Meet Brienne Allan, a brewer at Notch Brewing in Salem, Mass. In May 2021 she asked a simple question in an Instagram Story— "What sexist comments have you experienced?"
What followed were hundreds upon hundreds of stories of sex-based discrimination, harassment, and other abuse.
I woke up Saturday morning to a tweet asking me for my take on this job posting.
No matter how many times you read our federal workplace anti-discrimination laws, you won't find the word "caregiver" among the litany of protected classes. Yet, it has been clear since the earliest days of this blog that in the proper circumstances "caregiver discrimination" is illegal.
Earlier this week the EEOC updated its Covid-19 guidance to discuss these caregiver-related issues.
Caregiver discrimination violates the laws enforced by the EEOC if it is based on an applicant’s or employee’s sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), race, national origin, disability, age (40 or older), or another characteristic covered by federal employment discrimination laws. Caregiver discrimination also is unlawful if it is based on the caregiver’s association with an individual with a disability, or on the race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristic of the individual receiving care.
Trillium Asset Management, which holds $48 million of Starbucks stock, is leading the charge on behalf of a billion-dollar-plus group of investors to push the coffee retailer to adopt a "union neutral" stance.
To date, more than 130 Starbucks stores in 26 states have petitioned the NLRB to unionize. Of the seven stores that have held elections so far, six have voted to unionize.
According to the letter sent to both Mellody Hobson, Independent Chair of the Starbucks Board of Directors, and Kevin Johnson, its CEO (and obtained by CNBC), there exists grave investor concern that reports of Starbucks' "aggressive union-busting tactics" will harm the brand and its reputation (and, by extension, sales, profits, and, ultimately, share value).
Just in case someone needed to know 🤷Employees don’t leave Companies, they leave Managers
We conclude the Charging Party engaged in protected concerted activity because the Facebook post elicited support from coworkers over scheduling, management, and employee attrition, issues that had been topics of concern for employees.
The post, as written, objectively sought to elicit support from coworkers and other employees—who were Facebook friends and would therefore see the post—regarding the perceived poor management practices that would lead to employee attrition.… [A]t least two of these employees' responses indicated their support for the Charging Party's message that bad management practices lead to a loss of employee morale and employee attrition.… Moreover, the Charging Party's post and the comments it elicited were a continuation of the Charging Party's earlier conversations with numerous other employees about the quality of the Employer's supervision.…Non-text communications, such as emojis and memes, can be just as communicative as text and prose, and when they communicate a message the law treats them no differently. If your employment lawyer isn't conversive in emojis, memes, TikToks, and other newer forms of communication, it's time for a new lawyer. Your employees are speaking like this. You need to understand it, and so does your lawyer.
I thought I had seen all variety and manner of worst employer. Then Suzanne Lucas sent me this story.
