Independent contractors and noncompete agreements do not mix

I've always believed that noncompetes and "independent contractor" status don't mix. Now I have an appellate opinion to back me up.

In Reliant Services v. Brown, a construction-staffing company tried to enforce a noncompete against a punch-list worker it had consistently called an independent contractor. Reliant wanted to stop him from doing the exact same punch-list work directly for Ryan Homes — the same work he'd been doing for decades before ever meeting Reliant.

Here's the problem: you can't call someone "independent," claim they run their own business, and then turn around and try to control where they work, who they can work for, and what they can do once they stop working for you. That's the very definition of control. And control is the dividing line between an employee and an independent contractor.

The most puzzling HR litigation strategy you’ll read this week

Every so often a litigation strategy comes along that just makes you stare at the screen, shake your head, and think, "Did a lawyer really decide this was the best idea, and how much did they bill for it?"

SHRM — the world's largest human resources trade group and an organization that literally brands itself as THE authority on HR — asked a federal court to prohibit a plaintiff from referring to it as an expert in human resources.

Yes, you read that right. SHRM didn't want a jury to hear that … SHRM is an expert in human resources.

The 12th nominee for The Worst Employer of 2025 is … The Corpse Killer

Some stories hit you like a punch to the gut. This one is a full-on knockout.

The House Ways and Means Committee just dropped a bombshell on the New Jersey Organ and Tissue Sharing Network—one of the nation's 55 federally designated organ procurement organizations. The details are disturbing.

According to a letter the Committee released, investigators have uncovered what they call "extreme abuse of public trust" and potentially illegal conduct.

If you aim to hit the legal floor, your workplace will always miss the mark

If your defense to a harassment complaint starts with "well, technically…" you've already lost — even if you win the lawsuit.

A recent Sixth Circuit decision, Wargo v. MJR Partridge Creek Digital Cinema, is the latest reminder that "not illegal" is a terrible benchmark for acceptable workplace behavior.

The court held that the manager's conduct toward a female subordinate — repeated dinner invitations, personal texts, following her in his car, blocking a door during an argument, even grabbing her arm for several seconds — didn't meet the very high bar for unlawful sexual harassment. The standard is "severe or pervasive."

Civil-rights enforcement isn't a culture-war trophy

The Wall Street Journal just profiled EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas under the headline "Trump's DEI Slayer Is Just Getting Started." On LinkedIn, Lucas replied, "thanks … that's right! Buckle up for more…"

It's… an odd flex.

Title VII protects everyone. Always has. White employees, men, Christians, and cisgender individuals are covered just the same as workers from traditionally marginized communities. Discrimination is discrimination, whoever the victim is.

But equal protection doesn't mean equal priority. And it doesn't mean the EEOC should treat anti-Christian bias, anti-American bias, or corporate DEI programs as the nation's most urgent civil-rights threats.

WIRTW #781: the 'EEOC' edition

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is expected to rescind guidance that addresses harassment based on gender identity. Should we remove mentions of gender identity from our anti-harassment policy?"

An HR professional recently asked that question to HR Dive.

Let me answer it as succinctly as possible: NO!!!

Or, if you prefer, let me rephrase question for clarity: "The EEOC says, 'Don't follow the law.' I'm confused. Shouldn't they be telling us the opposite?"

No matter what the EEOC now wants employers to believe, the law has not changed. Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination still includes discrimination based on transgender status. And because sex discrimination includes sexual harassment, it remains unlawful—legally, unquestionably, unequivocally—to harass an employee because they are transgender. The Supreme Court has already said this. Courts across the country have said this. The EEOC does not get to rewrite that reality by pretending otherwise.

But even if we play along with the EEOC's fiction for a moment, the law is a floor, not a ceiling. Nothing stops employers from choosing to protect their workers because it's the right thing to do. Your workplace policies should reflect your values, your culture, and your commitment to treating employees with respect—not the bare minimum that a politicized agency thinks it can get away with. Protecting transgender employees from harassment isn't only lawful. It's moral. It's responsible. It's who good employers are.

And frankly, the EEOC should be ashamed of itself. The agency charged with enforcing civil rights laws is now encouraging employers to ignore them. That isn't guidance; it's abandonment. Employers deserve clarity, not political gamesmanship.

So, no, do not remove gender identity from your anti-harassment policy. Keep it there. Keep following the actual law. And keep doing what the EEOC, apparently, won't: protecting all employees.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

What are you doing to protect your company's trade secrets and keep them secret?

Sherbrooke, a captive insurer for nursing homes, built proprietary software to price risk and underwrite policies. Three insiders—including the CTO who created the software—allegedly decided to spin up a competing insurer and started using that same software to run it.

Sherbrooke sued, claiming trade secret misappropriation.

The district court dismissed the claim, saying Sherbrooke hadn't alleged that it took sufficient "reasonable measures" to protect its secrets. The 4th Circuit reversed. At the pleading stage, the court said, robust confidentiality and invention-assignment agreements were enough to plausibly allege trade-secret protection and misappropriation.