 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Youse v. Duke Energy Corp.7/5/2005
Sylvia Youse (plaintiff) was employed by Duke Energy Corporation (defendant) from 8 October 1984 to 21 March 2002. Plaintiff became a Quality Assurance Analyst (QAT Analyst) for defendant on 1 June 1999. The QAT Analyst job description contained the following provision:
I. POSITION PURPOSE
Monitors and evaluates the quality of inbound telephone calls. Document quality issues and performance measures for management review . . . . Provide information to assist in the feedback and formal education process of individuals on the phone. Provides subject matter expertiseregarding call segment processes and call criteria. Informal feedback and auditing of non-call work is also summarized and audited to assure quality issues are addressed.
II. MAJOR ACCOUNTABILITIES/ESSENTIAL DUTIES
2. . . .
B. Maintains appropriate relationships and credibility needed to assure that quality scores are used effectively to improve performance of Customer Service Specialists.
Plaintiff and her husband owned a house in Mebane, North Carolina (the Mebane house), which they leased to their son and daughter-in-law. Defendant provided electrical service to the Mebane house. Plaintiff's son and daughter-in-law arranged to move out of the Mebane house in February 2002. Electrical service was scheduled to be changed from plaintiff's daughter-in-law's name to plaintiff's name on 18 February 2002. However, the electrical service was disconnected on 11 February 2002.
Plaintiff telephoned defendant on 11 February 2002 and inquired as to why the electrical service was not working. Plaintiff spoke with customer service representative Demishie Grier (Grier), who informed plaintiff that the electrical service had been disconnected for non-payment. Plaintiff and Grier began to disagree as to whether the electrical service should be turned back on. When plaintiff asked to speak with a supervisor, Grier statedthat Grier could not transfer the call but would have a supervisor call plaintiff. Plaintiff stated that she could not be called back since she was on a cell phone and had an unreliable connection. Plaintiff and Grier thereafter ended their telephone conversation.
Plaintiff then telephoned call service response and spoke with Billy Kingry (Kingry), a service response specialist. Plaintiff had originally hired Kingry to work for defendant and was Kingry's former supervisor. Plaintiff asked Kingry to look at the Mebane house account and told him that she needed electrical service at the Mebane house. Kingry then arranged to have the electrical service turned back on at the Mebane house. This reconnection of the electrical service was in violation of defendant's "non-pay reconnect" guidelines, which provide that a reconnect of an account is only available once payment has been made on the account. Kingry told Yolanda Peterson (Peterson), a HR Consultant for defendant, that he did "ma e an exception for [plaintiff] because of [Kingry and plaintiff's] previous relationship and [plaintiff's] knowledge of how things work."
The following day, on 12 February 2002, defendant determined that the electrical service at the Mebane house had been erroneously reconnected. The account was scheduled for another non-pay disconnect, and a disconnect notice was delivered to the Mebane house.
Peterson received an email on 18 February 2002 from Dawn Morrison (Morrison), plaintiff's supervisor. The email stated that plaintiff may have engaged in "very inappropriate conduct." Theemail also recommended that an investigation take place. Peterson began an investigation into plaintiff's conduct, during which Peterson interviewed numerous individua
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 North Carolina Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|