Why this industry draws claims
Staffing firms employ large, transient workforces and share employment responsibility with their clients. A harassment or discrimination claim at a client worksite can name the staffing agency too. High placement volume, varied worksites, and limited day-to-day control over conditions all raise frequency and complicate defense.
Most common claims
Co-employment claims
Workers placed at client sites can name the staffing firm as a joint employer.
Discrimination in placement
Allegations around who gets placed, where, and at what pay.
Harassment at worksites
Claims arising at client locations the agency doesn’t fully control.
Retaliation
Complaints after a worker raises an issue at an assignment.
What underwriters watch for
Clear contracts allocating employment responsibility with clients
Worksite vetting and a process for handling complaints across sites
Training and documentation despite a distributed workforce
Limits and terms that contemplate co-employment exposure
Typical California cost
$5,000–$25,000+/yr
Driven by headcount, payroll, and class of placed workers; among the higher EPLI classes.
Cost breakdown →
How we place it
Almost always shopped across specialty and E&S markets that understand co-employment — rarely an instant-program fit.
Common questions
What is co-employment risk in EPLI?
When a staffing firm places workers at a client, both can be considered employers. That means the staffing agency can be named in an employee’s discrimination or harassment claim arising at the client’s site.
Can staffing firms get instant EPLI quotes?
Usually not — the co-employment exposure means staffing is typically placed through specialty markets that underwrite it directly. BestEPLI shops those markets for you.