More on why holding lawyers liable for retaliation to a client's employee is the worst idea

Yesterday’s post discussing Arias v. Raimondo as the worst employment-law decision of 2017 was way more controversial than I imagined. To me, it’s a no-brainer. It’s dangerous for courts to hold an employer’s lawyer liable for retaliation against the employees of the lawyer’s client. It will chill an attorney’s ability to give proper advice to one’s client, because anything that remotely could result in an employee suffering an adverse action could, under the logic of Arias, give rise to a retaliation claim. Then the comments rolled in:

Is this the worst employment law decision of 2017?

I’ll be vacationing in California with my family the first two week of July. After reading the 9th Circuit’s decision in Arias v. Raimondo—holding an employer’s attorney for liable for FLSA retaliation against his client’s employee because the employee sued his client for unpaid overtime—I’m thinking of adding the 9th Circuit to my list of tourist stops in San Francisco to see if courthouse resembles a Salvador Dali painting. Because this decision is flat out bonkers.

The 13th nominee for the “worst employer of 2017” is … the racist boss

I couldn’t describe the 13th nominee for the worst employer of 2017 any better than CNN did in its story about this (alleged) peach of a boss:

WIRTW #466 (the “solo” edition)

I gotta give my girl credit. She’s got cohones (especially at the age of 11). Through a casual exam-chair conversation with her orthodontist, he learned that she plays music and she learned that he’s involved with an annual summer solstice music festival. From that, she booked herself her first ever solo gig. She spent the next day working up and running through six songs, and played to a mid-afternoon crowd outside our favorite French restaurant. And, like always, she was aces. Here a few highlights strung together medley-style.


And, if you’re local and crave the full band experience, the Major Minors play a full set from 1-3 tomorrow, during the Coventry Village Sidewalk Sale & Carnival Games Party (one of Cleveland.com’s “Top things to do in Cleveland this weekend.” They will rock the courtyard outside of the Grog Shop, 2785 Euclid Heights Blvd., Cleveland Heights (coincidentally, a mere block from my law school apartment).

Reporting harassment down is no trigger for employer action, says 6th Circuit

Employers have a legal obligation to investigate known sexual and other unlawful harassment, and exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any unlawfully harassing behavior. When in harassment “known” by an employer such that it triggers this obligation? EEOC v. AutoZone (6th Cir. 6/9/17) offers some key guidance when an employee fails to report harassment up the chain of command per her employer’s written harassment policy.

6th Circuit grants EEOC broad subpoena powers

The Witch: I’m not a witch! I’m not a witch!
Sir Bedevere: But you are dressed as one
The Witch: *They* dressed me up like this!
Crowd: We didn’t! We didn’t…
The Witch: And this isn’t my nose. It’s a false one.
Sir Bedevere: [lifts up her false nose] Well?
Peasant 1: Well, we did do the nose.
Sir Bedevere: The nose?
Peasant 1: And the hat, but she is a witch!
Crowd: Yeah! Burn her! Burn her! 

– Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

How wide of a net is the EEOC entitled to cast when issuing a subpoena for documents during an investigation? According to EEOC v. United Parcel Service, decided earlier this month by the 6th Circuit, the answer is a lot wider than you’d like.

The 12th nominee for the “worst employer of 2017” is … the parental stereotyper

Last week, Derek Rotondo, a dad of two young children, filed a sex discrimination charge with the EEOC against his employer of seven years, J.P. Morgan. Why? I’ll let Derek explain, in a blog he wrote for the ACLU.