was put to a different use than is that of the Investigators before us. Namely, the information in Bratt was used by courts to determine defendants’ sentences, while the information in the present case is used by GEICO to assist the Claims Adjusters in the processing of insurance claims. Nothing in the regulations demonstrates that this distinction would be dis-positive, however. As we have stated, the regulations’ focus is on “the nature of the work, not its ultimate consequence,” Desmond I, 564 F.3d at 692, and the nature of the Investigators’ primary duty was not different in any significant way from that of the probation officers. In neither case did the employees’ actual work duties relate to business policy or overall operational management. Compare Shockley, 997 F.2d at 28 (<HOLDING>),’ and West v. Anne Arundel Cnty., 137 F.3d
holding that because ethics and standards lieutenant spent all her time accumulating and analyzing data and making recommendations that shaped the police departments policy with regard to internal discipline her work was directly related to management policies  holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim holding that police were justified in arresting person on basis of information provided directly to police by named citizen informer reliance on the information was justified in part because the informant by giving her name presumably knew that the police could arrest her for making a false report holding that plaintiffs allegations that her supervisor was a lesbian and that she made improper remarks to her including telling the plaintiff to invite her to lunch and making comments about plaintiffs coworkers private lives and sexual preferences   and on one occasion approaching the plaintiff from behind hugging her and whispering in her ear a request for a cookie from another table did not suffice to establish a hostile working environment holding that the claimant committed willful misconduct when she did not return to work at the end of her leave and did not comply with her employers notification policy