Corporate ethics start at the top

Kohl’s just gave its CEO the boot for violating the company’s code of ethics.

Why? Because he funneled business to a vendor run by someone he was romantically involved with—and failed to disclose the relationship. The deal came with unusually favorable terms, including a multi-million-dollar consulting agreement. The board found out, and now he’s out of a job. He’ll also forfeit his equity awards and repay a prorated portion of his $2.5 million signing bonus.

But this isn’t just about one executive’s bad judgment. It’s a cautionary tale about what happens when leaders forget that trust, transparency, and ethics aren’t optional. If you’re running a business, you can’t afford to wing it on conflicts of interest. You need structure. You need clarity. And you need a culture that doesn’t look the other way.

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.

What do dolls have in common with beer?

“Maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30.”

That was Donald Trump’s response yesterday when asked about the impact of tariffs on imported consumer goods.

Charming.

But here’s the thing—those tariffs aren’t just about dolls. They hit a lot closer to home for small businesses, like the craft breweries I work with.

I spent the past four days at the national Craft Brewers Conference, and tariffs weighed heavily on every single attendee.

The 4th nominee for The Worst Employer of 2025 is … The Enslaving Executives

OneTaste, a San Francisco-based "wellness" company, claimed to offer empowerment through "orgasmic meditation." However, federal prosecutors allege that behind this façade, founder Nicole Daedone and former Head of Sales Rachel Cherwitz orchestrated a years-long forced labor conspiracy.

Between 2004 and 2018, Daedone and Cherwitz allegedly targeted vulnerable individuals—often survivors of trauma—and lured them with promises of healing. If they couldn’t afford OneTaste's expensive courses (ranging into the tens of thousands), they were pressured into debt—with the company even helping them open credit cards. Members became reliant on OneTaste for food and shelter, lived under constant surveillance in communal homes, and were isolated from their support networks.

The indictment accuses Daedone and Cherwitz of using surveillance, indoctrination, and intimidation to control members, effectively turning a wellness startup into an enslavement operation.

Heading to CBC? Let’s connect! 🍻

I’m in Indianapolis this week for the Craft Brewers Conference — the biggest global education and networking event for the craft beer industry.

It’s a massive scene: 10,000+ attendees, 600+ exhibitors, 100+ seminars, and countless networking moments. It’s a blast — and a lot to take in.

If you’re here, find me at the Start A Brewery Lounge (proudly sponsored by Wickens Herzer Panza).

WIRTW #757: the 'that's how I'm feeling' edition

For a glorious 90 minutes last Wednesday night, my kids and I forgot all of our worries and bonded with 2,000 like-minded souls over the music of Mr. Jack White.I love the music of Jack White. I fell in love with a band at Cleveland's Beachland Ballroom on August 10, 2001. The White Stripes were playing that night. I didn't know much about them before that concert. I had heard about some up and coming band, brother/sister (maybe) duo. I went to the Beachland to check them out. I was hooked by the opening chord from Jack's guitar and enraptured by the end of their set. I couldn't find any video online from that show, but I did find a complete recording of a show they did in London just four days earlier.

I've since passed that love on to my children, which brought us front and center at Cleveland's Agora last Wednesday night. You can hear all about it on this week's installment of The Norah and Dad Show (with special guest, Donovan) — available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, Overcast, your web browser, and everywhere else you get your podcasts.

---

While you're checking out things I recorded this week, also check out my appearance on Backstage Pass: The HR Rock Star Podcast.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

Holy hypocrisy: When "religious freedom" only protects one religion

"My Administration will not tolerate … unlawful conduct targeting Christians.…My Administration will ensure that any unlawful and improper conduct, policies, or practices that target Christians are identified, terminated, and rectified."

That's the key takeaway from Trump's Executive Order on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.

What does that look like in practice? According to Politico, the State Department has ordered employees "to report on any instances of coworkers displaying 'anti-Christian bias.'" The internal memo allows (but doesn't require) anonymous reporting and encourages submissions to be "as detailed as possible, including names, dates, [and] locations (e.g., post or domestic office where the incident occurred)."

Understanding the difference between legal and illegal DEI

If you want to understand the difference between legal and illegal DEI, here's what illegal looks like.

From The Hollywood Reporter: "CBS Studios has settled a lawsuit from a script coordinator for SEAL Team, who accused parent company Paramount of carrying illegal diversity quotas that discriminate against straight white men."

In the lawsuit, Brian Beneker alleged he was denied a job after Paramount implemented an "illegal policy of race and sex balancing" that prioritized hiring less qualified applicants who identified as minorities, LGBTQ+, or women.

Here's the legal reality — Quotas and preferences based on protected characteristics are unlawful. Title VII requires that employers hire the most qualified person for the job, regardless of race, sex, or any other protected trait.

But what if you want to improve representation of marginalized groups in your workplace, and do it legally?

WIRTW #756: the 'iii' edition

You can tell from the tone and tenor of my recent posts that the current state of my country, politics, and democracy has me concerned and scared. Which is why last night was so, so good for my soul.

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.

If you wanted to know what a Constitutional Crisis looks like…

What happens when the Attorney General refuses to follow a Supreme Court order? We are about to find out.

Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ordered the federal government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. from his deportation to an El Salvador torture prison. The decision was clear: the deportation was illegal, and the government was required to undo it.

Yet, Attorney General Pam Bondi is refusing to comply. She has made no efforts to return Mr. Abrego Garcia, despite a binding court order. "He is not coming back to our country," according to Bondi.

That is not how the rule of law works.

Heel turn? How a dress code became an ADA problem.

This case started with a pair of Skechers, and will end with a jury trial.

A cocktail server at MGM National Harbor, Rebecca Lopez-Duprey, suffered from foot conditions—Achilles tendonitis and Equinus deformity—that made wearing heels painful and medically inadvisable. Her doctor recommended she wear flat, supportive shoes. Eventually, MGM granted her an ADA accommodation to do just that.

Lopez-Duprey wore Skechers-style black shoes for over two years without issue. Then came a policy change.

In late 2021, MGM issued a memo updating the dress code and specifying which shoes were allowed, even for employees with ADA accommodations. Skechers weren't on the approved list. The company disciplined Lopez-Duprey multiple times, including once for showing up to work in her doctor-recommended sneaker. She protested internally, and her doctor even submitted another note, this time stating she needed those shoes permanently.

MGM terminated her shortly thereafter for violating its appearance standards.

Lopez-Duprey sued for failure to accommodate under the ADA. 

Damage caps for discrimination claims don't work

$75,000. That’s what Morton Salt just paid to settle a lawsuit brought by the EEOC.

The agency alleged that Morton Salt discriminated against a Black employee because of his race and disability—and then retaliated against him for reporting it.

The allegations are disturbing:

• A white coworker allegedly used the n-word repeatedly, including calling employees "worthless [n-words]"—something Morton knew about.

• A Black employee reported the racist behavior.

• Instead of addressing or investigating the harassment, Morton reprimanded and ultimately fired the person who spoke up.

And what did it cost them? Seventy-five grand.

WIRTW #755: the 'seuss' edition

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.

Documentation wins cases

Charles Carroll worked as a high-ranking exec at IDEMIA, the company behind TSA PreCheck. He ran a new initiative called "Trusted Fan" and was involved in renewing a major TSA contract.

He was also in his 60s and had recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

A year after disclosing his diagnosis, and after delivering the TSA contract renewal, he was fired. The company said it was due to performance issues: lack of leadership, mishandling the Trusted Fan rollout, and frustrations around the contract renewal process.  

The Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment for the employer across the board, including on Carroll's disability and age discrimination. Why? One word: documentation.

American Gestapo

Federal agents at Detroit Metro Airport detained attorney Amir Makled for 90 minutes. They asked him about his clients. They asked to search his phone.

Why? Because he represents a pro-Palestinian protester arrested at the University of Michigan.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Makled refused to turn over his phone, citing attorney-client privilege. But the message was clear: represent the "wrong" person, and you might be next.

This is not an isolated incident. It's part of a dangerous pattern. It's evidence of our quickening slide into authoritarianism. When the authorities target lawyers just for doing their jobs, democracy is on life support.

WIRTW #754: the 'due process' edition

"If you violated the law, you are not entitled to due process."
– Rep. Victoria Spartz, March 2024

Let that sink in. An elected official—sworn to uphold the Constitution—said that people who allegedly violated the law are not entitled to due process.

That's not just legally wrong. It's dangerous.

Due process is the mechanism by which we determine whether someone did violate the law. It's not a prize we give afterward. It's the protection we guarantee beforehand. That's literally the point.

We don't just arrest people and skip the trial part. At least, we're not supposed to.

But we're increasingly seeing a frightening trend of "disappearing" people:

⮞ Immigrants detained indefinitely without hearings, or worse, sent to awful prisons overseas never to be heard from again.
⮞ Protesters and students punished based on accusations, not findings.
⮞ Politicians demanding instant penalties before any legal process unfolds.

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. 

The 3rd nominee for The Worst Employer of 2025 is … The Coprophilic Chief

"[The chief's] actions not only fail to meet the standards of professional conduct but also appear intended to humiliate me and other victims." That's according to a North Bergen, NJ, police officer speaking to People Magazine about his boss, Police Chief Robert Farley.

"Failing to meet the standards of professional conduct" might be understatement of the year. Farley is accused of horrific and unacceptable behavior. 

This is NOT how the ADA is supposed to work

Some federal agencies within the Trump administration have delayed acting on employee requests for reasonable accommodations because they are still figuring out their return-to-office policies.

That's not how the ADA works.

The ADA doesn't allow employers to "wait and see" before engaging in the interactive process. It doesn't allow delays while leadership huddles over long-term telework plans. And it definitely doesn't permit an employer to ignore an accommodation request just because it's inconvenient or politically tricky.

PSA: Get your measles titer checked

I just had measles titer checked—and to my surprise, it came back really negative. That means I either never had the measles vaccine (which I definitely did, as a child) or my immunity has disappeared over time.

This matters because measles is one of the most contagious viruses on the planet. If you're not immune and you're exposed to someone with measles, you have a 90% chance of getting infected. And it's not just a rash and a fever. Measles can cause pneumonia, brain swelling, and even death.

Moreover, we're currently seeing measles outbreaks across the country in places where it hasn't shown up in years. While many adults assume they're protected, as I just learned that may not be the case.

A day without associates

BigLaw is under attack—not just from Trump's executive orders targeting law firms that have historically supported his political opponents or oppose his current policies, but from their own employees.

Above the Law reports that associates at some of the nation's biggest law firms are considering going on "recruitment strikes" (i.e., refusing to participate in law student recruiting) if their employers fail to push back against Trump's unlawful orders.

What if these associates take it one step further and actually walk off the job in protest? Would the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protect their concerted work stoppage?

WIRTW #753: the 'autocracy' edition

"Politics don't belong on LinkedIn."

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.

Teen employment is about education, not filling low-wage labor gaps

I'm a firm believer in the value of teenagers holding part-time jobs.

My first was as a mobile DJ, spinning records at Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, weddings, and sweet 16 parties. I also bussed tables in a nursing home dining room and unloaded giant rolls of fabric from trucks at a warehouse. Each job taught me about hard work, punctuality, taking direction, and dealing with people. They also taught me the value of money and the importance of earning my own spending cash.

That kind of experience is invaluable. It builds character, work ethic, and confidence. It's why both of my kids work, even though most of their friends do not. Just because I can provide walking-around money doesn't mean I should. If my daughter wants to drive a car, she'd better have the money to put gas in it and help cover the insurance. That's part of my responsibility as a parent—getting them ready for adulthood.

But what we're seeing now in some states (including Ohio) is something very different.

A teachable moment on digital communication security

An editor at The Atlantic was accidentally added to a high-level Signal group chat where Trump administration officials were planning military strikes in Yemen.

Yes, you read that right. A journalist, in a chat with top government officials, while they were actively discussing where and when to launch missiles.

It's an appalling breach of national security. It’s also a teachable moment for employers.

If the highest of federal officials can accidentally include a reporter in a thread outlining imminent military action, your company's employees can accidentally include the wrong person in a message about a client, a deal, a product launch, or a sensitive HR issue.

WIRTW #752: the 'this is 40' edition

"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.

EEOC issues guidance on "DEI-related discrimination," but doesn't bother to define it

What is "DEI-related discrimination at work?" No one knows, including the EEOC.

Late yesterday, the EEOC released two new policy documents aimed at eliminating "unlawful DEI" in the workplace: What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work and What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work (the latter even available as a poster-sized PDF).

The most revealing line appears in the opening sentence of the "What You Should Know" document: 

"Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a broad term that is not defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Of course it's undefined, because DEI is not illegal.

This is what a constitutional crisis looks like

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose." – Chief Justice John Roberts

Translation: If you don't like a court ruling, you appeal. You don't ignore it. You don't retaliate against the judge. And you don't call for their impeachment.

And yet… here we are.

Yes, segregation is still illegal, and also amoral

Image via wiki commons, cc license

I can't believe I have to say this in 2025, but here we are … it's illegal and amoral to have racially segregated facilities in your business.

Why you shouldn't hate lawyers (or at least not all of us)

The LinkedIn comments on my recent post about Donald Trump targeting the Perkins Coie law firm really caught me off guard. I expected some debate and pushback. What I didn't expect, however, was the level of vitriol directed at lawyers and the legal profession in general. The anger, the contempt, the full-blown hatred, just for people doing their jobs.

I get it. Lawyers aren't winning any popularity contests. We're perceived somewhere between used car salesmen and that guy who takes up two spots in the parking lot. The lawyer jokes never stop. ("What do you call 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start." "Why don’t sharks attack lawyers? Professional courtesy." I've heard them all.)

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?

WIRTW #751: the 'losing' edition

"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 what effective HR looks like

"It's my job to stand up and be the buffer between politicals and career employees, and I'm just trying to do my goddamn job. They have no idea who they picked a f—king fight with."

That's Traci DiMartini, the ousted head of human resources at the IRS, speaking out after she says she was fired for telling agency employees that DOGE had orchestrated their firings.

The 2nd nominee for The Worst Employer of 2025 is … The Teenager Terrorizer

The EEOC has filed a lawsuit against six related entities operating Taco Bell restaurants for allegedly allowing a senior area manager to sexually harass female employees, including teenagers, and retaliating against a worker who reported the misconduct.

The lawsuit claims that the manager engaged in persistent sexual harassment of multiple female employees, including some who were underage, on a near-daily basis. 

Medical marijuana accommodation is highly state-law dependent

Q: Must an employer accommodate of an employee's legal use of medical marijuana?

A: It depends.

Case in point: Davis v. The Albert M. Higley Co.

Brian Davis, who used legally prescribed medical marijuana to treat his anxiety, depression, and ADHD, sued The Albert M. Higley Co. for wrongful failure to hire under Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) and for disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).

WIRTW #750: the 'rule of law' edition

This news should alarm any rational lawyer. Donald Trump has issued an Executive Order punishing Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.

The EO does the following:

• Directs federal agencies to identify and terminate, where legally permissible, contracts with Perkins Coie.
• Requires government contractors to disclose any business dealings with the firm.
• Mandates the suspension of any active security clearances held by individuals at Perkins Coie.
• Instructs the EEOC to review the diversity, equity, and inclusion practices of major law firms, including Perkins Coie, to ensure compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
• Limits official access to federal government buildings for Perkins Coie employees.
• Advises government employees to restrict official engagements with Perkins Coie or its attorneys.

"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.

Hate is winning, and it sucks

"We are so thankful for the community we built together. And we’re confident that the connections we've made will continue to have a positive impact in Marysville. Thanks for 3 whimsical and zany years."

That's what Teddy Valinski, owner of Walking Distance Brewing Co., shared on the brewery's Facebook page on Feb. 25, three days before it poured its final pint and closed its doors for good.

Valinski didn't elaborate on the closure, except to tell The Columbus Dispatch, "Without a doubt, our business was slowed down from the slander. ... It's sad that the attacks made even supporters feel unsafe coming."

Reputation Matters: Handling a viral controvery

"With hair on your chest, you shouldn't be wearing a dress."

"You look like an idiot."

That's what Sam Johnson, the former CEO of telehealth company VisuWell, allegedly said while harassing and berating a teenage boy who chose to wear a dress to his high school prom. The confrontation happened at a hotel where the teen and his friends were taking prom pictures.

A video of the incident went viral, capturing Johnson's remarks. The backlash was immediate, and VisuWell's board quickly started worrying about the company's reputation.

WIRTW #749: the 'DEI webinar' edition

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. 

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

Will SCOTUS heighten the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in "reverse discrimination" cases?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who sued the Department of Youth Services for sex discrimination under Title VII. She alleged that she was passed over for a promotion, then demoted, and that a gay man was subsequently promoted into her former position—all due to her sexual orientation (straight).

Ames claimed sex discrimination, but the 6th Circuit disagreed, ruling that she failed to establish the "'background circumstances' to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

What are these "background circumstances"? According to the 6th Circuit, plaintiffs typically prove this with evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay individuals) made the employment decision at issue or with statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against the majority group. Ames lost because she provided neither.

And that's the issue SCOTUS will decide—does "discrimination" under Title VII mean discrimination regardless of majority or minority status, or does it take on a different meaning when the claim comes from a member of the majority class? Does a member of the majority class have to show something "more" to establish discrimination.

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.

This is not normal

THIS IS NOT NORMAL

That was the subject line of an email sent by an EEOC judge to all of her coworkers in response to an agency directive that no orders be issued in LGBTQ+ discrimination cases without first being reviewed by headquarters. The directive was in response to Trump's executive order mandating that the federal government recognize only two sexes.

The judge, Karen Ortiz, urged her colleagues to resist. "It's time for us to embody the civil rights work we were hired to do and honor the oath to the Constitution that we all took," she wrote in her email.

To her surprise, she did not receive a single response. She soon learned why. Her email had been deleted from everyone's inbox. When she followed up, calling for the EEOC's acting chair to resign, the agency cut off her ability to send emails entirely.

WIRTW #748: the 'tracking' edition

"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.

EEOC's policy shift to "protect American workers" is all about punishing non-Americans

If you hire non-Americans, the EEOC is coming after your business.

In a press release, Acting Chair Andrea Lucas says the following: 

"The EEOC is putting employers and other covered entities on notice: if you are part of the pipeline contributing to our immigration crisis or abusing our legal immigration system via illegal preferences against American workers, you must stop.… Many employers have policies and practices preferring illegal aliens, migrant workers, and visa holders or other legal immigrants over American workers—in direct violation of federal employment law prohibiting national origin discrimination."

Lucas's statement—while technically correct under Title VII—creates more problems than it solves. 

A tale of two approaches to noncompete agreements

Big news on noncompetes—from two very different directions.

First, the NLRB just quietly backed off its aggressive stance that most noncompetes violate federal labor law. The agency's Acting General Counsel rescinded 2023's memo that took that position, signaling a retreat from treating noncompetes as an unfair labor practice.

Meanwhile, Ohio lawmakers are headed in the opposite direction. Last month, they introduced SB 11, a bipartisan bill that would ban nearly all noncompetes in the state. If it passes, it'll be a game-changer, giving employees much more freedom to jump to competitors.

EEOC moves to dismiss transgender-discrimination lawsuits

"EEOC seeks to drop race discrimination cases brought on behalf of Black workers, citing Trump's executive order."

This is not a real headline.

But this is: "EEOC seeks to drop transgender discrimination cases, citing Trump's executive order."

What makes an accommodation "reasonable"?

Let's talk about Nguyen v. Bessent and the IRS's year-long effort to accommodate an employee with medical limitations.

Thuy-Ai Nguyen, an IT specialist at the IRS, requested multiple accommodations related to her severe depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairment. Her requests? A transfer to a different division, formal training, a part-time schedule, and the ability to work from home or transfer to a location with a shorter commute.

The IRS partially granted her requests: It offered her a new assignment with different immediate supervisors, on-the-job training, and a six-month part-time schedule. But it denied her telework request, arguing that in-person training was necessary. They also searched for positions closer to her home but found no vacancies.

Nguyen rejected the offer, arguing it wasn't a "reasonable" accommodation because her higher-level manager remained the same and she still had to commute to the same location.

The court disagreed.

WIRTW #747: the 'tariffs' edition

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.

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.

Protecting the rule of law

"Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." — Vice President JD Vance

We need to talk about the rule of law—because it's under serious attack.