WIRTW #669: the “Lamborghini” edition

Either I cashed in some sweet crypto and bought a Lamborghini … or someone hacked my Instagram account.

(Hint: it's the second one.)

The most frustrating part is that I can't recover the account. 2FA isn’t working correctly so I can't reset my password. As a backup to confirm I'm me, Instagram asks for a video selfie to compare against photos in my account. But no matter how many selfies I submit, Instagram won't confirm me.

So I'm in Instagram hell, with an account I can't access, but someone else can. Meanwhile, they're using the account to spam my followers with nefarious requests about a new bakery "I" am opening that I can only assume will get them hacked, too.

Help!

If you work at Instagram or Meta and can help me get my account back (or can direct me to someone who can) I'll be eternally grateful.

For now, don’t click any links in any of "my" Insta Stories or Insta DMs from "my" account.

In the meantime, and until further notice, I'll be using the Insta account for The Norah and Dad Show Podcast as my own (with my co-host's/daughter's permission). Please follow me there.

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

Please don’t use “fit” to justify an employment decision, no matter what the 4th Circuit just said

"You're not a good fit." 

This statement could mean a lot of things. 

It could be innocuous description of a host of performance issues. 

But it could also mean—

"You're not white."

"You're not male."

"You're not Christian enough." 

"You're too Brown. 

"You're too old."

"You're too disabled." 

With this background, consider Lashley v. Spartanburg Methodist College, which involved a teacher suing her former employer after it did not renew her contact because they "were not a good fit for each other." The teacher claimed "good fit" was pretext for retaliation based on her prior request for a disability reasonable accommodation.

Most lawsuits settle. Here’s why.

$787.5 million. That's how much Fox News agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems to settle its claims of defamation related to bogus claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Some people aren't happy that this case settled. For one reason or another they wanted these parties to have their weeks in court. But you know what? The only opinions that matter are those of Fox and Dominion.

When you litigate, you lose. This is an odd statement for a litigator to make. But it's true. When you litigate, the only people that "win" are the lawyers. It's for this reason that I believe that every claim or potential claim should settle. The two key considerations are when and for how much.

Here are three factors that litigants often consider in deciding the "when" and the "how much".

Your business should have an employee conflict of interest policy

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is under fire after the public disclosure of decades of valuable gifts he's received from right-wing donor Harlan Crow, including lavish vacations and even real estate. 

Politics aside, this story underscores the importance of having a clear and unambiguous conflict of interest policy within your organization and enforcing it when it's violated.

WIRTW #668: the “obrigado” edition

Three years ago — March of 2020 to be precise — my family and I were supposed to spend our kids' spring break in Portugal. Then a little thing called Covid happened, we canceled our trip out of an abundance of caution, and the world went to hell for a long, long time. 

Three years later we are finally set to take our Portuguese holiday. We'll spend 12 glorious and much needed June days in continental Europe's westernmost nation, split across Porto (4 days), Peniche (3 days), and Lisbon (5 days). The Airbnb's are booked, the rental car is reserved, and I've marked my tour books with all of the must-see sites both in and around our three home bases and during our journeys in between. 

Here's my question for anyone who's been to Portugal — what are your best tips? 

• Off-the-beaten-path sites? 
• Restaurant and bar recommendation? 
• Tours, wine and otherwise?
• Anything else?

Thanks in advance for playing tour guide for me. I'll reward you with pictures and stories upon my return.

Here's what I read this past week that you should read, too.

Do you know how to spot an employee at risk for mass violence?

Before Connor Sturgeon left his home with gun to travel to his place of employment, Old National Bank, to open fire in an assault that that killed five and injured eight others, he wrote a note to loved ones. He had also apparently told others that he was suicidal. This was just the most recent in a string of never-ending workplace tragedies.

Prior to Monday, were there any signals to anyone at Old National Bank that Sturgeon was about to be a major problem, that he could kill those with whom he worked in spectacular and tragic fashion?

Sturgeon was a banker with no criminal history. Still, even without a history of criminal violence in one's background (which isn't necessarily a predictor of future violence) there are certain warning signs for which an employer can look to help determine whether an employee is at risk for potential violence.

Federal agencies need to stay in their lanes

• National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announce new partnership to address employer surveillance, monitoring, and data collection in the workplace


• Worker advocates call on OSHA to set standard on employee surveillance


• NLRB General Counsel may seek to invalidate non-compete clauses in employee severance agreements

These are just a few of headlines I've recently read in which one federal agency or another is signaling an intent to regulate outside of its core mission. Federal agencies should stay in their lanes, period. OSHA regulates workplace safety. The NLRB regulates the relationship between unions and management, and in non-union settings the rights of employees to engage in protected concerted activity.