The 1st nominee for The Worst Employer of 2026 is … The Harassing, Retaliating, Evidence-Erasing Employer.

If you're looking for the blueprint for how to turn a workplace into a legal catastrophe and land on my Worst Employer list, look no further than Bryant v. C&M Defense Group. A jury just awarded Makita Bryant $5.5 million after what reads less like an HR failure and more like a master class in how to do everything wrong.

WIRTW #786: the 'propaganda' edition

What the hell is going on at the Department of Labor?

On January 10, the DOL posted this on X: "One Homeland. One People. One Heritage. Remember who you are, American."

Read that again. Slowly. If that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, it should.

Myriad people immediately flagged the post as sounding eerily similar to one of the Nazi Party's central slogans — "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" (one people, one realm, one leader). And they're not wrong to hear the echo. Even if you want to give the DOL every possible benefit of the doubt (you shouldn't), the vibe is unmistakable: nationalist propaganda, identity worship, and "blood and soil" messaging dressed up as patriotism.

And it wasn't even that subtle. The post was paired with a black-and-white montage of Revolutionary-era imagery and propaganda-style art — the kind of aesthetic authoritarian movements love because it sells nostalgia, certainty, obedience, and "purity" in one neat package.

Keep in mind, this is the Department of Labor. Its job is supposed to be enforcing wage-and-hour laws, protecting workplace safety, ensuring fair labor standards, and helping people get employed and trained. Not cranking out memes that wink at fascist tropes and flirt with Nazi-era rhetoric, slogans, and iconography.

This isn't happening in a vacuum. Union leaders and historians are sounding alarms about a "rhetorical shift towards white supremacy" within the federal government, with campaigns featuring idealized, mostly White male workers, "Americanism" over "globalism," and messaging designed to convince the "real Americans" that only people like them belong. Indeed, ICE is recruiting potential agents with the tagline, "We'll have our home again," a lyric tied to white nationalist groups.

When federal agencies start talking like this, it's not "patriotism." It's not an accident. It's propaganda — and it's the point.

---

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

When “irreparable harm” isn’t: 8th Circuit slams brakes on a noncompete injunction

Employers love preliminary injunctions in restrictive covenant cases. And courts are supposed to grant them only in extraordinary circumstances.

The 8th Circuit just reminded everyone what "extraordinary" actually means.

Filing an EEOC charge doesn’t automatically buy an employee job immunity

Some believe that once an employee complains to the EEOC, discipline must stop. Supervisors must tread lightly. Performance problems must be ignored.

The 4th Circuit just reminded everyone that's not how Title VII works.

In Andrews v. DeJoy, the court affirmed summary judgment for the Postal Service on a retaliation claim brought by a clerk who had a long history of documented performance problems — both before and after she filed an EEOC complaint.

After loudly clashing with her supervisor and being escorted from the building by police, the employee, a clerk, filed an EEOC charge. After her post-suspension return to work, management continued documenting attendance issues, insubordination, and performance deficiencies, eventually issuing a notice of removal (later reduced to a suspension through arbitration).

She sued, claiming retaliation. She lost.

WIRTW #785: the 'sometimes a coffee cup is just a coffee cup' edition

Arsenal–Tottenham is one of the nastiest rivalries in sports. If you don't follow English football, think Eagles–Cowboys, Yankees–Red Sox, or Ohio State–Michigan, and then crank it up a notch or ten. London neighbors. More than a century of history and hatred.

Which is why it was a really, really big deal earlier this week when Thomas Frank, Tottenham's manager, was photographed holding a coffee cup with an Arsenal logo on it.

Social media lost its mind.

By all accounts, it was an accident. Spurs were away at Bournemouth. Arsenal had just played there over the weekend. Frank grabbed a cup from the away dressing room without noticing it belonged to his club's biggest rival. Asked about it, he responded the only way he could: "Of course I wouldn't do that. That would be really stupid." He added that with Spurs not playing well, it would be "absolutely stupid" for him to focus on something so trivial instead of the football.

Fair enough. Especially when the Arsenal sit 22 points clear at the top of the table and Spurs are mired in 14th.

Your workplace could have its own version of this moment. The trade show photo. The LinkedIn post. The Instagram story that lives forever in screenshots. There's your employee—company badge on—wearing the wrong quarter-zip. Holding a competitor's tote bag. Standing a little too close to a rival's booth. Marketing panics. Leadership fumes. Someone asks whether "this is a problem."

Start with the obvious question: Was it intentional? Most of the time, no. Swag is everywhere. People grab what's clean, warm, or nearby. That's not disloyalty. It's human.

Next question: Was there any real harm? Did a customer complain? Did a deal fall apart? Or did only internal pride take a hit? If the damage is theoretical or ego-based, you're already flirting with overreaction.

Then ask the most important question: What culture are you reinforcing? If you treat honest mistakes like acts of betrayal, employees learn to hide things—or to stop using judgment altogether. A quiet reminder about branding expectations is reasonable. Discipline usually isn't. Sure, if an employee is deliberately promoting a competitor or repeatedly ignoring guidance, that’s a different conversation. But earn that conclusion with facts, not outrage.

Not every rival logo is treason. Sometimes it's just the wrong cup in the wrong locker room. Sometimes a coffee cup is just a coffee cup.

And for the record…

Up the Arsenal! Come on you Gunners!

---

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

4 solid steps to win your disability discrimination/reasonable accommodation case

The 6th Circuit just delivered an opinion that reinforces two lessons employers should already know: accommodations require clarity and documentation, and timecard falsification is a litigation killer.

Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. reassigned a maintenance supervisor with nearly 30 years of service to 12-hour night shifts. He complained that the schedule was worsening his Type 2 diabetes, specifically that the night shift was "killing" him. Management told him to provide medical documentation if he needed an accommodation. Upon his presentation of a doctor's note, the company moved him to day shift as requested.

Then came the problem. The company audited his outage time entries against objective badge-swipe data from the plant's protected area. The audit revealed discrepancies in 21 of 26 entries, including 10 overstated by more than 30 minutes. Management interviewed him (with a witness present), reviewed security data, escalated the issue to HR, and a separate internal review team conducted its own investigation. The company fired him for falsifying time records.

He sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.

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.

The question isn't whether your employees are using AI at work (they are), but whether you're prepared for it

Employees using AI at work will be the workplace issue of 2026.

Not remote work.
Not noncompetes.
Not DEI.

AI.

Because employees are already using it — to draft emails, summarize documents, create work product, prepare presentations, and even help with performance reviews — whether employers have approved it or not.

And most companies are completely unprepared.

A tale of two (alleged) sexual assaults

A popular Cleveland restaurant and a popular Charlotte brewery chose very different paths after their owners were accused of sex-based crimes.

After rape charges were filed against the owner of Cleveland's TownHall, the owner's response was to fight—attack the prosecution, question the process, threaten legal action, and keep operating as usual. The framing was unmistakable: this was a legal fight, not a business crisis.

In contrast, after the owner of Charlotte's Sycamore Brewing was charged with raping a 13-year-old child, the response went the other direction. Leadership changed. The owner was removed. Divestment was announced.

And this week, Sycamore went further. Its taproom will close beginning today—not because the business committed any wrongdoing, but to allow for community healing and reflection. The current owner publicly expressed concern for the alleged victim, confirmed the complete removal of her former partner from the business, and made clear that Sycamore's future must align with the values of the community it serves.

'Twas the Employment Law Night Before Christmas (2025 edition)

In what has become an annual tradition for my final post of the year, I present the holiday classic, 'Twas the Employment Law Night Before Christmas … tweaked and updated for 2025.

To all of my readers, connections, and followers, new and legacy, thank you all for reading, commenting, and sharing throughout the year. Please have a happy and, most importantly, healthy and safe holiday season.

I'll see everyone on January 5, 2026, with new content to kick off the new year, including a fresh batch of Worst Employer nominees.

*  *  *

WIRTW #784: the 'white male' edition

Something has gone sideways when the Chair of the EEOC is publicly urging white men to file discrimination charges.

Yes, I said it that bluntly, because sometimes clarity matters more than politeness.

Let's start with the part Andrea Lucas and her supporters rush to say first: Title VII protects all employees. Race is race. Sex is sex. Discrimination is discrimination. That has always been true.

But that's not the real question. And pretending it is avoids the harder, more important one.

The real question is why Congress passed Title VII in the first place. It wasn't because lawmakers worried white men might someday struggle for professional opportunity. It was passed because entire groups of people, especially Blacks and women, were systematically locked out of jobs, promotions, and whole industries. Not subtly. Not accidentally. By design.

Title VII was a civil rights law aimed at expanding opportunity for the historically marginalized and dismantling a labor market built on exclusion. That context matters. A lot.

So, when the head of the nation's civil rights enforcement agency makes public pleas for white men to file discrimination charges, she isn't just reciting a legal truism. She's making a strategic and moral choice about the purpose of civil-rights enforcement.

That choice is backwards.

This isn't about whether white men can be discriminated against. They can. The law already covers them. Courts already hear their cases. No special encouragement campaign is required.

What's troubling is the suggestion that "anti-white" or "anti-male" discrimination deserves priority attention, at a time when discrimination against marginalized groups is more subtle, more coded, and harder to prove than ever. Bias today rarely announces itself. It shows up as "not a fit," "not leadership material," "not polished," or "lacking presence." The people most insulated from those vague, subjective assessments remain the people most likely to be presumed competent and neutral on arrival.

The EEOC Chair's solicitation of white men isn't a message of neutrality. It's a reframing of civil rights enforcement.

Her shift has consequences. Employers don't become fairer in response to this rhetoric; they become more cautious and more defensive. As a result, they make "safe" hiring choices. Historically, those choices are familiar ones, which is how old inequities quietly reassert themselves.

If an employer excludes someone because they're white or male, enforce the law. Period. But publicly encouraging white men to file charges misreads purpose, history, and present reality.

The EEOC was created to open doors that had been nailed shut for generations. It was not created to reassure the historically powerful that losing exclusive access feels unfair.

Civil rights enforcement should be about expanding opportunity—not manufacturing grievance.

And the moment we forget that is the moment we stop protecting civil rights at all.

---

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

---

Test

"We can't do that" is not an ADA interactive process. Or is it?

The 6th Circuit just handed employers a clear win in Bowles v. Chicken Salad Chick. The court held that a fast-casual restaurant did not have to accommodate a cashier/service employee who requested to sit for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing. That request would have eliminated essential job functions and fundamentally changed the job.

The Sixth Circuit held that an employer cannot be liable for failing to engage in the ADA interactive process where the employee's requested accommodation is unreasonable as a matter of law, because an interactive-process claim presupposes the existence of a viable reasonable accommodation.

The Worst Employer of 2025 is… 🥁

After a year of collecting 12 nominees and then letting you all decide from the final seven via ranked-choice voting, we didn't even need a second round. The votes were that decisive and the result was never in doubt.

🏆 Worst Employer of 2025: 

The New Jersey Organ and Tissue Sharing Network 

Five things to consider in a difficult termination

Today is your final day to VOTE for the Worst Employer of 2025

---

One of my recurring professional nightmares is advising a client on a termination that goes badly.

Not "this ends in a lawsuit" badly—but catastrophically badly. The kind that devolves into workplace violence, an active shooter situation, or some other despicable act that no one saw coming but everyone later says should have been anticipated.

That fear drives my mantra with clients: you can never be too careful. If there's even a whiff that something could go sideways—emotional volatility, erratic behavior, mental health concerns, escalating conduct—you take reasonable steps to make sure it doesn't. You plan. You slow down. You involve the right people. You treat the termination not as an HR task, but as a safety event.

Which brings me to former Michigan head football coach Sherrone Moore.

WIRTW #783: the 'Christmas movies' edition

What are the best Christmas movies of all time?

It's a debate as old as Christmas movies themselves. (And yes, this is absolutely the kind of important question a legal blog should tackle.)

Before we can answer this vital question, we first must examine what makes a Christmas movie "great." For the best Christmas movies aren't just holiday wallpaper, they must also check a few key boxes:

✨ They have heart. A good Christmas movie leaves you warmer than it found you.

🎄 They feel like the season. Lights, snow, music, awkward gatherings (families and otherwise). They indulge the full sensory experience.

😂 They make you laugh. Not mean-spirited humor, but that familiar, "yep, that's my family, too" kind of laughter.

❤️ They hit an emotional note. Reconciliation. Joy. Second chances. Belief.

🗣️ They are quotable. "You sit on a throne of lies." "I triple dog dare you!" (Fun fact: I went to Hebrew School with the actor who played Schwartz.) "Yippee-Ki-Yay, Mother…"

♻️ And most importantly: they're rewatchable. A great Christmas movie becomes part of your yearly ritual, and you never tire of the annual viewings.

With these criteria in mind, here's my list of the 5 best Christmas movies of all time, the ones I come back to year after year:

Elf — Pure joy. Will Ferrell at peak earnestness and silliness. A modern classic that earned its place fast.

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation — The definitive portrait of holiday chaos. We've all lived some version of this movie.

A Christmas Story — Childhood nostalgia in cinematic form. It's impossible not to see a little of yourself in it.

Die Hard — Yes, it's a Christmas movie. No, I will not be taking questions at this time.

The Muppet Christmas Carol — The best Dickens adaptation ever made, and I'm prepared to die on this hill.

That's my list. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, and share your own. 'Tis the season for strong (and good-natured) opinions.

---

Have you voted yet for the Worst Employer of 2025? 

Cast your vote here.

---

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

What does a font have to do with an employer's values? Apparently, a lot.

The State Department just ordered diplomats to ditch Calibri and return to Times New Roman as the required typeface in all official communications. Secretary Marco Rubio framed this change not as a typography choice, but as a way to "abolish yet another wasteful DEIA program."

Calibri, however, didn't become the State Department's font because someone wanted to score diversity points. It was chosen because disability and accessibility groups recommended it. Plenty of research shows that sans-serif fonts can be easier to read for people with certain visual impairments. That's not ideology. It's science + usability.

Imagine being so committed to rolling back inclusion that you turn fonts into a culture-war battlefield.

🚨 Vote for the Worst Employer of 2025 🚨

It's the most wonderful time of the year! I've made my list, checked it twice, and now it's time to determine who's been the naughtiest and not very nice. That's right—it's time to vote for The Worst Employer of 2025.

I've narrowed down my list of 12 nominees to the worst seven finalists.

Jury tags SHRM for $11.5 million in discrimination lawsuit

$11.5 million!

That's the number a jury needed to send a very loud, very clear message to the Society for Human Resource Management — the self-proclaimed standard-bearer of HR "best practices."

Last week's verdict against SHRM — $1.5 million in compensatory damages and a staggering $10 million in punitive damages — is not just a legal loss. It's an institutional indictment. When the organization that tells the rest of us how to run fair, lawful, ethical workplaces gets hit for racial discrimination and retaliation, the problem is bigger than one terminated instructional designer.

WIRTW #782: the 'lights' edition

I've always loved Christmas lights.

Maybe it’s because, growing up Jewish, we never decked out our house each December with strings of twinkling bulbs. So as an adult, one of my favorite nights of the entire year is the evening my family piles into the car and cruises around to take in the neighborhood displays. It's simple, it's cozy, and it never fails to make me smile.

Two houses just up the street from me perfectly capture the annual holiday condundrm:

🎄 Do you prefer "A" — the full Clark Griswold experience, with tens of thousands of lights, glowing inflatables, and enough wattage to be seen from the ISS?

🎄 Or "B" — the Hallmark Movie/Norman Rockwell classic, with warm white lights, clean lines, and understated charm?

While I absolutely appreciate the effort and awe of the Griswold approach (seriously, that's dedication!), my heart leans toward the quieter, timeless elegance of the Hallmark version.

So, I'm curious: which christmas-lights team are you on—A or B? And more importantly … why?

'Tis the season for strong opinions on holiday lighting. 

---

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

Independent contractors and noncompete agreements do not mix

I've always believed that noncompetes and "independent contractor" status don't mix. Now I have an appellate opinion to back me up.

In Reliant Services v. Brown, a construction-staffing company tried to enforce a noncompete against a punch-list worker it had consistently called an independent contractor. Reliant wanted to stop him from doing the exact same punch-list work directly for Ryan Homes — the same work he'd been doing for decades before ever meeting Reliant.

Here's the problem: you can't call someone "independent," claim they run their own business, and then turn around and try to control where they work, who they can work for, and what they can do once they stop working for you. That's the very definition of control. And control is the dividing line between an employee and an independent contractor.

The most puzzling HR litigation strategy you’ll read this week

Every so often a litigation strategy comes along that just makes you stare at the screen, shake your head, and think, "Did a lawyer really decide this was the best idea, and how much did they bill for it?"

SHRM — the world's largest human resources trade group and an organization that literally brands itself as THE authority on HR — asked a federal court to prohibit a plaintiff from referring to it as an expert in human resources.

Yes, you read that right. SHRM didn't want a jury to hear that … SHRM is an expert in human resources.

The 12th nominee for The Worst Employer of 2025 is … The Corpse Killer

Some stories hit you like a punch to the gut. This one is a full-on knockout.

The House Ways and Means Committee just dropped a bombshell on the New Jersey Organ and Tissue Sharing Network—one of the nation's 55 federally designated organ procurement organizations. The details are disturbing.

According to a letter the Committee released, investigators have uncovered what they call "extreme abuse of public trust" and potentially illegal conduct.

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."

Civil-rights enforcement isn't a culture-war trophy

The Wall Street Journal just profiled EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas under the headline "Trump's DEI Slayer Is Just Getting Started." On LinkedIn, Lucas replied, "thanks … that's right! Buckle up for more…"

It's… an odd flex.

Title VII protects everyone. Always has. White employees, men, Christians, and cisgender individuals are covered just the same as workers from traditionally marginized communities. Discrimination is discrimination, whoever the victim is.

But equal protection doesn't mean equal priority. And it doesn't mean the EEOC should treat anti-Christian bias, anti-American bias, or corporate DEI programs as the nation's most urgent civil-rights threats.

WIRTW #781: the 'EEOC' edition

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is expected to rescind guidance that addresses harassment based on gender identity. Should we remove mentions of gender identity from our anti-harassment policy?"

An HR professional recently asked that question to HR Dive.

Let me answer it as succinctly as possible: NO!!!

Or, if you prefer, let me rephrase question for clarity: "The EEOC says, 'Don't follow the law.' I'm confused. Shouldn't they be telling us the opposite?"

No matter what the EEOC now wants employers to believe, the law has not changed. Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination still includes discrimination based on transgender status. And because sex discrimination includes sexual harassment, it remains unlawful—legally, unquestionably, unequivocally—to harass an employee because they are transgender. The Supreme Court has already said this. Courts across the country have said this. The EEOC does not get to rewrite that reality by pretending otherwise.

But even if we play along with the EEOC's fiction for a moment, the law is a floor, not a ceiling. Nothing stops employers from choosing to protect their workers because it's the right thing to do. Your workplace policies should reflect your values, your culture, and your commitment to treating employees with respect—not the bare minimum that a politicized agency thinks it can get away with. Protecting transgender employees from harassment isn't only lawful. It's moral. It's responsible. It's who good employers are.

And frankly, the EEOC should be ashamed of itself. The agency charged with enforcing civil rights laws is now encouraging employers to ignore them. That isn't guidance; it's abandonment. Employers deserve clarity, not political gamesmanship.

So, no, do not remove gender identity from your anti-harassment policy. Keep it there. Keep following the actual law. And keep doing what the EEOC, apparently, won't: protecting all employees.

---

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

What are you doing to protect your company's trade secrets and keep them secret?

Sherbrooke, a captive insurer for nursing homes, built proprietary software to price risk and underwrite policies. Three insiders—including the CTO who created the software—allegedly decided to spin up a competing insurer and started using that same software to run it.

Sherbrooke sued, claiming trade secret misappropriation.

The district court dismissed the claim, saying Sherbrooke hadn't alleged that it took sufficient "reasonable measures" to protect its secrets. The 4th Circuit reversed. At the pleading stage, the court said, robust confidentiality and invention-assignment agreements were enough to plausibly allege trade-secret protection and misappropriation.

If you think women ruined the workplace, the problem isn’t women — it’s you

The New York Times recently asked, "Did Women Ruin the Workplace?" After an online firestorm erupted, it quietly changed the headline to "Did Radical Feminism Ruin the Workplace." That edit says everything. This isn't about law or fairness. It's about resentment dressed up in intellectual clothes.

Nothing about American workplace law is "feminized." It's statutory, constitutional, and precedent-driven—by courts, by the way, long dominated by men.

Title VII is neutral. Since 1964, it's banned discrimination because of sex. The Supreme Court has made sure those protections apply equally to everyone. Feminism didn't twist the law; the law simply requries equality.

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.

WIRTW #780: the 'breakup' edition

"You deserve someone who loves you for who you are, not who they want you to be."

That's the heart of this week's episode of The Norah & Dad Show.

Norah got dumped, and we talk all about it:

• "Fake boundaries" (like rules about what she can wear, who she can hang out with, and how many drinks she's allowed)
• One-sided codependency (not her)
• Why being single in college is freeing
• And how two parents ended up on an emergency highway run to triage her mental health.

It's part heartbreak, part humor, and part masterclass in learning to walk away from unhealthy dynamics.

If you're raising (or working with) young adults, I think you'll get a lot out of this conversation. Here's a short preview.

Listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Amazon Music, Overcast, in your browser, or wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoy it, please like, review, and subscribe—it truly helps!

---

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

When you protest too much, we all think you're hiding something

If you're fighting this hard to hide a file, everyone already knows what's in it.

Donald Trump trying to stop the release of the Epstein files feels a lot like that lawyer in discovery who really doesn't want to turn over a document.

You know the type. They argue every privilege, invent new ones, insist it's "irrelevant," "burdensome," or "confidential." They huff and puff, threaten sanctions, and act personally insulted that anyone would even dare to ask for it.

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.

A Veterans Day primer on USERRA

Every November 11, we pause to honor the men and women who've worn our nation's uniform. But beyond parades, flags, and "thank you for your service," there's another way employers can show real respect — by understanding and complying with USERRA, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

USERRA protects employees who serve in the military — whether active duty, National Guard, or Reserves — from discrimination and retaliation because of that service. It also guarantees their right to be reemployed when they return from duty.

The law is simple in principle but often mishandled in practice. Here are a few key reminders.

WIRTW #779: the 'fell in love with a band' edition

On August 10, 2001, I fell in love with a band.

I was at the Beachland Ballroom with my college roommate, who was in town visiting. He'd heard about an up-and-coming two-piece calling themselves The White Stripes and suggested we check them out.

When the first few chords of Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground crashed through the speakers, I was hooked — instantly.

From that moment, with the raw, simple thunder of Jack and Meg White, something clicked. It was love at first note, and I fell hard. I've since passed that love on to my daughter, Norah, with whom I share a deep musical kinship (and to whom I proudly gave impeccable taste in music).

This Saturday, The White Stripes will be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. And it feels not just appropriate, but inevitable. They didn't just ride a trend — they created one. As the Hall itself notes, they "reinvigorated rock & roll by returning it to its primal blues roots, proving that a duo with unique style could captivate."

That night at the Beachland changed how I heard music. I was lucky enough to see The White Stripes live four times before they disbanded, and Jack many more times across his various projects. I even had an unforgettable chance encounter with him in the House of Blues' Foundation Room before a Raconteurs show.

But that first show is etched. It was the beginning of a relationship that forever changed how I listen.

When their induction happens — with or without the notoriously reclusive Meg, with or without an on-stage reunion — I'll be thinking of that August night at the Beachland. I'll be thinking about how a two-piece from Detroit rewrote what live rock could feel like. And I'll be thinking about sharing that sound with my daughter, and what it means to pass that love on.

Read more about the band and their induction:

• The White Stripes join the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame − their primal sound reflects Detroit's industrial roots — via The Conversation
  
• Meg White's Drumming Spoke Louder Than Words — via The New York Times
• It's Long Past Time to Give Meg White Her Respect — via Rolling Stone
• Conan O'Brien To Join White Stripes Reunion? — via Alternative Nation

---

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

6th Circuit says no to NLRB's Thryv remedies

This is what it looks like when you win the litigation battle but lose the war.

Hannah Whitbeck worked as a shift supervisor at a Starbucks. She helped lead a union campaign, and a few months later, Starbucks fired her for leaving one employee alone in the store — a safety violation. The NLRB said that reason was pretext and that she was really fired because of her union activity. Yesterday, the 6th Circuit agreed.

But here's the BUT. While the appellate court agreed that Starbucks unlawfully fired a union organizer, it also held that the NLRB had seriously overstepped its authority when it awarded her significant monetary consequential damages.

Understanding the 'duties test' of the FLSA's administrative exemption

Your employees probably aren't as important as they think they are.

That's not mean. It's just the Fair Labor Standards Act talking.

One of the more misunderstood parts of the FLSA's administrative exemption — the one that supposedly covers "office" workers — is which officer workers it actually covers. The test sounds deceptively simple: to be exempt, an employee must exercise discretion and independent judgment in matters of significance to the business. Most people with a desk, a computer, and a job title ending in "coordinator," "specialist," or "administrator" think they qualify.

Spoiler: they don't.

Salaried doesn't always equal exempt

Just because an employee is paid a salary does not mean they are exempt from overtime.

I came across this question on Reddit:

"I work at a small logistics company—about 10 of us total. I'm the person handling invoices, shipments, and customer calls. My title sounds fancy ('operations associate'), but I don't manage anyone. Lately, I've been doing 55–60 hour weeks because we're short-staffed, but when I asked about overtime, my boss said, 'you're salaried, so that doesn’t apply.' Am I actually exempt just because I'm salaried? Or is my company taking advantage of that label?"

One of the biggest myths in wage and hour law is that being paid a salary automatically makes you exempt from overtime

11 best practices to prevent off-the-clock wage claims

Target recently agreed to pay $4.6 million to settle a class action by warehouse employees claiming they weren't paid for all their work time.

The hourly employees said they had to:
➛ Badge into the building
➛ Walk long distances to their workstations to clock in, and
➛ Go through mandatory security screenings after clocking out.

Target didn't pay those hourly employees for any of that time. Those few minutes each workday added up to millions of dollars.

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.

This is why DEI gets demonized

Wells Fargo is reportedly settling a class-action lawsuit alleging it held phony job interviews to make its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives look better than they really were.

According to the complaint, Wells mandated that for all jobs paying at least $100,000, half the candidates interviewed had to come from diverse backgrounds — women, people of color, veterans, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities.

But the plaintiffs said those interviews were often shams, conducted after another candidate had already been selected.

WIRTW #778: the 'a$$hole' edition

On this week's episode of The Norah and Dad Show, Norah and I play a few rounds of "Am I the A--hole" — inspired by my purge of our garage that resulted in all Norah's unused pet-fish gear ending up in a dumpster. (And, yes, we both agree that in this story, I am, in fact, the a--hole). We then dive into some recent, and ghastlier, stories from the AITA subreddit. 

We also discuss the fairness (or lack thereof) of exams, get an update on Norah's sorority pledging, and run down our visit to see Grandmom and Grandpop in Philly over fall break.

You will find the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Amazon Music, Overcast, on our website, or through your favorite podcast app. And if you enjoy it, please like, review, and subscribe—it really helps us grow!

---

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

Correcting the press: unpaid leave after the FMLA expires

Let's play one of my favorite games: correct the press.
The Issue: unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Cliff Kaplan, 65, worked for a beverage distributor at Beechwood Sales & Service for 16 years. Then came a diagnosis of stage-four esophageal cancer. He took unpaid medical leave under the FMLA while he underwent chemotherapy.

Twelve weeks later his manager called. His FMLA had just expired, and the company needed him back immediately. When Cliff said he wasn't physically able to return, they fired him. No severance, no discussion, no attempt to work it out. Just a letter ending a 16-year career.

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.

The EEOC is abdicating its responsibility to transgender workers; employers shouldn’t follow suit

Let's talk about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — the federal agency charged with enforcing our nation's bedrock employment discrimination laws — which seems more interested in walking away from its duty than leaning into it.

Two recent lawsuits raise serious red flags about how the agency is functioning, or, more accurately, is not functioning.

WIRTW #777: the 'no kings' edition

* Image by Nathaniel Currier, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

---

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

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.

100% healed policy = 100% ADA violation

This one's for every business who's ever said to a sick or injured worker, "We can't bring you back until you're 100%."

The EEOC announced a $200,000 settlement with Elon Property Management after it required employees returning from medical leave to provide a doctor's note saying they could return to work "without restrictions." Elon also required a doctor to sign off on a copy of the employee's job description — and refused to let employees back if they couldn't meet every demand.

The EEOC's response was clear: "Policies that require an employee to be 100% before returning to work are unlawful. Employers must assess whether an employee can perform the job with or without a reasonable accommodation."

"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.

Ohio beer is the best beer!

For years, I've told anyone who would listen that Ohio has the best beer in America. Now, we have the proof.

At this year's Great American Beer Festival — the country's largest professional beer competition — Ohio's breweries showed up and showed out. Eleven breweries from the Buckeye State brought home 21 medals overall — tied for sixth among all states and marking our best result ever.

The undisputed star of the festival, however, was my local, Fat Head's Brewery. No brewery won more medals than Fat Head's, which took home five in total: two golds, one silver, and two bronze.

🥇 Goggle Fogger — South German-Style Hefeweizen
🥇 Battle Axe — Strong Porter
🥈 Bone Head — Strong Red Ale
🥉 Hop JuJu — Imperial India Pale Ale
🥉 Excursion Journeyman — Specialty Non-Alcohol Beer

🏆 Fat Head's also won BREWERY OF THE YEAR (15,001 – 100,000 barrels). 🏆

Not to be outdone, its downstate compatriot, Cincinnati's Third Eye Brewing Co. won three medals of its also and Brewery of the Year (2,001 – 5,000 barrels).

From neighborhood taprooms to nationally recognized powerhouses, Ohio beer showed that it belongs on the stage with the industry's heavyweights.

So yeah, I'm proud to be a beer lawyer. But even more, I'm proud to stand with an industry that captures the best of Ohio — authentic, passionate, and quietly exceptional.

If you love beer, put Ohio on your map. The pints are top-notch, and the industry's people are even better. The lawyers? Not too shabby either. 😉

---

Click here for information on Wickens Herzer Panza's craft beer legal practice (or just email me).

For more info on Ohio's craft-beer industry as a whole, check out the Ohio Craft Brewers Assocation.

WIRTW #776: the 'secret diner' edition

Every now and then, I like to take this space and go hyper-local, to highlight something that makes my corner of Northeast Ohio special. Today, that something is Vino di Luca, a new restaurant in Olmsted Falls.

If you're a Cleveland-area foodie, the name Luca Sema probably rings a bell. His other restaurant, Luca West, has long been one of my favorites and is arguably one of the very best spots in Greater Cleveland. So I had little doubt that Vino Di Luca would be something special.

Vino di Luca sits in the heart of downtown Olmsted Falls, in a beautifully restored century-old building that used to house The Olde Wine Cellar. The cozy yet contemporary transformation is stunning. The space doubles as a restaurant and wine shop, and it somehow manages to make both feel seamless.

The menu is built around Italian small plates and pastas. We like to start with the polpetta (housemade meatballs) and a salad, then dig into their pastas — maybe the white truffle and ricotta-stuffed sacchetti, the orecchiette with shrimp, or the gnocchi with fresh mozzarella and spicy tomato sauce. Each dish feels both elevated, comforting, and delicious. Much of the menu is naturally gluten free, including the polpetta, and all pasta dishes can be made gluten free upon request.

And then there's the wine.

Because Vino di Luca also functions as a retail shop, the prices are retail, which means you can enjoy an incredible bottle without the restaurant markup. The selection leans Italian (which makes sense given the menu), but there's plenty of California, French, and even the occasional Portuguese bottle mixed in. Every label is thoughtfully chosen and genuinely good. There's also a full bar with a craft cocktail menu if you're not in the mood for wine.

If you go, and the weather cooperates, grab a table on the back porch overlooking the Rocky River. It's peaceful, scenic, and one of those hidden gems that makes you appreciate where you live.

So, if you find yourself southwest of Cleveland, do yourself a favor and stop into Vino di Luca. Order a few plates, open a bottle of something interesting, and settle in. It's the kind of place that reminds you why dining out — and supporting local — is such a joy.

Cheers!

---

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

Employers, you don't need to be right—you just need to be honest

If you're an employer disciplining or terminating an employee for workplace misconduct, you don't have to prove the employee did the bad thing—you just need to honestly believe they did.

In Welch v. Heart Truss & Engineering, the employer fired an employee it believed had spray-painted trusses with graffiti—including devil horns and cartoon boobs. (Yes, really.) The employee claimed the real reason for his firing was his disability and workers' comp history.

But the 6th Circuit didn't buy it. The employer's "honest belief" saved the day.

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.