Have you listened to Labor Relatedly yet?

Over the past few years, I've toyed with the idea of launching my own legal podcast. Two things have held me back. First, I don't really want to add another "thing" for me to manage. Secondly, other people ask me to guest on their podcasts and I feel like I'm getting enough bang for the podcasting buck that the added time of recording and producing my own show wouldn't justify any additional return.

Thus, I jumped at the chance when my friend Michael VanDervort asked if I wanted to join his existing podcast, DriveThruHR, as a recurring co-host to discuss all things labor relations in light of current and historic rise in union organizing. 

Posting about litigation (actual or potential) is a terrible idea

Until yesterday, Erin Overbey worked as an editor at The New Yorker. Shortly after her termination, Overbey took to Twitter to write about her termination. Across 35 tweets, she accuses the magazine of retaliating against her because of she had previously raised concerns over its lack of equity and inclusivity. 

While the allegations are interesting, I instead want to focus today's lens on the idea of tweeting about a matter in litigation, or reasonably expected to head in that direction. What I'm about to say holds true for employees and employers.

Cursing in the workplace

According to one survey, 57% of American employees admit to swearing at work. (Count me in the "yes" column.)

Where is the line between swearing as harmless workplace banter and swearing as harmful unlawful harassment? The seminal case is Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, which involved the female plaintiff's offense to the salty language used by male co-workers in nearby cubicles.

WIRTW #634: the “%@$&*!” edition

Vacation 💑

I love trivia, even if it doesn't always love me back.

For example, in 1993 my collegiate trivia bowl team lost in the university finals. (For the record, I've always been more than suspicious of the fact that the winning team were fraternity brothers with the quiz master and knew the answer to nearly every question almost too quickly.)

In November 1999, I lacked the fastest fingers on Who Wants to be a Millionaire. ("Where's the proof," you ask? Here you go.)

Thus, when my niece asked if we wanted to do trivia night at a local winery during our visit last week, my answer was a resounding, "Yes!" (For the record, she had me at winery; trivia just provided the exclamation point.)

What's better than trivia night at a winery? Barnstorming into town and winning trivia night at a winery … which is exactly what we did. Correctly answering 16 out of 21 questions earned us a three-way tie for first place, which we broke by naming all seven dwarfs the quickest. 

Of the five questions we answered incorrectly, one stuck with me as the most interesting and obscure. So today I'm sharing it with you.

What is the word for a string of typographical symbols (such as %@$&*!) used in place of an obscenity, especially in comic strips?

Take your best guess in comments, and I'll provide the correct answer on Monday. No Googling!

Here's what I read and listened to this week and last week that I think you should be reading and listening to, too.

We need to talk about litigation holds and spoliation of evidence

The situation playing out in real time between Congress and the Secret Service over text messages related to the Jan. 6th insurrection is quite the teachable moment on litigation holds and spoliation of evidence.

On Jan. 16, 2021, Congress sent the Department of Homeland Security (which oversees the Secret Service) a broad preservation and production request for documents related to Jan. 6, which included communications "received, prepared or sent" between Jan. 5 and Jan 7. 

Following the Jan. 16 request, the Secret Service explained to employees that it was up to them to preserve records from their phones and provided a step-by-step guide to preserve mobile phone content, including text messages, prior to a phone migration that occurred on Jan. 27. That migration, however, appears to have caused a widespread destruction of data, as the Secret Service has only been able to produce to the Jan. 6 Committee one text message from the critical three-day window.

What went wrong? 

A lot, apparently.

A modest proposal to revamp continuing legal education credits #CLECreditsforBlogging

"I'm finishing all my CLE credits this week. It amazes me how if you keep up with law changes regularly how out-of-date these CLEs feel."

That's an excerpt of a recent conversation between my friend, Kate Bischoff, and me. Kate is 100 percent correct. I learn very little, if anything from the continuing education courses I take. I take them because the Ohio Supreme Court requires me to check a 24-credit box every two years, not because they offer me any educational value.

Abortion travel benefits don’t discriminate against non-abortion-seeking pregnant workers

Within hours of the Supreme Court releasing its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and reversing Roe v. Wade, DICK'S Sporting Goods announced that it will provide up to $4,000 in travel expense reimbursement for an employee, spouse, or dependent enrolled in its medical plan (plus one support person) to travel to the nearest location where abortion care is legally available. 

Last week, America First Legal, an ultra-conservative non-profit legal group run by "patriots" such as Stephen Miller and Mark Meadows, filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asking the agency to conclude that DICK'S offering of abortion travel benefits discriminates against female employees who choose to give birth. According to America First Legal Senior Counselor and Director of Oversight Reed D. Rubinstein, "Subsidizing travel for an abortion, while denying an equivalent benefit to a mother welcoming a new baby, is perverse and unlawful."