"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.