Opinion ID: 28760
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: IBP's Deceptions

Text: 40 As discussed in the majority opinion, new IBP employees receive a booklet containing a summary of WISP benefits, called the Summary Plan Description (SPD) at orientation. The script read by an IBP supervisor at that orientation states that the SPD tells you just about everything you need to know about [WISP], including your rights and responsibilities. However, the WISP legal document contains a longer and more detailed explanation of WISP benefits. The WISP legal document is kept in IBP's Health and Safety Department, and is not provided to employees unless they request it. The majority concludes that no inconsistencies exist between the orientation script, the SPD, and the WISP legal documents, and thus no deception could have occurred. Not only do I disagree that no inconsistencies exist, but I particularly disagree that a reasonable jury could not have found the inconsistencies in the materials to be deceptive such that if Klumpe remained silent or encouraged Escamilla to sign the waiver, he would have similarly been deceptive. 41 The first alleged inconsistency concerns lifetime payments under WISP. The SPD states that if a covered injury or illness leaves you unable to return to any work whatsoever, the program provides lifetime payments. The WISP legal document states that lifetime payments will only be given if the injury fits one of six categories enumerated in the legal document, such as total and permanent loss of sight in both eyes. For other injuries not so enumerated, payment will not exceed 401 weeks. 42 While the majority concludes that the language concerning being unable to return to any work whatsoever is a prerequisite that suggests a severe disability, the six disability categories listed in the WISP materials are not exhaustive. In particular, all but one of the six categories cover only physical injuries. The sixth category does cover injuries to the skull resulting in incurable insanity or imbecility, but there are a wide range of other work-related illnesses could leave a person unable to return to any work whatsoever. Debilitating clinical depression, for example, might well be the result of the injury that Escamilla suffered, and it would definitely not be covered. More importantly, a reasonable jury could find that the SPD was deceptive in this regard. 43 The second alleged inconsistency concerns the binding nature of arbitration under WISP. According to IBP's orientation script, by the terms of the Program as submitted to and supervised by the United States Department of Labor, IBP is bound to honor the arbitrator's decision. The majority opinion notes that under the governing power of the Federal Arbitration Act, parties retain the right to appeal an arbitration award that results from the arbitrator's abuse of authority or bias, as was the case in the Glover complaint presented as anecdotal evidence of this misrepresentation at trial. Team Scandia, Inc. v. Greco, 6 F.Supp.2d 795, 798 (S.D.Ind.1998). Nevertheless, an IBP managerial employee, James Crow, testified that nowhere in the IBP documents does it state that IBP can appeal the decision if it decides to do so. Nor could I find any reference in my review of the documents submitted to this Court. 4 Whether or not an abuse of the arbitrator's authority existed in Glover's case, testimony at trial concerning Glover merely illustrated and provided for the jury sufficient evidence to find that, despite telling employees that IBP is bound to honor the arbitrator's decision — without any mention of exceptions — IBP can and does appeal arbitration decisions. 5 44 The final deception concerns the Restricted Duty Program. New employees are told that, if they are injured on the job, IBP will assign that employee to the restricted duty program in accordance with the restrictions assigned by your doctor. However, the program includes deadlines not disclosed to the employees during orientation. For example, once the employee reaches maximum medical improvement, the employee has thirty days to find a job within the plant that will meet the restrictions imposed by the treating physician. If the employee cannot find a job within that thirty-day period, then the employee is placed on a twelve-month leave of absence without pay. If the employee cannot find a job within that twelve-month period, the employee is terminated. 45 While the Restricted Duty Program is not part of WISP, Klumpe nonetheless presented evidence at trial concerning the program that adequately demonstrated IBP's failure to provide full disclosure of its terms. This evidence, combined with the above discussed inconsistencies, was clearly enough for the jury reasonably to conclude that deception would have occurred had Klumpe sought Escamilla's release because the information given to IBP employee's concerning the WISP program and the Restricted Duty Program was misleading and deceptive. Thus, in order to secure Escamilla's signature, Klumpe would have had to confirm the benefits of the program by remaining silent about how the program really worked. 6 Klumpe testified that no one with an injury such as Escamilla's would sign the waiver if he were aware of the misrepresentations made to him, and of the actual benefits available under WISP and the restricted duty program. This evidence presented by Klumpe is sufficient to support an inference that Escamilla would not have signed a waiver if the benefits available under WISP and the restricted duty program had been fully and accurately presented to him. 46 Moreover, Klumpe presented evidence at trial that, IBP did not correct the inconsistencies between the information presented to new employees at orientation and the actual benefits available to them under WISP and the restricted duty program. For example, IBP employee Missy Britt testified that she was the first person who generally would consult with an injured worker about signing the waiver. Britt also testified that she did not discuss any of the differences between actual benefits provided and the orientation information, and did not discuss the time limits associated with the Restricted Duty Program when consulting with an injured worker. Klumpe himself also testified that, as an IBP manager, he previously had secured waivers from employees without correcting any of the misrepresentations made during orientation, and that he was fully aware that IBP wanted the waivers signed and did not want any misrepresentations to be corrected. Estrada and Glover gave anecdotal testimony concerning the Restricted Duty Program, both relating their experiences that the program did not function as stated in the orientation script or the SPD. Glover also testified that IBP appealed the arbitrator's decision in his case, something he did not believe was a possibility according to the materials he had received. Finally, Suther admitted in his testimony that employees were misled during orientation. 7