A lot of practice owners out there feel as if some of their employees are giving them so little work for their pay that it
is practically criminal.
That's an unfortunately occasional happenstance. So, what happens when you strongly suspect that you have an employee who
is an actual criminal?
The problem puts the practice owner in a much more precarious position than simply having to place a help-wanted ad in the
newspaper or online.
As with many areas of veterinary law, the very best defense against employee dishonesty is good preparation and management
protocols instituted before any suspected employee criminality arises.
A failure to put systems and rules in effect that provide for individual accountability can make the problem of worker theft
or embezzlement enormously difficult and stressful.
In order to fully appreciate the importance of pre-planning for employee dishonesty, consider for a moment the complications
involved when the suspicion of wrongdoing first arises:
Inventories of certain items are mysteriously low, or costs for a certain category of products show up much higher than normal
for a month or quarter.
Monthly or quarterly revenue drops versus last year's figures in the face of what feels like normal or strong sales and services
An employee comes to you with a story.
You become privy to speculation and gossip regarding a certain employee.
Naturally, there are those instances where missing funds from a deposit show up, or the practice receives a notice of unpaid
payroll taxes from the state or federal government. The parties involved in those situations are much easier to pin down.
The tougher predicament is when an owner is riding on suspicions that are not so easily verified.
To catch a thief
Once employee theft is suspected or confirmed, the next and most important step is simply to get the losses to stop. In the
interest of cutting these losses and getting the practice back on track, many practitioners undertake aggressive steps often
at their legal peril.
Instantaneous, poorly considered "knee-jerk" responses can be risky.
For example, the owners of a practice with unexplained inventory or money losses will begin to try to develop a short list
of suspects. In so doing, they may undertake employee interviews with a built-in prejudice, in order to develop a case against
the person(s) they believe most likely to be guilty. This is where they must be extremely careful.
The legal problems begin when Doc calls in Sally to get her take on the disappearance of product or cash. Sally makes it clear
that she has concerns about the receptionist Betty, who has been acting suspiciously. As the questioning continues, Betty
might be spending a lot of money lately, and she is suspected of using illegal drugs.
Regardless of the allegations, Doc needs to proceed with great care as the conversation unfolds.
In this case, the questioner assumes the risk of later being accused of pressuring or encouraging Sally to slander her co-worker.
At the same time, the interview can take a different turn in which the owner relaxes and the conversation "loosens up" because
he is hearing what he expects to hear. What can happen at that point is the blurting out of legally inappropriate comments
such as, "Yeah, I'm sure she's been stealing money, too."
While a defamatory statement may seem innocuous when made to a trusted employee in confidence, there is no way to be sure
that it won't surface later during a lawsuit brought by the employee/suspect.
While the implicated employee might be as guilty as sin, the accuser/employer still has to be extremely careful.
Even if he puts together extensive and persuasive evidence against a thieving employee, and he consequently resigns, the employer
could still be liable for defamatory statements and writings made regarding the departing employee.
The legal rule: Without a conviction, there is no criminality shown. If there is no criminality shown, you cannot safely make
public accusations of that crime.