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."