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.

Do not undervalue the importance of confidentiality in workplace investigations

After a Costco employee filed a sexual harassment complaint, she and others were required to sign an "Acknowledgement of Confidentiality" form. It prohibited employees from discussing the investigation. 

Later, the company sent a letter instructing her to treat the outcome as confidential, even after the investigation had concluded.

Costco said the practice was necessary to preserve the integrity of the investigation.

Federal court guts EEOC guidance on trans rights

Federal court to SCOTUS: "We read your opinion, but we're going to pretend you didn't mean what you said."

That's essentially what just happened in Texas v. EEOC.

A federal judge struck down part of the EEOC's 2024 harassment guidance, ruling that Title VII does not protect transgender workers from being misgendered, denied access to bathrooms aligned with their gender identity, or required to dress according to their sex assigned at birth.

Don’t eat the chicken (yet): A lesson in workplace investigations from a Portuguese rooster

In Portugal, one of the most iconic national symbols isn’t a monument or a monarch—it’s a rooster. The Galo de Barcelos. (Stay with me. This will relate back to the workplace before we’re done.)

Legend has it that a Spanish pilgrim on his way to Santiago de Compostela was wrongfully accused of theft in the town of Barcelos. Despite his pleas of innocence, he was sentenced to hang. As a final request, he asked to be taken to the judge. Brought before the judge—who was eating a roast chicken—the pilgrim declared, “If I am innocent, that rooster will crow!” The judge laughed, but didn’t eat the bird. Miraculously, just as the man was about to be hanged, the roasted rooster stood up and crowed. The judge rushed to stop the execution, and the pilgrim was spared.

Because of this tale, the rooster has become a national symbol of honesty, integrity, justice, and good fortune, often seen in colorful ceramic form all across Portugal.

Properly functioning boards of directors must hold CEOs accountable for their words and actions

Boards must hold CEOs accountable for their words and actions. Case in point: last week Tesla/SpaceX CEO Elon Musk resharing a post suggesting that Hitler wasn't responsible for the Holocaust, shifting blame instead to "public sector workers."

It's a statement as reckless as it is offensive, and it raises a bigger question: When a CEO behaves like this, where is the board of directors?

Cards Against Liability

Have you ever played Cards Against Humanity? For the unfamiliar, it's a party game where players take turns filling in the blanks of absurd or provocative prompts from black cards with ridiculous or offensive white card responses. A judge then picks the funniest or most outrageous combination. The game is intentionally offensive, dark, and politically incorrect, often touching on sensitive topics like race, gender, religion, and politics.

It's also a ton of fun … in the right setting. The workplace is not that setting.

That's precisely what led to the hostile work environment claim in O'Connor v. Soul Surgery.

The attack on DEI does not mean employers must or should eliminate anti-harassment training

Even as some push back forcefully against DEI workplace initiatives, courts are pushing back even harder. Consider these excerpts from Diemert v. City of Seattle, in which a federal judge dismissed the claims of a white man who alleged that his employer's mandatory DEI training created a racially hostile work environment.

Leave us bald guys alone!

This one hits close to home. In Tony Finn v. British Bung Company, a UK tribunal ruled that calling a man "bald" constitutes sexual harassment. Why? Because baldness disproportionately affects men, the comment was deemed inherently tied to sex. The insult—a crude "bald c---"—was judged degrading, offensive, and gender-based.

But let's take this across the pond. Would a U.S. court agree? 

Does civility still matter?

Some apparently don't think civility matters any more. 

"Your body, my choice" signs are popping up across the country, while elsewhere Black students are receiving anonymous texts about "picking cotton." The results of the 2024 Presidential election have emboldened some to express their most offensive thoughts.

I'm not ready, however, to give up on civility. But we have to take a stand. No matter who sits in the Oval Office, words still matter.

Harassment by "comedy" is anything but a laughing matter

A CEO hires a stand-up comedian to warm up employees before delivering the keynote at the company's annual all-hands meeting. But the comedian's set is anything but workplace appropriate. His "jokes" insult and offend everyone — Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, women, LGBTQ+ individuals. Everyone, that is, except white men.

It's clear your employees aren't amused. Some look angry and offended. Others walk out in protest.

Now imagine you're the CEO. What do you do?