – Workers Rights Compliance, Real Coverage for Real Workers: Fraud Won’t Fly in California – Workers Rights Compliance, Workers Deserve Real Protection—Bogus Insurance Doesn’t Count – Workers Rights Compliance, Precedent Protects Workers from Fake Insurance Scams – Workers Rights Compliance, 50+ Workers, No Coverage—California Says Never Again – Workers Rights Compliance, Labor Law Victory: Worker Safety Over Corporate Shell Games – Workers Rights Compliance, $1.3M Lesson: Ignorance of the Law Is No Defense – Workers Rights Compliance, Certificates Can Lie—Employers Are Still on the Hook – Workers Rights Compliance, Fraudulent Coverage = Real Fines – Workers Rights Compliance, The Bill Comes Due: $1.3M in Fines for Workers' Comp Evasion – Workers Rights Compliance, Subcontracting Liability Doesn’t Mean Subcontracting Responsibility – Workers Rights Compliance, A Win for Honest PEOs, a Loss for Cheaters – Workers Rights Compliance, Leveling the Field: Fraudulent Operators Face Real Consequences – Workers Rights Compliance, PEO Accountability Is Here—Honest Brokers Applaud – Workers Rights Compliance, No More Free Ride for Fraudulent PEOs – Workers Rights Compliance, Justice for Legitimate Employers—Fraudsters Pay the Price – Workers Rights Compliance, From CompOne to CompassPilot—The Shell Game Ends Here – Workers Rights Compliance, How a Bogus Insurance Scheme Cost One Company $1.3 Million – Workers Rights Compliance, Unmasking the PEO Scam: California Cracks Down – Workers Rights Compliance, One Employer, Three PEOs, Zero Coverage—The Precedent Tells All – Workers Rights Compliance, DLSE Precedent Highlights Deep Industry Scams – Workers Rights Compliance, Fake Insurance Certificates Are Not a Defense—They’re a Liability – Workers Rights Compliance, Employers: Verify Your Workers’ Comp Coverage—Before the State Does – Workers Rights Compliance, Don’t Get Burned—Understand Joint Employer Liability Today – Workers Rights Compliance, Legit PEO? Or Just a New Name for the Same Old Scam? – Workers Rights Compliance, Your PEO’s Certificate Might Be Fake—Know the Signs – Workers Rights Compliance, Before You Contract Labor, Read This Precedent Decision – Workers Rights Compliance.
Tag: education
Full Deep-Dive: The College Endowment Tax-Free Hedge Fund Scam
“How Ivy League schools became the world’s richest hedge funds while charging $90k tuition”
The insane 2025 numbers
Total U.S. college endowment assets: $850 billion
Top 10 alone: $377 billion
Harvard – $53.2B
Yale – $41.4B
Stanford – $37.7B
Princeton – $35.8B
MIT – $24.6B
Average annual return 2015–2025: 12.8% (NACUBO) – better than 99.9% of hedge funds
Tax rate on investment gains: 0%
Current excise tax (2017 law): 1.4% only on schools with >$500k endowment per student AND >3,000 students → hits only ~30 schools and raises ~$250M/year (peanuts)
What they actually do with the money
Pay endowment managers $35–$100 million per year (Harvard’s team made $2.3B in comp 2010–2022)
Invest in Cayman Islands private equity, Chinese tech, and Saudi oil deals
Build luxury dorms with climbing walls and lazy rivers
Charge full tuition to families making $200k while sitting on billions
Harvard’s 2024 payout to operations: 5.4% → $2.9B → still grew the endowment by $2B that year
Real hypocrisy examples
Princeton sits on $4.5 million per student yet still sends tuition bills
Yale made 41% in FY2022 → added $10B → still raised tuition 4%
2024: 27 schools with >$1B endowments gave zero financial aid to middle-class families
Lutnick’s exact fix (stated on All-In March 2025, Fox May 2025, and X July 2025) “Any college endowment over $5 billion pays 21% corporate tax on investment gains exactly like the hedge fund it actually is. Under $5B keeps full exemption so small schools aren’t hurt. One sentence. Raises $35–$40 billion a year and forces them to either lower tuition or lose the tax break.”
Revenue math
~70 schools over $5B threshold
Average annual gains on that $700B+: ~$80–$90B
21% tax = $17–$19B from gains alone
Forces mandatory payout to increase → another $15–$20B in real tuition relief
Total impact: $35–$40B/year
What they’ll scream “We’ll have to raise tuition!” Reality: Harvard could fund every undergraduate for free in perpetuity and still have $40B+ left. They just don’t want to.
One sentence ends the greatest tax-advantaged hedge fund in human history.
Exact 31-Word Legislative Fix for College Endowments
(Section 4968(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by Section 423 of the DOGE External Revenue Act of 2026)
“The tax imposed by subsection (a) shall apply at a rate of 21 percent on the net investment income of any applicable educational institution with endowment assets exceeding $5,000,000,000 in fair market value as of the close of the preceding taxable year.”
31 words. Effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026.
That’s it. Hits only the ~70 mega-endowments over $5B (Harvard, Yale, etc.) at full 21% corporate rate on gains. Smaller schools (<$5B) keep the full exemption. Treasury scored it at +$35–$40 billion per year, with $10B+ forced into tuition relief via higher mandatory payouts.
Oakland— The California Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO) is awarding $8.55 million in Workers’ Rights Enforcement grants to 16 prosecutors’ offices across the state. Now in its second year, this first-of-its-kind grant program supports local efforts to combat wage theft and other labor violations by providing critical funding to hold lawbreaking employers accountable.
With this funding, local prosecutors can strengthen and expand their capacity to investigate wage theft, build specialized enforcement units, and increase prosecutions against employers who break the law.
What California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower said: “Wage theft is a serious crime that devastates working families and weakens California’s economy. I am proud to announce an additional $8.55 million in grant funding to continue advancing our critical work in holding perpetrators accountable through increased prosecutions for wage theft. We remain firmly committed to partnering with community organizations, industry leaders, and public prosecutors to end these abusive practices. Workers deserve every dollar they’ve rightfully earned, and law-abiding employers deserve a level playing field.”
Demand remained high this year, with local prosecutors requesting more than $10.7 million in total funding. While only $8.55 million was available, the strong interest reflects a growing commitment among local offices to take an active role in protecting workers and holding employers accountable.
Each office was eligible to apply for up to $750,000 in competitive grant funding. Grant funds are restricted to personnel and audit-related costs to ensure resources are specifically directed toward wage theft enforcement efforts.
The 16 public prosecutors who applied for the grant will receive awards as detailed below:
Public Prosecutor
Award
Alameda District Attorney
$750,000
Contra Costa District Attorney
$360,000
Fresno City Attorney
$750,000
Long Beach City Prosecutor
$250,000
Los Angeles City Attorney
$400,000
Los Angeles County Counsel
$250,000
Los Angeles District Attorney
$750,000
Oakland City Attorney
$630,269
Orange County District Attorney
$700,000
San Diego City Attorney
$400,000
San Diego District Attorney
$750,000
San Francisco City Attorney
$600,000
San Francisco District Attorney
$233,256
San Mateo District Attorney
$750,000
Santa Clara County Counsel
$750,000
Sonoma District Attorney
$226,475
“I thank the California Labor Commissioner’s Office for providing additional resources that bolster our fight against worker exploitation, enhance partnerships, and forge new county-wide alliances to uncover wage theft across San Mateo County’s major industries,” said San Mateo County District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe. “We have uncovered hundreds of thousands of dollars in stolen wages, filed criminal charges, launched several investigations, and built a strong network of community partners who ensure every victim’s story reaches our team. With this momentum, we are relentlessly pursuing every dollar owed and sending an unmistakable message: in San Mateo County, stealing from workers will cost you far more than you ever saved.”
“The Workers’ Rights Enforcement Grant has been essential in empowering our city to investigate and prosecute wage theft in Fresno,” said Fresno City Attorney Andrew Janz. “With this grant funding, we’ve established a dedicated prosecution unit within the City Attorney’s Office focused on holding violators accountable. We want our residents to know that we will not tolerate bad actors stealing from hardworking people.”
Established in 2023 with $18 million in funding over two years, the Workers’ Rights Enforcement Grant Program provides competitive funding to support state labor law enforcement and assist workers in combating wage theft, preventing unfair competition and protecting state revenue. Today’s announcement marks the second round of grant funding, following the initial $8.55 million awarded in 2024. Additional information on the Workers’ Rights Enforcement Grant Program is posted online.
About the Labor Commissioner’s Office
Within the Department of Industrial Relations, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (California Labor Commissioner’s Office) combats wage theft and unfair competition by investigating allegations of illegal and unfair business practices.
In 2020, LCO launched a multi-pronged outreach campaign, Reaching Every Californian. The campaign amplifies basic protections and builds pathways to affected populations, so workers and employers understand legal protections and obligations, as well as the Labor Commissioner’s enforcement procedures.
This fact sheet provides general information concerning the application of the federal child labor provisions to restaurants and quick-service establishments that employ workers who are less than 18 years of age. For detailed information about the federal youth provisions, please read Regulations, 29 CFR Part 570
.
The Department of Labor is committed to helping young workers find positive, appropriate, and safe employment experiences. The child labor provisions of the FLSA were enacted to ensure that when young people work, the work does not jeopardize their health, well-being, or educational opportunities. Working youth are generally entitled to the same minimum wage and overtime protections as older adults. For information about the minimum wage and overtime e requirements in the restaurant and quick-service industries, please see Fact Sheet 2 in this series, Restaurants and Quick Service Establishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
, establish both hours and occupational standards for youth. Youth of any age are generally permitted to work for businesses entirely owned by their parents, except those under 16 may not be employed in mining or manufacturing and no one under 18 may be employed in any occupation the Secretary of Labor has declared to be hazardous.
18 Years of Age
Once a youth reaches 18 years of age, he or she is no longer subject to the federal child labor provisions.
16 & 17 Years of Age
Sixteen- and 17-year-olds may be employed for unlimited hours in any occupation other than those declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor. Examples of equipment declared hazardous in food service establishments include: Power-driven meat and poultry processing machines (meat slicers, meat saws, patty forming machines, meat grinders, and meat choppers), commercial mixers and certain power-driven bakery machines. Employees under 18 years of age are not permitted to operate, feed, set-up, adjust, repair, or clean any of these machines or their disassembled parts. Motor Vehicles . Generally, no employee under 18 years of age may drive on the job or serve as an outside helper on a motor vehicle on a public road, but 17-year-olds who meet certain specific requirements may drive automobiles and trucks that do not exceed 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight for limited amounts of time as part of their job. Such minors are, however, prohibited from making time sensitive deliveries (such as pizza deliveries or other trips where time is of the essence) and from driving at night. (SeeSee Fact Sheet #34: Child Labor Provision and the Driving of Automobiles and Trucks under the Fair Labor Standard Act.) Balers and Compactors . Minors under 18 years of age may not load, operate, or unload balers or compactors. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds may load, but not operate or unload, certain scrap paper balers and paper box compactors under certain specific circumstances. (See Fact Sheet #57, in this series, Hazardous Occupations Order No. 12. Hazardous Occupations Order No. 12, Rules for Employing Youth and the Loading, Operating, and Loading of Power-Driven Balers and Compactors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)).
14 & 15 Years of Age
Fourteen- and 15- year-olds may be employed in restaurants and quick-service establishments outside school hours in a variety of jobs for limited periods of time and under specified conditions. Child Labor Regulations No. 3, 29 C.F.R. 570, Subpart C limits both the time of day and number of hours this age group may be employed as well as the types of jobs they may perform. Child Labor Regulations No. 3, 29 C.F.R. 570 outside school hours; no more than 3 hours on a school day, including Fridays; no more than 8 hours on a nonschool day; no more than 18 hours during a week when school is in session; no more that 40 hours during a week when school is not in session; between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.-except between June 1 and Labor day when the evening hour is extended to 9 p.m. They may perform cashiering, table service and “busing,” and clean up work, including the use of vacuum cleaners and floor waxers. They may perform kitchen work and other work involved in preparing food and beverages, including the operation of devices used in such work, such as dish-washers, toasters, milk shake blenders, warming lamps, and coffee grinders. They may perform limited cooking duties involving electric or gas grills that do not entail cooking over an open flame. They may also cook with deep fat fryers that are equipped with and utilize devices that automatically raise and lower the “baskets” into and out of the hot grease of oil. They may not operate NEICO broilers, rotisseries, pressure cookers, fryolators, high-speed ovens, or rapid toasters. They may not perform any baking activities. They may dispense food from cafeteria lines and steam tables and heat food in microwave ovens that do not have the capacity to heat food over 140º F. They may not operate, clean, set up, adjust, repair or oil power driven machines including food slicers, grinders, processors, or mixers. They may clean kitchen surfaces and non-power-driven equipment, and filter, transport and dispose of cooking oil, but only when the temperature of the surface and oils do not exceed 100º F. They may not operate power-driven lawn mowers or cutters, or load or unload goods to or from trucks or conveyors. They may not work in freezers or meat coolers, but they may occasionally enter a freezer momentarily to retrieve items. They are prohibited from working in any of the Hazardous Orders (discussed above for 16- and 17-year-olds
Under 14 Years of Age
Children under 14 years of age may not be employed in non-agricultural occupations covered by the FLSA, including food service establishments. Permissible employment for such children is limited to work that is exempt from the FLSA (such as delivering newspapers to the consumer and acting). Children may also perform work not covered by the FLSA such as completing minor chores around private homes or casual baby-sitting
Work Experience and Career Exploration Program (WECEP)
WECEP is a program designed to provide a carefully planned work experience and career exploration program for 14- and 15-year-old youths who can benefit from a career oriented educational program designed to meet the participants& needs, interests and abilities. The program is aimed at helping youths to become reoriented and motivated toward education and to prepare them for the world of work
State Departments of Education are granted approval to operate a WECEP by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division for a 2-year period. Certain provisions of child labor provisions are modified for 14- and 15-year-old participants during the school term.
Students enrolled in an authorized WECEP:
They may work during school hours.
They may work up to 3 hours on a school day; and as many as 23 hours in a school week.
May work in some occupations that would otherwise be prohibited under a variance issued by the Administrator, but they may not work in manufacturing, mining or any of the 17 Hazardous Occupations.
Individual employers may partner with participating local school districts in those states authorized to operate WECEPs
Work-Study Program (WSP)
WSP is a program designed to help academically oriented students enrolled in a college preparatory high school curriculum pursue their college diplomas. Some of the hours standards provisions of Child Labor Regulation No. 3 are varied for certain 14- and 15-year-old students participating in a Department of Labor approved and school-supervised and administered WSP. Participating students must be enrolled in a college preparatory curriculum and identified by authoritative personnel of the school as being able to benefit from the WSP.
Students enrolled in an authorized WSP:
May work no more than 18 hours in any one week when school is in session, a portion of which may be during school hours, in accordance with the following formula that is based upon a continuous four-week cycle.
In three of the four weeks, the participant is permitted to work during school hours on only one day per week, and for no more than for eight hours on that day.
During the remaining week of the four-week cycle, such minor is permitted to work during school hours on no more than two days, and for no more than for eight hours on each of those two days
The employment of such minors would still be subject to the remaining time of day and number of hours standards contained Child Labor Regulation No. 3 and discussed earlier in this fact sheet.
Are held to all the occupation standards established by Child Labor Regulation No. 3
I. The Problem: Operating Without Workers’ Compensation Insurance in California
Legal Mandate: California Labor Code Section 3700 unequivocally states that all employers with one or more employees must provide workers’ compensation benefits. This explicitly includes employees hired through staffing agencies. Both the staffing agency and the client company can share responsibility for worker safety and workers’ comp coverage.
Tactics to Avoid Coverage:
Misclassification: A common tactic, especially for staffing agencies, is to misclassify employees as “independent contractors” to avoid paying workers’ comp premiums, payroll taxes, and other employee benefits. California has been aggressive in cracking down on this.
“Underground Economy”: Some businesses simply operate completely off the books, without any insurance.
Risks and Consequences of Non-Compliance: California imposes some of the most severe penalties in the nation:
Criminal Offense: Failing to have workers’ compensation coverage is a misdemeanor under California Labor Code Section 3700.5.
Punishment: Up to one year in county jail, and/or a fine of up to double the amount of the premium that would have been necessary to secure coverage (but not less than $10,000).
Subsequent violations lead to even harsher penalties (e.g., up to one year in jail and a fine of triple the premium, but not less than $50,000).
Civil Penalties (Fines):
Stop Order: The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) can issue a “stop order,” prohibiting the use of any employee until coverage is obtained. Failure to observe a stop order is a misdemeanor (up to 60 days in jail and/or a $10,000 fine).
Stop Order Penalty: A penalty of $1,500 per employee on the payroll at the time the stop order is issued, up to $100,000.
Penalty Assessment Order: The greater of (1) twice the amount the employer would have paid in premiums during the uninsured period, OR (2) $1,500 per employee. If an injured worker files a claim, the uninsured employer can be assessed a penalty of $10,000 per employee on the payroll at the time of injury, up to a maximum of $100,000.
Personal Liability: If an employee is injured while the employer is uninsured, the employer is personally responsible for all medical bills, lost wages, and disability benefits. This can be financially devastating.
Civil Lawsuits: Injured employees can file a civil action against the uninsured employer in addition to filing a workers’ compensation claim. In these civil cases, the employer is presumed negligent and loses common law defenses. The employee may also be entitled to have their attorney’s fees paid by the employer.
Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF): This state fund pays benefits to injured workers of illegally uninsured employers. However, the UEBTF then aggressively pursues the uninsured employer for full reimbursement, plus penalties.
Business Reputation: Operating without proper insurance can severely damage a business’s reputation and trust among employees and clients.
II. Prosecution and Enforcement in California
California employs multiple agencies and strategies to prosecute uninsured employers, including staffing agencies:
California Department of Insurance (CDI) – Fraud Division:
The CDI’s Fraud Division is a key player in investigating workers’ compensation fraud, including “premium fraud” (employers misstating payroll or employee classifications) and “uninsured employer fraud.”
They work closely with local district attorneys’ offices across the state to prosecute violators.
The CDI maintains a public website listing Workers’ Compensation Fraud Convictions, detailing the name, case number, county, description of offense, and amount defrauded. This is a valuable resource for finding specific prosecution examples. (e.g., you can browse monthly conviction lists from 2020-2024 on their site).
Many California counties have dedicated Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fraud Units within their District Attorney’s offices (e.g., Riverside County, Shasta County, San Bernardino County, Merced County).
These units investigate and prosecute cases, often stemming from referrals from insurance carriers, law enforcement, the CDI, or concerned citizens.
They handle the various types of fraud, including uninsured employer fraud, premium fraud, and applicant fraud.
Source: Look for “Workers’ Compensation Fraud” sections on county DA websites. Examples include:
California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE):
Part of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), the DLSE is responsible for issuing “stop orders” against uninsured employers, effectively shutting down their operations until they comply.
If an injured worker files a claim against an uninsured employer, the WCAB hears the case. If an award is made to the worker, the UEBTF pays, and the employer is then pursued for reimbursement and penalties.
Recent legislative efforts (like the Senate Bill S847 mentioned in one search result from May 2025) are aimed at strengthening the Director of the DIR’s ability to identify uninsured employers, place liens on their property, and recover funds for the UEBTF.
III. Resolution and Solutions
When a staffing agency or other employer is found operating without workers’ compensation insurance in California, the resolution typically involves:
Securing Immediate Coverage: The business is compelled to obtain workers’ compensation insurance. Stop-work orders remain in effect until this is done.
Payment of Fines and Penalties: Substantial civil penalties and administrative fines are assessed for the period of non-compliance.
Restitution: If an employee was injured, the employer must reimburse the UEBTF for any benefits paid to the injured worker.
Criminal Prosecution: Depending on the severity and intent, individuals responsible within the staffing agency can face misdemeanor charges, potentially leading to jail time. Felony charges are possible for more severe fraud or repeat offenses (e.g., lying to reduce premiums, as mentioned by the Shasta County DA).
Liens and Asset Forfeiture: The state can place liens on the employer’s property (including real estate) to recover unpaid benefits and penalties.
Increased Scrutiny: Staffing agencies, in particular, face ongoing scrutiny due to the shared responsibility for temporary workers and the historical issue of misclassification.
In essence, California’s system is designed to make operating without workers’ compensation insurance extremely costly and legally perilous for any employer, including staffing agencies, with a focus on protecting injured workers and maintaining a fair business environment.
find specific articles of these happenings and prosecutions in california
You’re in luck! California is very active in prosecuting workers’ compensation fraud, including cases where employers (sometimes staffing agencies or companies using their services) operate without proper coverage. The California Department of Insurance (CDI) is a key player and publishes information on convictions.
Here are some specific articles and resources detailing prosecutions in California:
1. Recent Convictions and Press Releases from the California Department of Insurance (CDI):
The CDI has a dedicated section for “Workers’ Compensation Fraud Convictions” where they list recent cases. This is an excellent source for specific examples.
San Jose security company owner sentenced in $3.4 million workers’ compensation fraud case (May 19, 2025):
Details: Raul Chavez, owner of Tactical Operations Protective Services (a company providing security guard, staffing, and patrol services), was sentenced for a six-year scheme to underreport payroll and avoid paying workers’ compensation premiums. He concealed over $3.4 million in payroll, resulting in $205,565 in unpaid premiums. He pleaded guilty to felony premium fraud, received 180 days in county jail, two years probation, and ordered to pay restitution.
Relevance: This is a very recent and highly relevant example, as it directly involves a company that performs “staffing” services.
The CDI explicitly states they post convictions for violations of various codes, including Labor Code Section 3700.5 (failure to secure payment of compensation). You can browse monthly lists of convictions.
How to use it: Go to the CDI’s website and navigate to their “Workers’ Compensation Fraud Convictions” page. From there, you can select specific years and months to see detailed lists of convictions, often including the name of the convicted party, the county, a description of the offense (which often includes operating without coverage or premium fraud), the amount defrauded, and the punishment imposed.
2. Local District Attorney (DA) Offices Prosecutions:
California’s county District Attorney offices are on the front lines of prosecuting these cases. Many have dedicated fraud units. While I can’t link to every single case, here are examples of their programs and what they report:
Merced County District Attorney: Their website highlights that it is illegal for an employer to operate without workers’ compensation insurance (CA Labor Code Section 3700.5) and outlines the penalties, including up to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to double the premium owed, but not less than $10,000. They also mention that they receive reports from the CA Department of Insurance Fraud Hotline.
Shasta County District Attorney: Also has a Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fraud Program and details penalties for both employees and employers, including for “Employer Fraud” (lying to their insurance company about the number of employees, which leads to underpaying premiums or operating uninsured).
3. Precedent-Setting Cases (Employer Liability for Bogus PEOs):
Sometimes, the “staffing agency” itself might be operating illegally, or an employer might contract with a “Professional Employer Organization (PEO)” that is bogus and doesn’t provide legitimate workers’ comp. California courts have addressed this.
“Precedent: Employer Held Liable For Bogus PEO” (February 12, 2025):
Details: This article from Workers’ Comp Executive discusses a landmark decision where an employer, Garcias Pallets, was held liable for over $1.3 million in penalties for operating without valid workers’ comp coverage, despite having contracted with PEOs whose coverage was “bogus.” This highlights the due diligence required by businesses when using labor contractors or staffing solutions.
Relevance: This shows how an employer can be held liable even when they thought they were getting coverage through a third party (like a PEO or staffing agency) that was not legitimate.
While not always explicitly “staffing agencies,” many large workers’ compensation fraud schemes involve networks of shell companies, labor brokers, or fake businesses designed to avoid premiums or exploit workers.
“Participants in $200 Million Workers’ Comp Scheme Sentenced to Prison and More Than $2 Million in Financial Penalties” (February 22, 2019, by US Dept. of Justice):
Details: This article describes a massive kickback scheme in Southern California where marketers, doctors, lawyers, and medical service providers conspired to defraud the workers’ compensation system. While not directly about uninsured employers, these types of schemes often involve “ghost” employees or underreporting, which are forms of workers’ comp fraud.
Directly search the CDI’s “Workers’ Compensation Fraud Convictions” database. It’s the most direct route for official convictions.
Search District Attorney websites: Look for press releases from California county DAs, specifically for their “Workers’ Compensation Fraud Unit” or “White Collar Crime” sections.
Use more targeted keywords: If you know a specific county, industry (e.g., construction staffing, agricultural labor contractors), or a time frame, add those to your search.
These resources provide concrete examples and demonstrate the rigorous enforcement efforts in California against employers, including those in the staffing industry, who attempt to operate without the legally mandated workers’ compensation insurance. Sources
Works Rights Compliance Alliance 