WIRTW #482 (the “a bet is a bet” edition)

It’s been a couple of weeks since baseball’s evil empire, otherwise known as the New York Yankees, knocked my beloved Cleveland Indians out of the playoffs.

I can’t say the pain has gone away, but seeing the Astros as the American League’s representative in the World Series helps an ever-so-small small bit.

With no risk of Yankees winning it all this year, it’s time I paid off a little bet I made with Dan Schwartz over the outcome of the Division Series.

God, this hurts. But, a bet is a bet.

Here’s what I read this week.

When should HR call its lawyer?

Yesterday, I read When is an Employee Issue a Legal Issue (and When Is it HR)?, written by Dan Schwartz on his always excellent Connecticut Employment Law Blog. Dan posits that there are some instances when a business almost always should get legal involved with an employee issue, such as when it receives a “lawyer letter”, receives service of an agency charge or lawsuit, needs to conduct a privileged investigation, or confronts a complex or novel legal issue.

I’d like to address this same question from a more macro level.

Not all swearing at work is created equal

According to a recent survey, 57% of American employees admit to swearing at work. (To me, that seems low. Also, count me in the “yes” column.)

Where is the line between swearing as harmless workplace banter and swearing as harmful unlawful harassment?

Consider these two examples.

Bill O’Reilly claiming victim status is WHY we have a harassment problem

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that Bill O’Reilly paid $32 million to settle a claim of sexual harassment brought against him by a former co-worker.

Yesterday, in an interview with the New York Times, O’Reilly let his accusers have it:

It’s horrible what I went through, horrible what my family went through. This is crap. It’s politically and financially motivated. We can prove it with shocking information. We have physical proof that this is bullshit.

The 23rd nominee for the “worst employer of 2017” is … the cake boss

As we wind down the year toward voting to name the first annual “Worst Employer of the Year,” I thought I had all bases covered. Then I read this story on Buzzfeed:

This Teen Says Her Chili’s Manager Sexually Harassed Her, And Her Coworkers Threw A Party To Shame Her

WIRTW #481 (the “proof of concept” edition)

When a commenter starts his thoughts with “Hey faggot,” you know you have one for the internet-troll hall of fame.

A couple of months ago I wrote a post entitled, When You Discover That You Employ a Nazi. This post generated the above-referenced comment on Workforce.com (which cross-posts my blog daily).

The rest of this winning comment?

Thank you, Mr. Bryson, for proving my point. Let me also suggest (if you can stomach it) that you check out his account on Disqus.com, which exposes his views on a range of topics, including LGBTQ people, the Jews, and school shootings as false flags. For the record, he is con, con, and WTF?!

Here’s what else I read this week:

When is a break not a break under the FLSA?

The FLSA draws a pretty clear line as to when breaks must be paid, and when they can be unpaid.

If a break 20 minutes or less in duration, it must be paid. Any longer, and an employer can make it an unpaid break.

What if, however, instead of providing employees paid breaks, an employer installs a system of flex time—the employer only pays employees for the time they are logged onto its system, which maximizes employees’ ability to take breaks from work at any time, for any reason, and for any duration.

Does this “flex time” system of unlimited unpaid breaks pass muster under the FLSA?