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?

Tipped wages and sexual harassment

"Are you on the dessert menu? Because you look yummy."

First, ick!

 
Secondly, these are the types of comments to which customers expose servers in the hospitality industry on the regular. In fact, the restaurant industry has more sexual harassment claims than any other industry, with as many as 90% of women report experiencing some form of sexual harassment. In large part, I blame tipped wages.

Harassing text messages doom employee's discrimination lawsuit

Derek Blockhus, a United Airlines flight attendant, was fired after sending threatening texts and voicemails to a coworker and former romantic partner. 

His messages included threats like, "You do realize, your dad and all his friends are going to get nudes of you?" and "The situation will get ugly" if she didn't respond. Blockhus sued, claiming his firing must have been because of his disability, age, and FMLA leave.

The 7th Circuit disagreed, affirming that United terminated him for violating its harassment policies, not discrimination or leave interference.

Don't 💩 where you 🍽️

There's nothing inherently illegal about a boss being in a romantic relationship with a subordinate. There's something very illegal, however, if the boss fires the subordinate after the relationship ends.
That's exactly what is alleged to happened in Nixon v. Kysela Pere Et Fils, Ltd.

Off-duty social media is just as actionable as sexual harassment as on-duty misconduct

"An employer cannot be liable for what an employee posts online while off-the-clock. Personal time is personal time; it's irrelevant to the workplace." That is an 100% incorrect statement of the law, according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Okonowsky v. Garland.

Linda Okonowsky worked as a staff psychologist in a federal prison. She discovered that a lieutenant with whom she worked operated an Instagram account followed by more than 100 prison employees, which contained overtly sexist (and racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and transphobic) content. It also contained offensive content about the workplace and horrible content that specifically targeted her, including one about the male staff "gang banging" her.

When she complained to the prison's safety manager, he told her that she needed to "toughen up" or "get a sense of humor." It took months of complaints and escalating social-media awfulness before the prison finally took action.

"Do as I say, not as I do" — HR leader fired for harassment loses discrimination lawsuit

A female HR supervisor attends an out-of-town leadership retreat with some co-workers. They observe her at the hotel bar telling off-color jokes, directing repeated profanity at employees who refused to drink alcohol, and toasting a slur for the female anatomy.

Several complain to her boss about the inappropriate behavior. The company investigates and ultimately fires her for violating its harassment policy.

The HR supervisor then sues for sex discrimination, claiming that the company did not fire a male employee who engaged in similar misconduct. Specifically, she claims that he had once asked her "if the carpet matched the drapes" (which she advised the company during its investigation).