Part 12: Page 4 of the PEIC Response to the DFEH

My last article mentioned that page 4 of the Preferred Employers Insurance Company official response to the DFEH was missing.

But I have it now, and before I go on I wanted to touch on it a bit.

As we know, PEIC claimed that Chrysti’s position was so important that no ADA accommodation could be made for Chrysti:

“The Claimant’s primary role is to manage the Medical Provider Network. Preferred Employers Insurance Company is the only worker’s compensation insurance carrier in the State of California with a directly contracted Medical Provider Network. Full time attendance is an essential function of the Claimant’s job. The Claimant’s job function requires attendance Monday thru Friday, 40 hours a week. The Claimant’s position is a ‘specialized’ position, requiring a high level of technical expertise, which currently has no designated backup with the required skill set to perform the duties of the Claimant’s position. Therefore, the impact of an absence from this position is significant. The fundamental duties of this position require daily management and updating. Consequences of failing to perform the full functions of the position could result in significant financial costs to the Company in the following ways:

During the Claimant’s leave of absence, the Claimant’s supervisors, along with other staff have been overburdened to cover the “basic” functions of the desk, thus jeopardizing the overall operations and efficiency of the business.”

Essentially, this is just a cut-and-paste of previous statements, but here PEIC mentions “Consequences of failing to perform the full functions of the position could result in significant financial costs to the Company.”

PEIC also mentions that “substantial fines could be assessed,” and “Lack of daily oversight…could result in legal action against the Company.”

Pretty serious stuff. And obviously one would expect a full court press to replace Chrysti once she was terminated.

But as I’ve pointed out, this wasn’t so. There was no sense of urgency that I saw and it was nearly 7 months before the position was filled. If PEIC was truly worried about “significant financial costs” and “substantial fines” and “legal action,” it certainly didn’t act like it.

If the position survived vacant for 7 months, wouldn’t it have survived the 2 months Chrysti asked for?

Monday: My letter to W.R. Berkley exposes the problems at Preferred Employers Insurance Company

Part 13: The Cost of Corporate Misconduct

Possibly Related Posts:

• A 2018 Train Wreck Coming?
• Still Time to Review the New California Laws for 2012
• The Oakland Violence and Bullying Linked?
• Part 20: The Final Chapter
• The Magic Word