If you are a fan of rock 'n' roll and have the chance to see Jack White live, just do it. Hard stop. It was an amazing night from start to finish. More next week, as it will be the focus of the next episode of The Norah and Dad Show.
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
ChatGPT continues to amaze me with what it can do. Last week, I asked it to write a parody of "Green Eggs & Ham" about tariffs. You can read that story — called This Tariff Sham — over on LinkedIn.
This week, I decided to take it a step further: "Can you write a story in the style of Dr. Seuss's 'The Cat in the Hat' about the rise of authoritarianism in the United States and the increasing threat to the rule of law posed by the current Trump administration?" Then, I asked it to illustrate the results in a complete children's book. The results? Simply stunning. Read the story below, or download the fully illustrated book here.
* * *
The Man in the Red Tie
A Cautionary Tale in the Style of Dr. Seuss
The sun wasn't sunny. The news made us frown.
The Rule of Law seemed to be sliding down.
We sat in our house. We felt anxious and stuck.
We read every tweet and just whispered, "Oh… yuck."
Then THUMP!
Something boomed like a cannonball blast.
We turned to the screen — and he strode in fast.
He wore a red tie, too long and too wide,
With a smirk on his face and a puffed-out pride.
"I am the Man!" he said with a grin.
"I'll make us all great by just keeping me in!"
He stomped and he shouted, he pouted and screamed.
He flattered the rich and he schemed while they beamed.
He scolded the courts, he mocked every norm,
He said, "I alone will reform the reform!"
He fired the watchdogs who'd barked at his lies.
He said, "Loyal dogs are the very best guys."
He told folks in uniforms, "Do what you must.
If I tell you it's legal, then you know it’s just."
He roared at the press and he called them "fake."
He branded all truth as a liberal mistake.
He built up a wall, not just out of brick—
But out of division, and anger, and schtick.
He courted the chaos, the proud and the cruel.
He said, "I don't care — I make the rule!"
And some folks just cheered, "He tells it like so!"
(Though what "so" was… they weren't sure they'd know.)
But the skies grew darker, the air full of dread,
As the books stayed closed and the laws grew dead.
Then came the Day — the one we all feared.
The vote loomed large, and the stakes had cleared.
Would the people still matter? Would ballots be true?
Would justice be blind, or just red, white, and blue?
Then YOU stood up tall — yes, you, in that chair!
You said, "This is still our Republic to care!"
"The law is not his — it belongs to us all.
It's strong when we stand, and weak when we fall."
You voted. You marched. You wrote and you spoke.
You called out each lie. You challenged each joke.
And maybe, just maybe, the tide turned again—
The Rule of Law held, with paper and pen.
Now kids, let me tell you — remember this day.
Democracy isn't just kept safe by what we say.
It's guarded by people who act when things tilt,
Who patch up the cracks before freedoms wilt.
So the next time a man comes to town with a grin,
And says, "I alone can make your side win,"—
Say, "Thanks, but no thanks. We've read this old plot.
We're the People. We matter. Like it or not."
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
That's not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
We can't cherry-pick the Constitution based on who we like or what someone's accused of doing. Once we start deciding who "deserves" due process, we're no longer a nation of laws—we're an authoritarian regime of vibes and vengeance.
Due process is what makes our system fair. It's what makes us America. If that's controversial, we've got problems bigger than politics.
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
I've been seeing that sentiment a lot lately in the comments on my posts about what's happening to our country.
And I get it. Politics for the sake of politics probably belongs on other platforms. But in today's interconnected world, the lines between politics, society, and business are more blurred than ever. This isn't politics for the sake of politics. This is about defending the democratic foundations that underpin a functioning society—one in which businesses can operate with stability, the rule of law is respected, and lawyers and law firms can serve clients within a system that values justice, accountability, and fairness.
Take, for example, the latest report from the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project, which concludes that the U.S. is on the verge of losing its status as a democracy. If current trends continue, we could soon find ourselves grouped with countries like Hungary, India, and Turkey—nations that still technically hold elections, but where the outcomes are about as surprising as the ending of a Hallmark Christmas movie.
For those unfamiliar, V-Dem is one of the leading global democracy trackers. It measures things like election integrity, press freedom, and judicial independence. Their latest report places the U.S. firmly in the "trending poorly" category. We're sliding away from being a true democracy and rapidly approaching what experts call "electoral autocracy"—a polite way of saying the system still exists, but it's rigged enough that those in power don't have to worry too much about losing.
According to V-Dem, we're already deep into democratic decline. Trump has expanded presidential power by pardoning Capitol rioters and installing loyalists in key positions, undermined democratic institutions by targeting independent agencies and the press, and aligned with autocratic tendencies by distancing us from our traditional allies and global democratic norms.
If we don't pull the emergency brake soon (as in, within the next six months), we may end up looking back on this moment the way people felt watching the final episode of Game of Thrones—realizing too late that the good days were already behind us.
This isn't a left vs. right issue. It's not about partisanship. And it's not about politics. It's about democracy.
And for professionals on a platform like LinkedIn, these conversations aren't just acceptable, they're essential. The health of our democracy directly affects my business—lawyering. As a lawyer who works within—and deeply values—the rule of law, these issues are not abstract. They impact my business, my clients, and the systems on which I rely every day.
That's why I write about them. And it's why I'll keep doing it no matter how many people slide into my comments to tell me, "Politics don't belong on LinkedIn."
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
"Could the President decide that he wasn't going to appoint or allow to remain in office any heads of agencies over 40 years old?"
"I think that that would be within the President’s constitutional authority under the removal power."
That exchange took place earlier this week between Judge Karen Henderson, a Reagan appointee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur during proceedings over the termination of board members from two independent federal agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The claim that Trump has the constitutional authority to fire employees based on their age is appalling on its own. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects employees 40 and older, has plenty to say about that claim.
Even more disturbing, however, are the broader implications of the government's argument. Replace "over 40" with "Black," "female," "gay," "lesbian," "transgender," "Muslim," "Jewish," "disabled," or any other protected class. By McArthur's reasoning, those terminations would be just as lawful under Trump's "constitutional removal power." The government is arguing that Trump has the constitutional authority to remake the federal workforce into one only comprised of while, male, cisgender, under 40, non-disabled, Christians.
That argument isn't just legally dubious—it's a direct attack on the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination that underpin our society and our democracy. If accepted, it would open the door to a federal workforce shaped entirely by a President's personal biases, rather than merit, experience, or the law. The Constitution does not grant any President unchecked power to purge employees based on protected characteristics. This isn't about removal authority. It's about whether the rule of law still applies, even when the President finds it inconvenient to his agenda.
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
"The Government's arguments … threaten to upend fundamental protections in our Constitution. But ours is not an autocracy; it is a system of checks and balances. Our Founders recognized that the concentration of power in one branch of government would spell disaster."
So wrote Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in her order granting summary judgment in favor of Susan Tsui Grundmann and restoring her to her position as one of the three members of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. On February 10, 2025, President Trump had abruptly terminated her without explanation, notice, or a hearing, and termination which Judge Sooknanan concluded was unlawful and in violation of the FLRA's enabling statute.
If you want to follow the status of all of the lawsuits currently pending against Donald Trump and his administration, check out Just Security's Litigation Tracker. If you're keeping track at home, As of yesterday, 119 lawsuits (and counting) have been filed against the current Trump administration challenging its actions. Trump has lost most thus far.
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
"This is an absolute honor to sign," Trump said from the Oval Office. I call it a horror show.
In response, the firm says that the EO "is patently unlawful, and we intend to challenge it."
Lawyers and law firms should never fear persecution from the President of the United States for simply doing their jobs. The rule of law depends on attorneys being able to zealously represent their clients—whether they are Democrats, Republicans, corporations, or individuals—without political retribution. A functioning democracy requires an independent legal profession, free from government intimidation. If lawyers can be punished for representing disfavored clients, our entire justice system, our rule of law, and our very Constitution are all at risk.
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
On 3/5 at 4 pm, I'll be part of a very timely webinar on the current state of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Unlearning DEI is The Villain.
Here's the summary:
As corporate America grapples with new federal scrutiny of diversity
initiatives, we're bringing together thought leaders to unpack the
controversy and challenge assumptions. Host Lindsey T. H. Jackson leads
an expert panel exploring DEI's true purpose beyond the headlines, the
roots of current pushback, and practical strategies for building
legally-sound, inclusive workplaces in this new landscape.
Join me, along with host Lindsey T. H. Jackson, Kim "Kimfer" Flanery-Rye, MBA , and Justice Horn for this important conversation.
Register here.
Also, please check out the most recent episode of The Norah and Dad Show. Noah and I not only tackle Valentine's Day, but also bad science pick-up lines, Chick-fil-A Daddy/Daughter dates, and robotic toilets. It all fits together; I promise.
You'll find the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Amazon Music, Overcast, the web, and anywhere else you get your podcasts.
"I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That's out there. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it. This was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas. I guess some good, some bad. But it makes no difference."
— Donald J. Trump, 9/10/24, Presidential Debate
"They've been told officially, legally, in every way, that we have nothing to do with Project 25."
— Donald J. Trump, 8/22/24, Arizona-Mexico border
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Take a look at the Project 2025 Tracker and tell me: Given the striking alignment between Trump's Executive Orders and the 900-page policy playbook he repeatedly disavowed during the campaign, is he governing straight from that right-wing, authoritarian, Christian Nationalist manifesto?
Because it sure looks like it.
Or, to borrow from another Trump favorite: "Believe me."
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
The Trump administration just announced new tariffs on aluminum and steel. That might not sound like a big deal to most, but for small businesses—including my beloved craft breweries—25% is a gut punch.
The craft beer industry is already struggling post-Covid. Breweries took on debt to survive the shutdowns, taproom traffic isn't what it used to be as many consumers shy away from alcohol, and supply-chain costs have been unpredictable and high. Now, just as many are trying to regain their footing, they get hit with another hurdle.
Most craft breweries package their beer in aluminum cans. If the cost of aluminum goes up because of tariffs, so does the cost of packaging. And it's not just cans, brewing equipment is made of steel. Fermenters, brite tanks, brewhouses, kegs, construction materials—all of it. So, breweries that want to replace aging equipment, expand, or just keep up with demand are looking at higher costs across the board.
And let's be clear: These costs don't just disappear. Breweries will have to pass them down to consumers. That means your favorite local beer is about to get more expensive. Meanwhile, the biggest players—macro-breweries with deep pockets—can absorb these price increases far more easily than your neighborhood local. This isn't just an economic issue; it's a competition killer.
Tariffs like these don't "protect American businesses." They protect big business at the expense of the little guys who drive innovation, create jobs, and bring character to our communities. If we want to support small businesses, we should be fighting against policies that make it harder for them to compete.
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
.jpg) |
All-Pro Reels, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons |
Are you ready for the Big Game? As a Philly native and die-hard Eagles fan, I sure am!
Here's the official Ohio Employer Law Blog prediction for Sunday. Eagles 31 - Chiefs 27. Book it. Hurts, Barkley, et al., deny Reid, Mahomes, and Kelce their threepeat. Saquon runs for 165 and 2 touchdowns. Hurts throws for 200 and touchdown, and tush pushes his way for another. Brandon Graham returns from injury to score a key sack. And rookie phenom Quinyon Mitchell seals the win with a last minute interception. At least that's my dream scenario (other than a stress-free blowout).
Also, please check out the latest episode of The Norah and Dad Show. Norah and I discuss her 2nd semester of college, her classes, and her recent biliteracy certification. We also discuss our recent naming to the list of the best dad and daughter podcasts.
You'll find the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Amazon Music, Overcast, the web, and anywhere else you get your podcasts.
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
Until this week, I thought being bilingual meant fluency in a second language—the ability to read, write, listen, and speak with ease. I was wrong. Someone who can do all of those things in two languages is actually biliterate. Being bilingual, on the other hand, simply means having the ability to speak in two languages.
I learned this distinction when the Ohio Wesleyan University Department of World Languages and Cultures certified my daughter as biliterate in French.
From the school's press release:
"Ohio Wesleyan University language students are now able to earn the Global Seal of Biliteracy, an internationally recognized micro-credential that enables them to verify their linguistic abilities when applying for jobs or graduate school. The university's Department of World Languages and Cultures began utilizing the third-party assessment this fall, with 19 students earning the 'functional fluency' biliteracy seal at the end of the semester. Andrea Colvin, Ph.D., chair of World Languages and Cultures, said students' earning the Global Seal of Biliteracy is 'a testament to their hard work, dedication, and passion for language learning.'"
Norah was one of eight students credentialed as biliterate in French. I don't know how many of those eight were also first-semester freshmen, but to be fair, she had 13 years of French education before starting college. All American schools should begin foreign language instruction in kindergarten—it's one of the greatest shortcomings of our education system.
Félicitations, Norah! Needless to say, I'm a very proud dad.
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
You'll find the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Amazon Music, Overcast, the web, and anywhere else you get your podcasts.
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
If your employee is caught in a viral video calling an opposing fan the "c-word" at a football game, should he lose his job? Does it make a difference if your company is in the business of DEI consulting?
This story just played out following the Eagles playoff win over the Packers last weekend.
Ryan Caldwell, an employee at BCT Partners—a firm specializing in DEI—was captured on video during the game directing the vulgar and misogynistic insults toward a female Packers fan. The video quickly went viral to the tune of more than 31 million views. The public backlash was significant and swift.
The Eagles organization responded by banning Caldwell from their stadium for life. BCT Partners conducted an internal investigation and terminated Caldwell's employment, stating that his behavior was "vile, disgusting, unacceptable, and horrific," and stood in direct opposition to the company's core values of respect, dignity, and inclusion. Caldwell then issued a public apology, but added that the video "does not reflect the full context of what transpired," and that his actions "were not without provocation."
This incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of aligning employees' behavior with a company's values, both on and off the clock. By proactively addressing these issues in real time, employers can mitigate risks, uphold their reputations, and foster a positive workplace culture that reflects their mission and values.
Three more points to make:
1. This is not a free speech issue. Private-sector employees have zero free speech rights in the workplace in this context. Regardless, freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequences.
2. It is irrelevant whether this employee works for a DEI firm or any other company. His behavior was abhorrent, could damage the company's reputation, and is grounds for termination. The identity of his employer is just the ironic icing on the cake.
3. The employee's apology rings quite hollow. I don't care about the "context" of what happened or how he was "provoked." If you respond to provocation by calling a woman that awful word, that's who you are, period. And I certainly don't want you working for me.
Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.
Your Profile:
Your headline reads like you're auditioning for a legal-themed TED Talk: "Employment Lawyer. Blogger. Dad. Joke-Teller Extraordinaire." We get it—you've cornered the market on HR-friendly humor. But do you ever worry that someday you'll run out of "Worst Employer" stories and have to, I don't know, write about good companies? Oh wait, no, that's not your brand. You thrive on chaos.
Your Content:
Your posts aren't just LinkedIn content—they're full-blown HR soap operas. Every scroll through your feed feels like watching a daytime courtroom drama where everyone's guilty of workplace harassment. "This employer made a tiny mistake and now owes $3 million. Don't be like them." We get it, Jon. Compliance is your love language.
Your "Worst Employer" series? ICONIC. But let's be real: these employers are the villains, and you're the vigilante swooping in to serve justice—with a side of sarcasm. Honestly, we're all just waiting for Netflix to pick it up. "Worst Employers: The Documentary," streaming 2025.
Your Engagement Game:
Your comments section is a gladiator arena where you reign supreme. HR reps timidly enter with their opinions, only to be met with your weaponized wit. Someone tries to challenge you, and you hit them with a response so precise it might as well be a deposition. Honestly, it's terrifying.
Your Bio:
Jon, did you write this yourself, or did you hire a PR team with a thesaurus? It’s a humblebrag masterpiece, perfectly crafted to make you seem like you just accidentally became the Beyoncé of employment law. And the dad angle? Nice touch. It’s like you’re saying, "Sure, I destroy bad HR policies by day, but by night? I make pancakes and tuck my kids in." We get it, but save some humility for the rest of us.
Your Brand:
You've carved out a niche so specific it's practically a personality type: Lawyer Influencer. You're one word away from trademarking "employment law influencer." And honestly? We're surprised you don't already sell merch. A coffee mug that says "Bad Bosses Pay My Mortgage"? Print it.
You're like the Gordon Ramsay of workplace compliance—brutal, entertaining, and oddly comforting when you're tearing apart someone else's bad decisions. Employers follow you out of both fear and morbid curiosity, like they're watching their own policies flash before their eyes. People love you, but they also kind of hate how good you are at making them feel this close to being sued.
Final Thoughts:
Jon, your LinkedIn presence is a paradox. You're simultaneously the voice of reason and the harbinger of HR doom. You've got more hot takes than a subreddit, and your posts are so sharp they should come with a liability waiver. You're not just a lawyer—you're a content juggernaut who somehow makes workplace lawsuits look fun. Keep being the internet's HR lawyer we love to hate to love.
In this week's episode of The Norah and Dad Show, my daughter and I discuss how we're feeling in the aftermath of the 2024 election. Hint: it's not great. Sadness, anger, acceptance … we work through our stages of grief throughout a tight 25 minutes.
.jpg){kind=link}