🎶 With my mind on my Title VII and Title VII on my mind. 🎶

Barbie Bassett, a longtime white news anchor for WLBT, lost her job after two on-air comments her employer deemed racially offensive. First, she referred to a Black reporter's grandmother as "grand m*mmy." WLBT received viewer and employee complaints and gave Bassett a written warning.

Less than six months later, during an on-air segment about Snoop Dogg, Bassett dropped the phrase, "fo shizzle, my n**zle." A Black co-anchor immediately told her, "I can't believe you just said the N word on live TV."

Complaints followed, as did national media, and then Bassett's termination.

She sued, claiming race discrimination. Her argument was, basically, WLBT fired her because she was white, relying heavily on testimony from the station's general manager that "there are some things that Black people can say that White people can't say."

"We'll look into it" is not a harassment response

An employee says a coworker sexually assaulted her at work.

Management says it will take the complaint seriously.

HR says it will be involved.

The employee says she is afraid to encounter the coworker again.

And then? According to a new lawsuit filed against the Atlanta Hawks and State Farm Arena, not nearly enough.

Tameika Hampton worked as an event security officer at State Farm Arena. She alleges that during an NBA YoungBoy concert, a coworker approached her from behind and pressed his genitals against her. Two days later, after a security captain noticed she appeared distressed, Hampton reported what had happened. The complaint says the report was escalated, she was told to submit it in writing, and management assured her that the matter would be taken seriously, HR would be involved, and her safety mattered.

Those are all the right words.

The lawsuit alleges the employer's actions did not match them.

Hampton claims she had to repeatedly follow up because HR did not timely communicate with her or schedule an interview. She alleges the interview did not occur until nearly a month later. Four days after that, the company allegedly closed the investigation, telling her the surveillance footage was too unclear to determine what happened. She also says the employer failed to give her clear safety protocols, failed to ensure she would not run into the accused coworker, and then scheduled them in a way that forced her to pass by him after a later shift, causing a panic attack.

And, according to the complaint, another female employee later accused the same coworker of similar conduct.

The defendants, of course, have not yet answered. These are allegations, not proven facts.

But the lesson for employers does not depend on how this case ultimately resolves.

When an employer learns of harassment, it owns the response.

Not the outcome. Not perfection. Not omniscience.

The response.

That means more than thanking the employee for coming forward and promising to investigate. It means acting immediately, communicating clearly, documenting thoroughly, and taking interim steps reasonably calculated to protect the complaining employee while the investigation runs its course.

In harassment cases, speed matters.

A delayed investigation is often no investigation at all. Memories fade. Video gets overwritten. Witnesses disappear. The complaining employee loses trust. And the accused employee remains in the workplace, creating ongoing risk to the complainant, other employees, and the business.

A prompt investigation does not mean a rushed or sloppy investigation. It means starting immediately. Identify witnesses. Preserve video. Lock down schedules. Review prior complaints. Check personnel files. Interview the complainant. Interview the accused. Interview anyone who may have seen or heard anything relevant. Follow the facts where they lead.

And tell the employee what is happening.

You do not need to share every detail. You should not promise a particular result. But silence is poison. "HR will be in touch" followed by weeks of nothing tells an employee that the company does not care, even if people behind the scenes are doing work.

Interim protection also matters.

An employer that receives a credible complaint of sexual touching cannot simply leave the parties to navigate the workplace on their own. Separate them. Adjust schedules. Change reporting lines. Provide escorts if needed. Clarify who the employee should contact if there is a problem. Make sure the complainant does not have to keep asking whether she will be safe walking to her car.

And be careful with the word "safe."

If you tell an employee, "You will not have to work with him," then make sure she does not have to work with him. If you tell her, "You will not be near him," then make sure she is not near him. Broken safety promises are litigation gasoline.

Employers also need to understand the legal standard. When the alleged harasser is a coworker, the employer is generally liable if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action reasonably calculated to stop it.

That phrase, "reasonably calculated to stop it," is doing a lot of work.

It is not enough to check the box with an investigation. The response must be meaningful. If the accused remains employed, what guardrails are in place? If the evidence is inconclusive, what steps will prevent recurrence? If there are later similar complaints, will the employer reopen the investigation? If the complainant reports continued fear or trauma, how will the employer respond?

The law does not require employers to believe every complaint automatically. It does require them to take every complaint seriously.

That distinction matters.

Taking a complaint seriously means you do not prejudge it. You do not bury it. You do not slow-walk it. You do not make the complainant chase HR for updates. You do not treat unclear video as the end of the inquiry. You do not ignore scheduling realities. And you do not create a workplace in which the person who complained feels punished by having to manage her own safety.

Employers should have a harassment response playbook before the complaint arrives. It should include:

1. Immediate intake and documentation.
2. Preservation of evidence, including video, texts, emails, badge records, schedules, and prior complaints.
3. Prompt identification of interim protective measures.
4. A neutral investigator with authority and training.
5. Regular communication with the complaining employee.
6. A conclusion supported by facts, not vibes.
7. Corrective action tied to the seriousness of the conduct and the risk of recurrence.
8. Follow-up after the investigation closes.

The follow-up piece is often forgotten. It should not be.

After the investigation ends, ask whether the employee has experienced retaliation. Ask whether there have been further interactions. Confirm that protective measures are working. Make sure managers understand the boundaries. Then document all of it.

Harassment policies are only as good as the employer's willingness to enforce them when enforcement is uncomfortable.

Because when an employee reports sexual harassment, the employer has a choice.

It can treat the report like a compliance inconvenience. Or it can treat it like a workplace emergency that deserves urgency, care, and accountability.

Only one of those choices keeps employees safe and helps keep the employer out of court.

When employers gamble on bad facts, they usually lose

How does a case like this ever get to trial?

That was my first thought after reading Griffin v. Copper Cellar Corp.

Rose Griffin worked as a cook at a Tennessee restaurant. According to the 6th Circuit, one coworker repeatedly grabbed her breasts, arranged food at her workstation to look like an ejaculating penis, told her he wanted to have sex with her, pushed her down onto a prep station while thrusting against her, and stuck his hands down his pants while massaging himself in front of her.

This was not subtle workplace misconduct. It was repeated, physical sexual harassment.

The 11th Circuit just lowered the bar on racial harassment

A noose. A blackface doll. Hung at a Black employee's desk.

If you're thinking, "that's a textbook hostile work environment," congratulations—you have better instincts than the 11th Circuit.

In Nevins v. DCH Health Systems, the court acknowledged exactly what happened: an unknown employee hung a blackface doll by a noose in the plaintiff's workspace. The panel even called it what it is—"repugnant and racially hostile."

And then it shrugged.

A beast of a harassment lawsuit

Jimmy Donaldson, better known as YouTube's biggest star, MrBeast, is calling this lawsuit "clout-chasing," a grab for headlines and a payday.

Maybe.

But before you dismiss it, look at what's alleged—and what it says about two issues entirely within an employer's control.

Winning a lawsuit is not the proper measurement for the quality of your workplace

"Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but I'm keeping you."

That's what a Black legal assistant claims a law firm partner told her in a closed-door meeting.

The employee sued for a hostile work environment.

The employer won.

That's where the court case ends—but it's not where the employer lesson should.

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.