Opinion ID: 166830
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Events leading up to Bryant's termination

Text: 12 From the time Farmers implemented the Quality Assurance Review in 1998 to the time Honore terminated Bryant in 2000, RPI was audited five times—three times by the home office and twice by Honore. 2 Three of these audits took place in the twelve months preceding Bryant's termination. 3
13 RPI's first audit was intended to serve as a baseline reading for the department's compliance with new protocols and standards implemented by the company. RPI's compliance score was 85.16%; it had no hard leakage, but soft leakage came in at 97.9%. For this audit, RPI's goal was 91% compliance and 7.5% total leakage.
14 Farmers once again audited RPI after it had been given a few months to get oriented to the new quality control standards. RPI scored 84.88% compliance and 5.18% in overall leakage. As before, RPI's goal was 91% compliance and 7.5% total leakage. One month after this Audit, Farmers hired Jack Honore to supervise Bryant. In her declaration before the district court, Bryant claims that Honore was immediately hostile to her, and that he suggested Bryant move to another position or quit her job. 15 At about the same time, a director from the Farmers home office ordered Bryant to hire 35-year-old Steve Nagle to run the Liability department of RPI. According to other employees in RPI, however, the understanding was that Nagle was brought in to replace Bryant. Nagle allegedly admitted to another employee that he had been picked to come to Kansas City to replace Bryant. In fact, Nagle eventually replaced Bryant as director of claims for RPI after Bryant's termination. 16 Honore gave Bryant a negative performance evaluation for 1998, citing her failure to meet required Balanced Scorecard standards.
17 Despite Bryant's negative performance evaluation, RPI's numbers did not increase significantly. During the June 1999 Audit, RPI scored 88.46% for compliance and 7.88% in total leakage. Both parties agree that the target for compliance under the June 1999 audit was 90 percent. However, the record is not clear as to what the target leakage score was. Thus, we cannot say for certain whether RPI failed the June 1999 audit, but what is certain is that it did not meet the compliance goals for the audit. 18 After the audit, Honore informed Bryant in a formal written warning that if her department's numbers did not improve, he would take corrective action (including the possibility of termination). Honore also told Bryant that he would personally conduct an audit of RPI's files over the next 90 days.
19 Honore's September 1999 Audit was really a combination of two mini-audits. RPI achieved a compliance score of 87.36% and an overall leakage score of 8.01%. Honore also broke down the score in terms of the two component departments of RPI: Liability and APD. APD had a 92.59% compliance score and a 1.53% leakage score. Liability, on the other hand, had a 76.90% compliance score and a 15.4% leakage score. For this audit, RPI's target appears to be a 90% compliance score, a 2% APD leakage, and a 2.5% liability leakage. 20 These numbers indicate that RPI's APD division was performing up to standards but that its Liability division, headed by Steve Nagle (Bryant's eventual replacement), was causing RPI to fail the audits. In January 2000, Honore again gave Bryant a negative performance evaluation, stating: 21 [Bryant] has not demonstrated imagination in identifying problems or developing solutions to solve the problems. The lack of leadership and her apparent management style of complete delegation have led to morale problems particularly with other members of the management team. [Bryant] is reactive rather than proactive. It was very apparent after the September 1998 audit that much had not been done to improve the results since the Jan. 98 audit. Again in June of 1999 most of the same problems were still there. While there has been some improvement since June 1999, the results are still unacceptable. 22 Honore placed Bryant on probation and stated that he would return to the office in thirty days to conduct a final audit. He warned Bryant that if RPI's results were not up to standards, she would be terminated.
23 As promised, Honore conducted another audit in March 2000. RPI scored 87.71% in overall compliance and 4.92% in overall leakage. As for the specific divisions, APD scored 88.78% compliance and 3.96% leakage. Liability scored 85.41% compliance and 5.79% leakage. Like the September 1999 Audit, RPI needed an overall compliance score of 90% or more, a liability leakage of less than 2.5%, and an APD leakage of less than 2% to pass the audit. 24 Figure 1: Summary of RPI Audit Results -------------------------------------------------------------------- Audit Compliance Compliance Leakage Leakage Score Goal Goal -------------------------------------------------------------------- January 85.16% (O) 91% (O) 0% (H) 7.5% (O) 1998 97.9% (S) -------------------------------------------------------------------- September 84.88% (O) 91% (O) 5.18% (O) 7.5% (O) 1998 -------------------------------------------------------------------- June 1999 88.46% (O) 90% (O) 7.88(O) unknown -------------------------------------------------------------------- September 87.36% (O) 90% (O) 8.01% (O) 1999 92.59% (A) 1.53% (A) 2% (A) 76.90% (L) 15.4% (L) 2.5% (L) -------------------------------------------------------------------- March 2000 87.71% (O) 90% (O) 4.92% (O) 88.78% (A) 3.96% (A) 2% (A) 85.41% (L) 5.79% (L) 2.5% (L) -------------------------------------------------------------------- O = Overall result H = Hard leakage A = Result for APD division S = Soft Leakage L = Result for Liability division 25 Although the myriad facts and figures described above can be somewhat confusing, what is clear is that in the five audits prior to Bryant's termination, RPI failed to meet the stated expectations for either compliance or leakage each time. 26 Two days after the completion of the final March 2000 audit, Farmers terminated Bryant for poor performance.