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.