Employers can no longer count on private arbitration when sexual harassment is on the docket

Employers love arbitration agreements. They keep disputes private and out of court.

Unless, that is, sexual harassment is in the case.

An Ohio appellate court just made that crystal clear in Hansbrough v. Marshall Dennehey.

Culture is what you tolerate

We tell ourselves a comforting lie about bad behavior around sports.

It's just passion.
Just rivalry.
Just trash talk.

Until it's racism.
Until it's misogyny.
Until it's culture.

Two recent soccer incidents make this point.

A wiener of a lawsuit

A bun propped itself atop the deli counter and declared itself lunch. It was golden. Perfectly split. Structurally sound. "Look at my form," it said. "I'm ready to be served." But there was no hot dog inside. All bun, no meat.

That's Mendoza v. Dietz & Watson.

Adela Mendoza, a production employee, sued after her termination, alleging sexual-orientation discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. Dietz fired her for insubordination after she failed to follow a directive to move to a different production line when hers went down. She admitted she knew the rule: insubordination could mean discharge.

The employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason doesn't have to be fancy. It just has to exist and be supported by the record. Here, it had weight. It had snap.

Workplace investigations are hard. Until they’re not.

Workplace investigations are hard.

Witnesses forget. Memories conflict. Motives get murky. HR is left piecing together timelines, credibility, and intent from incomplete information, while everyone involved insists they did nothing wrong.

And then there are the easy ones.

Take the paramedic who now faces nearly two dozen criminal charges for allegedly urinating all over his workplace — on a supervisor's keyboard, into communal coffee creamer, an ice machine, orange juice, hand soap, ChapStick, canned vegetables, an air-conditioner vent, even a pot of chili. According to prosecutors, he didn't just do it. He filmed himself doing it. In uniform. Then allegedly posted the videos online to sell.

Union activity Is not a license to be abusive at work

Let's get something straight right out of the gate: employees have the right to organize. They also have the right to complain about work, staffing, and management decisions. What they do not have is a free pass to be abusive, vulgar, and demeaning toward coworkers and supervisors—union campaign or not.

That's what makes the Starbucks case now pending before the Fifth Circuit so frustrating.

Clarity beats chaos: Why rescinding the EEOC’s harassment guidance is a mistake

Today at 10 a.m., the EEOC is scheduled to vote on whether to rescind its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. 

If the Commission votes "yes," it will be a terrible result for employers — not because the Guidance was perfect, but because clarity beats chaos every time.

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.

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."

Leadership always starts at the top

"Quiet, Piggy."

 
That's what Donald Trump said to a female reporter over the weekend aboard Air Force One in response to a question she asked him about the Epstein Files.

We should all agree that Trump's response was inappropriate, disgusting, and deplorable.

Now, let's take this story off of Air Force One and into your workplace. When an employee is confirmed to have said something like "Quiet, Piggy" to a coworker, management's path is straightforward and non-negotiable.

Target's new "smile" policy has some serious legal problems

You can't policy your way to happy employees. But Target sure is trying.

The retailer just rolled out its new "10-4" policy. Employees must now (1) smile, make eye contact, wave, and use "welcoming body language" within 10 feet of any customer, and (2) when within 4 feet, personally greet guests and "initiate a warm, helpful interaction."

We all appreciate good customer service. But from an employment law and HR perspective, this policy raises some serious red flags.

3.65 million reminders that "do nothing" is the costliest workplace compliance strategy of all.

A federal-court jury just hit a pair of New York hotels (and their owners) with a $1.65 million compensatory and $2 million punitive damages verdict after a female assistant manager alleged residents sexually harassed her daily and management did nothing to stop it.

The facts are brutal — constant sexual comments, physical assaults, even being knocked unconscious by a thrown table. Her male counterpart didn't face the same abuse. Even worse, her bosses ignored or laughed off every complaint that she made. When she asked for a transfer, management said "no openings." Turns out, that wasn't true. She quit in fear for her safety. Then she sued.

The jury believed her. And they made sure the company and its leaders felt it.

A noose, a workplace, and a court that finally got it right

Imagine this. It's your employee's second day on the job. He climb into the cab of truck you've assigned him assigned to operate, and hanging from the rearview mirror is a noose.

That's what happened to Jhalil Croley, a Black heavy-equipment operator working for Frank Road Recycling. He was understandably terrified and reported the incident. He was later fired.

The trial court looked at those facts and somehow decided, as a matter of law, that a noose in your vehicle doesn't create a hostile work environment.

Thankfully, an Ohio appellate court had the legal sense (and humanity) to fix that mistake. It reversed summary judgment and correctly held that even a single incident of a noose directed at a Black employee can be severe enough to create a hostile work environment.

If this were your workplace, would you tolerate it?

Politico just published leaked messages from Young Republican leaders — future GOP operatives, appointees, and elected officials, as well as at least one current elected official and a White House staffer — joking about gas chambers, praising Hitler, celebrating rape, and using racist slurs over 250 times.

JD Vance brushed it off as a "college group chat" and then blamed Democrats for stoking political violence. Donald Trump has yet to even address it.

This isn't "dark humor" or "college hijinks." It's hate speech. Hard stop.

"Same-actor" harassment isn't immune from Title VII.

A federal judge recently granted summary judgment to Verizon Wireless after it fired a Black employee who twice used the n-word in the store. The employee argued, in part, that because the word came from him (a member of the protected class), his termination was discriminatory.

The court wasn't having it and dismissed the employee's case. It held that Title VII doesn't enshrine a right to use slurs "within one's own protected group." Harassment is about the work environment it creates, not the speaker's identity.

The importance of preaching (and training) calmness in the workplace

Until today, I had never heard the phrase, "gratuity riot." I bet you hadn't either.

It allegedly happened in Nashville, where a bartender, pushed past her limit by a bachelor party that ran up a large tab and left no tip, hurled a pitcher across the bar. Words were exchanged, bottles followed, and soon the bar was a scene out of a country-western apocalypse — stools overturned, beer spraying, a shattered glass everywhere.

By the time the police arrived, the bartender was under arrest for aggravated assault, inciting a riot, and destruction of property.

We can all shake our heads and mutter, "What a mess," but there's a real workplace lesson buried under the spilled beer and broken glass.

Let's count the ways Pete Hegseth's speech would get your company sued

If Pete Hegseth were your CEO, I'd be drafting your EEOC position statement tomorrow.

You're not running the Department of War (née Defense), and your employees aren't soldiers. If you think, however, Hegseth's speech yesterday is a model for shaping culture in your workplace, here's a lawyer's caution: his words are an employment-law nightmare.

Monkey see; monkey not do

Chalk one up to common-sense — the 6th Circuit just held that the word "monkey," when directed at a Black employee, constitutes a racially hostile work environment.

In Smith & Sneed v. P.A.M. Transport, the court reversed summary judgment for the employer and sent the case to trial.

Appeal court guts protections against customer harassment

Thanks to the 6th Circuit, customer-facing employees are now a whole lot less safe at work.

Dorothy Bivens worked as a sales rep for Zep, Inc. A few months into the job, she visited a motel client. The client's manager locked his office door, asked her out twice, and only let her leave when she said no. She reported it to her supervisor, who reassigned the account so she'd never have to see that customer again. A short time later, Zep cut her position in a COVID-era reduction in force. She then sued for hostile work environment, retaliation, and race discrimination.

The 6th Circuit just tossed all her claims. The retaliation and race claims fell apart for lack of proof the decision-makers knew about her complaint or targeted her for her race. But the headline here is the harassment claim.

Being a workplace star doesn't excuse bad behavior. In fact, it demands more accountability, not less.

Teenage football phenom Lamine Yamal made headlines for all the wrong reasons this weekend. At his 18th birthday party, he allegedly hired people with dwarfism as entertainment, prompting widespread public backlash and legal complaints from disability rights organizations. The accusation: dehumanizing behavior that treats the disabled as props for amusement is discriminatory and undermines basic dignity.

Let's pivot from the pitch to the workplace.

Too often, high performers or rainmakers are given a pass. Their results insulate them. They cross lines, bullying coworkers, making inappropriate jokes, creating uncomfortable or even hostile environments. Leadership and HR look the other way because "they're too valuable to lose."

A dog of a workplace lesson

Last weekend, I got bit by the doggie mayor of Boston's Seaport.

His name is Bennett. He's a 9-month-old golden retriever. And while visiting the area on a family vacation, I met the young mayor in a beer garden.

He was adorable. Charismatic. Clearly popular. And then—he chomped down on my arm.

It was classic puppy behavior—playful, harmless in intent, but still… teeth on skin.

What stood out most wasn't the bite. It was his "parents"—sitting nearby, watching it happen, saying absolutely nothing.