adjustercom.com News

As work comp claims adjusters, the technical attributes of our claims handling job are relatively easy; provide prompt, accurate benefits to legitimately injured workers.

But what happens when a claims adjuster gets promoted into management? Are there any traps, muddy roads, or land mines? The short answer is yes. There are plenty. And many former claims examiners in this predicament, who get promoted to management, fly by the seat of their pants!

The job of a claims supervisor is to navigate the terrain carefully and successfully. It’s all about survival. A college degree helps as does completing a few courses in psychology and in human resources, but it does not place you above the majority of managers in the basic understanding of employment law or the rudimentary working knowledge of the employees you supervise.

Then there are the murky situations that arise between the work force one is given to lead and the demands of the superiors above one who want to call the shots. When I was a claims supervisor for Intercare Insurance, for instance, the management there had me walk the beat around the office, acting as the fashion police, where there were strict dress code rules. No hats, no jumpers, and no flip flops, as we all had to look professional.

Yet, the management seemed to go out of its way to hire people with tattoos up the wazoo (on the neck, face and arms). It was ironic. It was funny. However, when the management above made it clear, via an e-mail directive, that all staff “need to refrain from speaking Spanish (actually any other language is the topic) and encourage others from doing so” it was no longer funny.

This directive was not limited to the office but extended to include private areas such as the bathroom, the lunchroom, the elevator, and in the adjoining areas before or after work. This English-only directive provoked very strong feelings and left many Spanish speakers at Intercare feeling not only like third-class citizens but like they were being bullied and picked on. As Intercare’s low man on the management’s totem pole, I was directed to enforce this.

I could see what was happening and didn’t much like it. “This wasn’t what I bargained for when I accepted the position of a claims supervisor.” The upper management team of Kathleen Burris (Intercare’s Contract Claims Manager) and Jackie Stewart (a seasoned Supervisor) seemed determined to drag Intercare into something that’s wasn’t quite kosher and what I thought was downright illegal.

I owed it to myself and my employer to highlight a bad workplace situation that the Claims Manager should have been more aware of in the first place. I knew then that if I or Intercare took this wrong turn and headed down the wrong valley, it would just lead to more and more poor choices.

I faced an ethical dilemma and I voiced my opposition to the English-Only directive. I knew that eventually this directive was going to have negative repercussions for Intercare and I sought to protect Intercare, my employer, while at the same time wanting no part in it either for or against Intercare.

True to form in May 2010, suit was filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, in Sylvia Lopez v. Intercare Insurance Services, Case 30-2010-00376617, over the English-Only directive. To my chagrin, I was subpoenaed to testify as a witness on October 3, 2012 before the Honorable Judge Judith C. Chirlin at Judicate West in Los Angeles, California as were numerous Intercare current and former employees.

Judicate West is a well recognized ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) judicial forum that is for profit adjudication and is cost prohibitive for the majority of litigants. Proceedings are conducted behind closed doors without public scrutiny which is ideal if one has a case that he wishes to censor. This was day three of binding arbitration between the parties. The question for me was whether to testify or not. Like the rest of the witnesses, I was reluctant as I didn’t embrace either the plaintiff or the defendant in this matter. In the end I came to the conclusion that it is my Christian duty to act as a witness, to be forthright, and to speak honestly and from the heart. It’s in the Bible that we must make ourselves available as witnesses. Acts 22:15 - For you shall be his witness unto all men of what you have seen and heard.

Most people involved in business—whether functioning as a small business owner, employee, or chief executive officer of a multinational company—eventually face ethical or moral dilemmas of the type I faced at Intercare. Such dilemmas are usually complex, for they force the person making the decision to weigh the benefits that various business decisions impart on individuals and groups with the negative repercussions that those same decisions usually have on other individuals or groups.

An employee, and especially a claims supervisor, has an obligation to protect the interests of the employer, within legal and ethical parameters. When a potential future problem resulting from a "mistake" is identified, the mistake should be corrected. Protecting the principal from future potential allegations of bad faith practices is the right thing to do as long as it does not violate the law. The important thing is being ethical at all times and not always a foot soldier following the illegal orders of the employer by being blindly loyal to that employer against the grain of your own true conscience.

Sometimes you can become so loyal to the people who are your bosses that you can’t see their failings. Of course, by pointing out the deficiencies to your employer, one runs the risk of being fired, as many employers will not allow you to become their conscience, and employers can sometimes handle such people as trash to be thrown out, and one can end up on the bad side of things. Which is not such a bad thing. People get fired for good reasons and bad reasons. And anyone who says they’ve never been fired probably hasn’t hung around long enough anywhere to see if it would happen. In fact, many successful people have been fired at some time in their lives. Think about Carly Fiorina. Then consider the most extraordinary example in our recent history--the case of Steve Jobs—who was fired from his own company, the one he started.

The important thing is you sacrifice for what is right. The example of Christ is the best example of the individual who stands all alone for righteousness and justice. There is a fresco painting by Leonardo of The Last Supper in Milan, Italy. In it Christ is in the center all alone by himself. There is a symbolism of how Jesus stood utterly and completely alone. That’s the ideal of what we all must do… how we all must sacrifice for what is right, for what is just, for righteousness’ sake….

As any employer who has ever fought a labor dispute within the politics of California will tell you, the employer is presumed to be guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof for the employer is: Be able to prove beyond the shadow of a modicum of an atom of an iota of a doubt that you have done nothing wrong. The only way to meet this burden of proof is to practice the three cardinal rules of management: “Document, document, document.” Regrettably, Intercare documented its desired solution to the problem which was to alienate those employees who spoke Spanish by moving them to a different office location. While this might have seemed to be a solution to stopping any potential irritation caused to the non-Spanish speaking professionals within ear-shot, it is illegal to maintain segregated employment in which employees are separated by race or national origin.

On the witness stand, on October 3, 2012, and again on October 4, 2012, the mud was flying at Judicate West as lawyers for both sides were digging into their 100 page evidence binders (the sort of documents you’d expect from a major crime) and troves of other documents. The ones I saw had blacked out pages. When you start censoring things you start going down a very slippery slope. Intercare’s lawyer argued that Sylvia Lopez was a disgruntled ex-employee and did not have a legitimate grievance. He didn’t appear happy unless he was destroying the woman.

On the stand Intercare’s elite management team denied that they had a bias towards Spanish speakers. Kathleen Burris while strapped in the witness chair for six grueling hours and looking worn, denied that an English-only directive had been given and that if it had, she had nothing to do with it. Jackie Stewart, looking like the proverbial deer frozen in headlights, tried to minimize her own documentation on the matter saying that Spanish was not the problem but rather the disruption two employees were causing (presumably in speaking loudly).

Sandra Oladapo and Joan Armijo held the company line as did the human resource (HR) representatives, Kim Mitchell and Alan Avriett. Kim Mitchell who flew in from Northern California did a poor job of explaining her role. Nonetheless, one can probably understand that HR, as in most cases but not all, has an inherent bias for the benefit of the corporation more than the employee. It’s a fine line HR must walk between the two, and in the end HR is bound to protect the company’s assets. Although skeptical, Judge Judith C. Chirlin was willing to be persuaded. Yet Intercare’s testimony was rebutted by Sylvia Lopez, Johana Collins, Grace Dominguez, Isabel Ruiz, Laurie Sheppard, Paul F. Thorton, and Nancy Aleman.

All testified that there was a ban in effect against Spanish speaking and that those who spoke it were made to feel bad. In particular, Nancy Aleman who is now a sworn peace officer, a Deputy Sheriff for Los Angeles County, has no incentive to lie. Thus the question then is, why would Intercare on a corporative level distort the truth when they swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? Are businesses not bound by religious or ethical rules? Is lying not lying for them but simply a legal game of chess?

The truth is that lying is more complicated than people realize. Telling lies has a value, and sometimes it’s greater than the value of telling the truth. Lying can be justified in order not to wound ... and, of course, when trying to seduce a woman (joke). In addition, lying can be morally right to save a life (no joke). If the Nazis came to your house in the early 1940s and asked you if you were hiding Jews, you should have lied. In Exodus 1:20, God blessed Egyptian midwives after they saved the lives of Hebrew boys by lying to their boss, the King of Egypt. They were supposed to kill the boys as soon as they were born. Also, God directly told Samuel to lie to King Saul in First Samuel 16:2. Samuel was sent to Bethlehem to find a new King to replace Saul. If Saul knew this he wouldn’t be a happy camper and would have killed Samuel so when Samuel asked God how he should answer if asked, God told him to lie.

However, we all can lie for less noble reasons. Am I saying it’s okay to lie? Absolutely not. But there will always be shades of grey. I believe that the authority figures at Intercare are trying to keep their authority intact and there are consequences for telling the truth. Namely, they will be held accountable. HR goes along with their version of the truth as Intercare is trying to protect their assets (money). Yet one has to wonder what sort of culture as an organization they are building or what bad apples they are allowing to flourish there. The uplifting part in all this is that there is indeed life after litigation. Witnesses can also take comfort that, despite their best or worst efforts, one particular person’s testimony alone rarely determines the outcome of litigation. Even good cases are lost due to the vagaries of the civil justice system.

Judge Judith C. Chirlin is expected to rule on this case in 45 days to determine, among other things, whether the English-only policy disparately impacted Lopez, an Hispanic adjuster, without a sufficient business justification.

Jorge Alexandría is a U.S. Army veteran who received his B.A. in Political Science from Cal State Los Angeles, and graduated from Cal Poly Pomona with a Master’s in Public Administration. He holds both a California Workers Compensation Claims Professional (WCCP) designation and the State of California’s Self-Insured Administrator’s License. With more than 20 years industry experience, including various leadership positions, he is a leading expert in the field of risk management. He currently practices federal workers’ compensation of maritime interest. He can be reached at Riskletter@mail.com. The views and knowledge expressed in this article are Jorge Alexandría’s alone.