Over the years I have had the unique (and sometimes eyebrow-raising) experience of serving as an expert witness in multiple legal cases involving Contact Centers. These cases have spanned industries—from state governments to outsourcing disputes, to utility companies, and most extensively, to healthcare. If there is one thing I have learned, it is that no organization is immune to legal scrutiny.
The outcome of each case left me with valuable takeaways. Some helped companies to smooth out processes while others made it painfully clear what not to do. And in today’s increasingly litigious world, Contact Centers must be prepared. Whether it is compliance missteps, mishandled customer interactions, or systemic failures, you do not want to be caught off guard when the gavel comes down. Here are some insights based on my varied cases and outcomes.
Standardizing Your Referral Processes
It is 2025, and yet too many healthcare operations still have not standardized—let alone centralized—their referral processes. This is a missed opportunity, especially considering that referrals are the lifeblood of many specialty practices. A lack of structure not only creates operational chaos but can also leave organizations vulnerable to legal action.
“By failing to prepare, you’re preparing to fail.” —Benjamin Franklin
One case I worked on underscored just how critical well-documented processes can be—sometimes protecting an organization, sometimes exposing its weaknesses. The healthcare provider in question had implemented a few key practices; some worked in their favor and others did not:
- 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.
If there is one thing I have learned, it is that no organization is immune to legal scrutiny.
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.
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.
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.”
Preparedness is power.
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:
“Well, I suppose you could argue that since the call starts with the disclaimer, “Your call may be recorded for quality and training purposes,” it implies that we are not even sure that we are competent. Maybe the disclaimer itself suggests that there is no reasonable expectation of accuracy?”
To my horror, the lawyer asked if I would testify to that. I quickly told him that I was joking. But the fact that the lawyer even considered it still makes me shudder. I turned him down.
But the whole exchange left me thinking. Why don’t we just say, “Calls are recorded”? No fluff, no ambiguity. If a lawyer was willing to twist that standard disclaimer into an argument about unreliable service, what is stopping others from doing the same? Worse yet—is there some unsettling truth to it?
At the heart of these cases—whether wrongful termination, referral processes, contract disputes, or data security—lies a simple truth. Preparedness is power. The strongest defense is not scrambling for legal cover after the fact. It is having the right policies, documentation, and operational discipline in place before challenges arise.
When organizations build processes that are clear, fair, and consistently followed, they don’t just shield themselves from legal trouble. They create a foundation for better decision-making, stronger customer trust, and a more resilient business. Legal challenges may never come. But excellence in operations ensures that if they do, you are not just reacting. You are already prepared!
