• A Standardized Referral Form – Every referral had to be submitted using a single, structured form. At the top, there was a clearly marked box for URGENT referrals. In this case, that box was not checked, and the provider’ s policy— explicitly stated on the form— allowed up to four days to respond. This clarity proved essential in demonstrating that the organization had followed its stated procedures when scheduling the plaintiff’ s appointment.
• Lack of Outbound Call Recordings – The case involved two critical outbound calls, neither of which was recorded. The first was an attempt to reach the plaintiff— no answer, no voicemail. The second was a call to the referring physician’ s office, where no urgency was indicated. This call took place late on a Friday, and as is typical, the specialty practice was closed over the weekend. While the urgency of the situation became apparent later, the failure was on the referring physician, not on the practice. Fortunately, even though the calls were not recorded, there was documented evidence that they had been made.
The takeaway? Standardized and well-communicated processes are not just operationally efficient— they can be a legal lifeline. If your referral system is inconsistent, undocumented, or reliant on informal workflows, you may be setting yourself up for trouble.
WRONGFUL TERMINATION: THE COST OF UNCLEAR POLICIES
Consider this example. A clear set of Family and Medical Leave Act( FMLA) rules would have saved this employer a world of trouble. Instead, it found itself facing a wrongful termination lawsuit after firing a 16-year Contact Center veteran— a highly rated employee— due to attendance and tardiness issues stemming from a medical condition.
Its mistake? The Contact Center relied on unclear or out-of-date HR( Human Resources) policies rather than having a well-defined, legally sound approach to handling medical accommodations for its employees. This lack of clarity made defending the decision incredibly difficult, especially in today’ s legal landscape in which entire law firms specialize in representing plaintiffs at no upfront cost.
To make matters worse, the employer tried to justify the termination with wildly exaggerated claims that the employee’ s absence crippled its service levels. The testimony suggested that a single individual’ s attendance issue caused massive delays in a 300-person / 12-hour operation. If this had been a team of five or six, maybe that argument would hold water. But in a large-scale Contact Center? Management had no data, no workforce management insights, and no Contact Center science— nothing to back it up. It was absurd. They settled.
Did the employer walk away from the case with clearer policies? Maybe. I wouldn’ t know— I was testifying for the plaintiff.
IF THERE IS ONE THING I HAVE LEARNED, IT IS THAT NO ORGANIZATION IS IMMUNE TO LEGAL SCRUTINY.
WHEN QA BECOMES A LEGAL BATTLEFIELD
In another case, a major software company tried to pull out of a contract with its outsourcing partner over what ultimately amounted to a bidding error. The justification? The company claimed that the outsourcer’ s Quality Assurance( QA) was inadequate because it didn’ t have an“ auto-fail” on its Quality assessment forms.
IDIOM INSIGHTS
Let’ s be real. Not having an auto-fail is not evidence of a poorly run Contact Center. And I made that very clear when a Washington D. C. lawyer attempted to grill me on it. The argument was that if an agent used profanity with a customer, they needed an auto-fail metric in QA. My response?“ No, it would be auto-fired.”
The reality is that excellence in Quality is about discovery and development— not investigation and prosecution. And in this case, that distinction made all the difference. We won.
For the record, most companies already address things like profanity under their general code of conduct— a policy that applies to all employees and not just Contact Center agents. Trying to weaponize QA in this way was a weak play, and it backfired.
WHEN“ QUALITY AND TRAINING” BECOMES A LEGAL LOOPHOLE
I once had a conversation with a lawyer representing a company accused of providing account information to an unauthorized party, resulting in serious harm to the account holder. The company’ s training explicitly covered the importance of safeguarding customer information— there was no ambiguity. Yet, this lawyer asked if there was a way to frame the agent’ s action as a mere“ mistake.” I knew right away that I couldn’ t build a case for that. If anything, I would have been a far better witness for the other side. But as we discussed the situation, the lawyer kept pressing for a way to soften the argument. Half-jokingly, I said:
APRIL 2025 11