WIRTW #785: the 'sometimes a coffee cup is just a coffee cup' edition

Arsenal–Tottenham is one of the nastiest rivalries in sports. If you don't follow English football, think Eagles–Cowboys, Yankees–Red Sox, or Ohio State–Michigan, and then crank it up a notch or ten. London neighbors. More than a century of history and hatred.

Which is why it was a really, really big deal earlier this week when Thomas Frank, Tottenham's manager, was photographed holding a coffee cup with an Arsenal logo on it.

Social media lost its mind.

By all accounts, it was an accident. Spurs were away at Bournemouth. Arsenal had just played there over the weekend. Frank grabbed a cup from the away dressing room without noticing it belonged to his club's biggest rival. Asked about it, he responded the only way he could: "Of course I wouldn't do that. That would be really stupid." He added that with Spurs not playing well, it would be "absolutely stupid" for him to focus on something so trivial instead of the football.

Fair enough. Especially when the Arsenal sit 22 points clear at the top of the table and Spurs are mired in 14th.

Your workplace could have its own version of this moment. The trade show photo. The LinkedIn post. The Instagram story that lives forever in screenshots. There's your employee—company badge on—wearing the wrong quarter-zip. Holding a competitor's tote bag. Standing a little too close to a rival's booth. Marketing panics. Leadership fumes. Someone asks whether "this is a problem."

Start with the obvious question: Was it intentional? Most of the time, no. Swag is everywhere. People grab what's clean, warm, or nearby. That's not disloyalty. It's human.

Next question: Was there any real harm? Did a customer complain? Did a deal fall apart? Or did only internal pride take a hit? If the damage is theoretical or ego-based, you're already flirting with overreaction.

Then ask the most important question: What culture are you reinforcing? If you treat honest mistakes like acts of betrayal, employees learn to hide things—or to stop using judgment altogether. A quiet reminder about branding expectations is reasonable. Discipline usually isn't. Sure, if an employee is deliberately promoting a competitor or repeatedly ignoring guidance, that’s a different conversation. But earn that conclusion with facts, not outrage.

Not every rival logo is treason. Sometimes it's just the wrong cup in the wrong locker room. Sometimes a coffee cup is just a coffee cup.

And for the record…

Up the Arsenal! Come on you Gunners!

---

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

4 solid steps to win your disability discrimination/reasonable accommodation case

The 6th Circuit just delivered an opinion that reinforces two lessons employers should already know: accommodations require clarity and documentation, and timecard falsification is a litigation killer.

Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. reassigned a maintenance supervisor with nearly 30 years of service to 12-hour night shifts. He complained that the schedule was worsening his Type 2 diabetes, specifically that the night shift was "killing" him. Management told him to provide medical documentation if he needed an accommodation. Upon his presentation of a doctor's note, the company moved him to day shift as requested.

Then came the problem. The company audited his outage time entries against objective badge-swipe data from the plant's protected area. The audit revealed discrepancies in 21 of 26 entries, including 10 overstated by more than 30 minutes. Management interviewed him (with a witness present), reviewed security data, escalated the issue to HR, and a separate internal review team conducted its own investigation. The company fired him for falsifying time records.

He sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.

The law is clear: protect your employees, not a problem customer

He's a regular. Spends money. Knows the beer list. The kind of customer small breweries are told they can't afford to lose.

But the female staff would disagree.

Over time, they start to notice things. Lingering looks. Comments that don't quite cross the line — but get uncomfortably close. Walking employees to their cars when no one asked him to. Nothing overtly sexual. Nothing you can circle in red and say, that's the moment. Just a steady accumulation of unease.

Then management learns something else: the customer is a registered sex offender. His offense? Sexually propositioning a minor.

The question isn't whether your employees are using AI at work (they are), but whether you're prepared for it

Employees using AI at work will be the workplace issue of 2026.

Not remote work.
Not noncompetes.
Not DEI.

AI.

Because employees are already using it — to draft emails, summarize documents, create work product, prepare presentations, and even help with performance reviews — whether employers have approved it or not.

And most companies are completely unprepared.

A tale of two (alleged) sexual assaults

A popular Cleveland restaurant and a popular Charlotte brewery chose very different paths after their owners were accused of sex-based crimes.

After rape charges were filed against the owner of Cleveland's TownHall, the owner's response was to fight—attack the prosecution, question the process, threaten legal action, and keep operating as usual. The framing was unmistakable: this was a legal fight, not a business crisis.

In contrast, after the owner of Charlotte's Sycamore Brewing was charged with raping a 13-year-old child, the response went the other direction. Leadership changed. The owner was removed. Divestment was announced.

And this week, Sycamore went further. Its taproom will close beginning today—not because the business committed any wrongdoing, but to allow for community healing and reflection. The current owner publicly expressed concern for the alleged victim, confirmed the complete removal of her former partner from the business, and made clear that Sycamore's future must align with the values of the community it serves.

'Twas the Employment Law Night Before Christmas (2025 edition)

In what has become an annual tradition for my final post of the year, I present the holiday classic, 'Twas the Employment Law Night Before Christmas … tweaked and updated for 2025.

To all of my readers, connections, and followers, new and legacy, thank you all for reading, commenting, and sharing throughout the year. Please have a happy and, most importantly, healthy and safe holiday season.

I'll see everyone on January 5, 2026, with new content to kick off the new year, including a fresh batch of Worst Employer nominees.

*  *  *

WIRTW #784: the 'white male' edition

Something has gone sideways when the Chair of the EEOC is publicly urging white men to file discrimination charges.

Yes, I said it that bluntly, because sometimes clarity matters more than politeness.

Let's start with the part Andrea Lucas and her supporters rush to say first: Title VII protects all employees. Race is race. Sex is sex. Discrimination is discrimination. That has always been true.

But that's not the real question. And pretending it is avoids the harder, more important one.

The real question is why Congress passed Title VII in the first place. It wasn't because lawmakers worried white men might someday struggle for professional opportunity. It was passed because entire groups of people, especially Blacks and women, were systematically locked out of jobs, promotions, and whole industries. Not subtly. Not accidentally. By design.

Title VII was a civil rights law aimed at expanding opportunity for the historically marginalized and dismantling a labor market built on exclusion. That context matters. A lot.

So, when the head of the nation's civil rights enforcement agency makes public pleas for white men to file discrimination charges, she isn't just reciting a legal truism. She's making a strategic and moral choice about the purpose of civil-rights enforcement.

That choice is backwards.

This isn't about whether white men can be discriminated against. They can. The law already covers them. Courts already hear their cases. No special encouragement campaign is required.

What's troubling is the suggestion that "anti-white" or "anti-male" discrimination deserves priority attention, at a time when discrimination against marginalized groups is more subtle, more coded, and harder to prove than ever. Bias today rarely announces itself. It shows up as "not a fit," "not leadership material," "not polished," or "lacking presence." The people most insulated from those vague, subjective assessments remain the people most likely to be presumed competent and neutral on arrival.

The EEOC Chair's solicitation of white men isn't a message of neutrality. It's a reframing of civil rights enforcement.

Her shift has consequences. Employers don't become fairer in response to this rhetoric; they become more cautious and more defensive. As a result, they make "safe" hiring choices. Historically, those choices are familiar ones, which is how old inequities quietly reassert themselves.

If an employer excludes someone because they're white or male, enforce the law. Period. But publicly encouraging white men to file charges misreads purpose, history, and present reality.

The EEOC was created to open doors that had been nailed shut for generations. It was not created to reassure the historically powerful that losing exclusive access feels unfair.

Civil rights enforcement should be about expanding opportunity—not manufacturing grievance.

And the moment we forget that is the moment we stop protecting civil rights at all.

---

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

---

Test