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.