Github fires employee for using the n-word … Nazi

Software company GitHub is taking a lot of heat for firing a Jewish employee for referring to the people who stormed the Capitol on January 6 as "Nazis." The Verge has the details:

GitHub reportedly fired a Jewish employee after he posted a message in Slack that said "stay safe homies, Nazis are about" the day of the attack on the US Capitol….

The message sparked controversy inside the company, with one colleague criticizing him for using divisive language. GitHub's HR team chastised the employee for using the word "Nazi" in a company Slack channel. Two days later, GitHub allegedly fired him, citing vague patterns of behavior. 

My one work rule to rule them all

George Carlin was a genius. He just had a way of breaking down language into its most simple parts. Whether it was The 7 Dirty Words or The 10 Commandments, Carlin was just brilliant with language. For example, he dismantled each of the 10 Commandments into just two:

First:

• Thou shalt always be honest and faithful, especially to the provider of thy nookie.

And second:

• Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless, of course, they pray to a different invisible man than the one you pray to.

I thought of this yesterday after stumbling upon a tweetstorm authored by Kate Bischoff reacting to this New York Times article suggesting that Jeffrey Toobin's long and esteemed career justifies that he should get his job back despite his Zoom full monty faux pas. 

Just because an employer wins summary judgment doesn’t mean you should emulate its behavior

Jennifer Paskert worked as a sales associate for Auto$mart, a “buy here, pay here” used car dealership located in Spirit Lake, Iowa. During her six months of employment, she claimed her manager, Bret Burns, sexually harassed her. Her allegations included overhearing Burns tells other than he “never should have hired a woman” and wondering aloud if he could make Paskert cry. Burns also bragged at work about his sexual conquests. One on occasion he attempted to rub Paskert’s shoulders told her he was going to give her a hug. On another occasion, after Paskert had criticized how Burns treated women, Burns replied, “Oh, if you weren’t married and I wasn’t married, I could have you … You’d be mine … I’m a closer.”

Ultimately, Auto$mart fired Paskert for “insubordination.” She then filed suit for sexual harassment, among other claims.

Frivolous litigation has a price … sometimes a big price

In 2005, Monika Starke filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that her employer, CRST Van Expedited, Inc., subjected her to sexual harassment. The EEOC expanded that initial charge into a federal-court lawsuit over whether CRST engaged in sexual harassment against myriad of its female driver trainees.

What followed was 14 years of litigation, several trips to the court of appeals, one trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, and an attorney-fee award of over $3.3 million against the EEOC for frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless conduct in the filing and prosecution of the underlying claims.

EEOC settlement provides expensive lesson on including social media in your anti-harassment policies and training

EEOC v. Nabors Corp. Services involves serious allegations of racial harassment, including the following.

Being addressed at work by co-workers with racial slurs such as “nigger”; being exposed at work to offensive, racially derogatory social media images and material circulated by co-workers and managers; being exposed to racist graffiti, including racial slurs and derogatory drawings concerning Black persons at company facilities in and around Pleasanton, Texas; being referred to as members of the “colored crew” by employees and managers; and in some instances, being subjected to intimidation and physical threats by employees because of race, Black.

The company recently resolved this case, agreeing to pay 10 employees a total of $1,225,000 to settle the EEOC’s claims of racial harassment, race discrimination, and retaliation.

Celebrating “World Kindness Day” at work #WorldKindnessDay #ChooseKindness

Today is World Kindness Day. Introduced in 1998 by the World Kindness Movement, it highlights good deeds in the community by focusing on the positiveness of our common bond of kindness.

It is a day worth celebrating, and one that we sorely need and is sadly necessary.

#MeToo does not always equal #FireHim

Just because an employee complains about harassment does not mean that if the allegations are founded the employer must fire the harasser.

Consider, for example, Abbood v. Texas Health & Human Servs. Comm. (5th Cir. 11/7/19).

My dog was victim-blamed … and I don’t like it

On Friday, Dante, our five-month-old puppy, was attacked while in the (what we thought was the) safety our our fenced-in yard.

New neighbors recently moved in next door with their not-so-nice German Shepherd. They’ve warned us that he doesn’t get along well with other dogs, and, for that reason, they either tether him in their backyard, or monitor him while outside. At the time of the attack he was flying solo, and it ended badly for Dante. No one actually saw what happened, but either Dante was puppy-exploring through the slats in our fence, or the other dog lunged through the slats, or a combination of both. Either way, the neighbor’s dog was definitely the aggressor, and Dante definitely limped away with the lone injury.

Before staples                          After staples

New EEOC case is a not-so-subtle reminder that we still have a lot of work to do to improve race relations

The allegations in this case—which the EEOC just filed against a Louisiana river transporter—remind us that while race relations have improved over the past several decades, they are far from perfect and we remain a nation with a lot of work to do.

Poor taste does not amount to prohibited sexual harassment.

I once made the mistake of watching an episode of Orange is the New Black on an airplane. The guy sitting behind was very uncomfortably enjoying the show along with me, and I shut it down.

Which brings me to Sims v. Met Council, a case in which an employee claimed her co-workers’ choice of television shows in the break room created a hostile work environment.

The supposed #MeToo backlash is just discrimination by another name

A recent study suggests that there has been a backlash against the #MeToo movement.

According to  the Harvard Business Review, men have are treating their females co-workers differently because of #MeToo.

• 19% of men said they were reluctant to hire attractive women
• 21% said they were reluctant to hire women for jobs involving close interactions with men
• 27% said they avoided one-on-one meetings with female colleagues

When common sense carries the day

Jordan does not explain how being disciplined for her unplanned absences and tardy arrivals created a hostile work environment. Without evidence indicating that she experienced severe or pervasive conduct, Jordan’s hostile work environment claim fails.

Every now again it’s refreshing to review a common-sense judicial opinion. Jordan v. United Health Group is just such a case.

Do workplace bullies violate OSHA?

According to a study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, bullying bosses make workplaces less safe.

Poor treatment from a boss can make employees feel that they’re not valued by a group. As a result, they can become more self-centered, leading them to occasionally forget to comply with safety rules or overlook opportunities to promote a safer work environment.

The headline made me think that if bullying contributes to an unsafe workplace, can it also violate OSHA? The answer is quite possibly yes.

#MeToo hasn’t killed the office romance, just the inappropriate ones

According to the National Review, #MeToo killed the office romance.

It must be a brave soul who dares to strike up a flirtatious conversation at the workplace microwave these days. Only ten percent of Americans report having met their mate at the office, a level that is half what it was in the 1990s.

I choose kindness

In a world that has decided
That it’s going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind

                              Frank Turner, Be More Kind                                                           

I’d like to introduce everyone to the Don’t Hurt Anyone Project. Richard Cook created the nonprofit in response to “the toxic currents of racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, discrimination, harassment, inequity, and injustice … growing even stronger, wider, and deeper in today’s America and across the globe,” and “to be a voice for nonviolence, equity, justice, and civility.”

I’m a huge fan of Richard, his project, and their message.

There isn’t a “magic number” of racial or ethnic insults an employee must prove to establish a hostile work environment

Jamie Ortiz (of Puerto Rican descent) worked for the Broward County, Florida, School Board in various capacities for nearly 20 years, including, from 2009 through 2017, as an auto mechanic in the district’s garage under the supervision of Michael Kriegel.

According to the testimony of both Ortiz and many of his co-workers, Kriegel had some issues with Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics, which he expressed to anyone who would listen, including Ortiz, on a daily basis.

The Customer isn’t always right: The Museum of Sex(ual harassment)

Just because an employee works at The Museum of Sex does not mean that she wants be sexually harassed. Or least that’s what Katherine McMahon alleges in her lawsuit against her former employer.

The New York Post offers the salacious details:

“Patrons and co-workers of the Museum grope its employees, use utterly inappropriate sexual language, and inquire into employees’ private sex lives,” the suit alleges. 

What’s a hostile work environment? You’ll know it when you see it.

“I know it when I see it.” These are the famous words of Justice Potter Stewart defining legal obscenity in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964).

I feel the same way about a hostile work environment. For a hostile work environment to be actionable, it must (among other factors) be objectivity hostile. What does this mean? It’s hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

Does the attorney-client privilege protect harassment investigations conducted by a lawyer?

An employee complaints to HR that her supervisor has been sexually harassing her. The allegations aren’t pretty, and, if the investigation is mishandled (or even if it’s handled perfectly), you are reasonably confident that the employee will sue the company. Thus, you want to ensure that every “i” is dotted and “t” crossed in the investigation. So, you bring in the big guns to handle the investigation—the company’s attorney.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the lawyer recommends that the company suspend, and not fire the harasser. That decision leads to the victim filing suit.

During her lawsuit, the employee requests a copy of the investigatory report. You refuse, claiming it’s protected by the attorney-client privilege.

In harassment cases, the context of profanities matters (but only sometimes)

“Why is everyone suddenly using the C-word,” asks Stan Carey in The Guardian? He blames Game of Thrones (video very NSFW—you’ve been warned).

Assuming Stan’s correct, and more people are becoming more comfortable openly using this generally considered highly offensive and taboo word, how should you react if your employees start using it among each other? Swiftly and decisively, that’s how.