EEO Investigations at the Indiana Bureau of Workers' Compensation went on for months and months without any resolution, thereby exposing the organization to serious monetary liability.

The managers at the organization had no idea the functions for which the EEO Department was responsible, nor did they have any role in the investigative process once a complaint was filed.

As new EEO Director, the need for revamp was evident. A meeting was held with key upper management present. After the meeting, a modified EEO Policy was implemented which gave a detailed description of the responsibilities of all management personnel once a possible allegation of discrimination was brought to their attention.

Since management now had clear guidance of their role during an EEO investigation, they now assumed ownership of the issue and resolutions became more commonplace. Managers also recognized that they were legally responsible for inaction and this required more attention to details.

As a result, the education tact was clear: in the course of four years, EEO complaints went from a high of 49 to a low of 4.

A client of the Indiana Attorney General’s Office was sued numerous times for race discrimination in the 1990s. The client's solution was to offer a blank check to every potential litigant. Of course, there was always a line to the door for the blank checks.

Although everyone got in line for his or her big payoff, there was one employee who threatened lawsuit every time someone looked at her the wrong way. In 1998, this employee decided to go on vacation for two days without telling her boss. When she came back to work on Monday, she was docked two days pay. This resulted in a trip to the EEOC.

On another occasion, the employee's manager decided that he was going to rearrange the whole floor. This resulted in 80 of 120 employees being moved. Because said employee did not like her new office, she made trip number two to the EEOC.

A third issue arose when her supervisor e-mailed her that he needed certain statistics for a project that he was doing for Executive Staff. The supervisor then stated in the e-mail that "unless you hear otherwise from me, be prepared to make presentation to Executive Staff on Monday." Of course, the employee read the e-mail and thought that it meant unless she heard from her supervisor, she would not have to do a presentation. After receiving a long tongue-lashing from her supervisor, the employee again visited the EEOC.

On Christmas Eve, the supervisor went down to her floor to wish everyone happy holidays; everyone except her, claimed the employee. This resulted in visit number four to the EEOC. The employee then brought action in Federal District Court alleging race discrimination and retaliation. The employer called me and, again, wanted to settle. Making the situation even worse was the fact that the employee's attorney knew a news reporter and my client was now the lead story on the 6 o'clock news.

This employer was dodging common sense in their strategy. By settling with anyone and everyone, the employer was paying out more money than it would have had it gone through the litigation process and lost.

As Assistant Attorney General, it was clear what the client needed: a calm and rational explanation that although there are situations where settlement was in everyone's best interest, this was not one of them. After discussing the case thoroughly, and some initial investigation, it was found that the employee had financial problems and embarrassing domestic issues that could be unearthed during the discovery process. Her case was like a house of cards, which would collapse if allegations were undercut one by one. The employee's deposition lasted four days. While the employee had a lot of interesting thoughts and theories, there was simply no evidence to support any of them. After about six months of discovery, the Attorney General’s Office filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the case.

In a 60-page decision, the judge granted our motion for summary judgment and dismissed her case. Of course, the employee appealed. While the appeal was pending, the employee's attorney called the Attorney General’s Office and offered to settle the case for $250,000. Naturally, this offer was declined, and the appeals court subsequently also ruled in the employer’s favor. The next step was to motion the court to grant costs against the employee. The court did so, ordering the employee to pay nearly $10,000. About three years after the case concluded, the Chief of HR has reported that neither said employee nor any other has filed complaint against the employer since.

With successful jury verdicts averaging nearly $250,000 and expensive legal fees, settling cases is always an option. However, before doing this, the client and attorney need to sit down and go through the case with a fine tooth comb to decide what is in the best interest of the organization. Here, that had never happened until the Attorney General’s team stepped in.

There were many inconsistent decisions being made regarding ADA Reasonable Accommodation in the Indiana Bureau of Workers' Compensation. In some instances, reasonable accommodation was given for unverified medical conditions. Another issue was that managers were totally uneducated as to the differences between FMLA, ADA and Worker's Compensation Laws.

There were at least 16 different managers, including a disability manager in the Worker's Compensation Division, making decisions concerning reasonable accommodation for employees.

An agency wide ADA Reasonable Accommodation Policy was developed mandating that all requests from all offices be sent to the EEO Director for resolution. A form was also created to assure that the EEO Director would have the necessary information to make each decision in a prompt manner. Training was developed to educate managers as to the differences in ADA, FMLA and Worker's Compensation.

As one individual was then making these determinations, all Requests for Reasonable Accommodation became resolved in a consistent manner. Managers thence understood the differences between the ADA, FMLA and Worker's Compensation Laws and how these laws interact with one another, and this education granted them the power to anticipate and respond appropriately to any requests or complaints.

The uniform procedures and training have saved the agency from potential liability, as there has not been a successful ADA lawsuit in 4 years.

The Indiana Bureau of Workers' Compensation was run predominately by white males. While many leaders were very open minded and understood that the work force is composed of many diverse individuals, unfortunately there were some that did not understand that diversity is what drives an organization to seek new ideas and solutions. While Black History and Women's History Month programs were are enjoyed by most, there seemed to be resentment by some employees who felt "excluded."

Unfortunately, several Senior Managers belonging to the "good ole boy" network thought that a Diversity Initiative meant that the organization was actively seeking unqualified females or minorities to take their position.

The EEO Department, along with the CEO, Communications and the Chief of HR, put together a plan for the organization to educate Senior Management on the principles of Diversity and how Diversity benefits an organization. The approach was first tailored to the consolidation of five multi-location Service Offices, to which everyone immediately agreed. It was accomplished by demonstrating that Diversity is not a concept that only addresses race, sex or national origin, but is instead a concept that recognizes that employees, while having differences, do in fact have many similarities. Regional focus groups were also convened to discuss diversity issues with employees. A report was written and shared with the Chief of HR and the CEO. A plan was drawn up with timelines to integrate the concept of diversity into all personnel’s daily lives. The plan consisted of a brief introductory informational session from employees, the creation of an agency diversity web page, and more fun events such as a multi-cultural Holiday Show.

First, the five consolidations were extremely successful. Some employees were actually excited about working with new co-workers. Additionally, the Senior Staff, through education was able to grasp that a Diversity Initiative meant more than hiring more minority employees.

This was a huge step forward for BWC. With times changing, it was extremely important that Senior Management understand and embrace the principles of diversity; they lead an organization of 2,800 employees in 16 locations through the State of Indiana that services hundreds of thousands of Injured Workers.