The 2nd nominee for The Worst Employer of 2025 is … The Teenager Terrorizer

The EEOC has filed a lawsuit against six related entities operating Taco Bell restaurants for allegedly allowing a senior area manager to sexually harass female employees, including teenagers, and retaliating against a worker who reported the misconduct.

The lawsuit claims that the manager engaged in persistent sexual harassment of multiple female employees, including some who were underage, on a near-daily basis. 

Medical marijuana accommodation is highly state-law dependent

Q: Must an employer accommodate of an employee's legal use of medical marijuana?

A: It depends.

Case in point: Davis v. The Albert M. Higley Co.

Brian Davis, who used legally prescribed medical marijuana to treat his anxiety, depression, and ADHD, sued The Albert M. Higley Co. for wrongful failure to hire under Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) and for disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).

WIRTW #750: the 'rule of law' edition

This news should alarm any rational lawyer. Donald Trump has issued an Executive Order punishing Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.

The EO does the following:

• Directs federal agencies to identify and terminate, where legally permissible, contracts with Perkins Coie.
• Requires government contractors to disclose any business dealings with the firm.
• Mandates the suspension of any active security clearances held by individuals at Perkins Coie.
• Instructs the EEOC to review the diversity, equity, and inclusion practices of major law firms, including Perkins Coie, to ensure compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
• Limits official access to federal government buildings for Perkins Coie employees.
• Advises government employees to restrict official engagements with Perkins Coie or its attorneys.

"This is an absolute honor to sign," Trump said from the Oval Office. I call it a horror show.

In response, the firm says that the EO "is patently unlawful, and we intend to challenge it."

Lawyers and law firms should never fear persecution from the President of the United States for simply doing their jobs. The rule of law depends on attorneys being able to zealously represent their clients—whether they are Democrats, Republicans, corporations, or individuals—without political retribution. A functioning democracy requires an independent legal profession, free from government intimidation. If lawyers can be punished for representing disfavored clients, our entire justice system, our rule of law, and our very Constitution are all at risk.

---

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

Hate is winning, and it sucks

"We are so thankful for the community we built together. And we’re confident that the connections we've made will continue to have a positive impact in Marysville. Thanks for 3 whimsical and zany years."

That's what Teddy Valinski, owner of Walking Distance Brewing Co., shared on the brewery's Facebook page on Feb. 25, three days before it poured its final pint and closed its doors for good.

Valinski didn't elaborate on the closure, except to tell The Columbus Dispatch, "Without a doubt, our business was slowed down from the slander. ... It's sad that the attacks made even supporters feel unsafe coming."

Reputation Matters: Handling a viral controvery

"With hair on your chest, you shouldn't be wearing a dress."

"You look like an idiot."

That's what Sam Johnson, the former CEO of telehealth company VisuWell, allegedly said while harassing and berating a teenage boy who chose to wear a dress to his high school prom. The confrontation happened at a hotel where the teen and his friends were taking prom pictures.

A video of the incident went viral, capturing Johnson's remarks. The backlash was immediate, and VisuWell's board quickly started worrying about the company's reputation.

WIRTW #749: the 'DEI webinar' edition

On 3/5 at 4 pm, I'll be part of a very timely webinar on the current state of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Unlearning DEI is The Villain.

Here's the summary:

As corporate America grapples with new federal scrutiny of diversity initiatives, we're bringing together thought leaders to unpack the controversy and challenge assumptions. Host Lindsey T. H. Jackson leads an expert panel exploring DEI's true purpose beyond the headlines, the roots of current pushback, and practical strategies for building legally-sound, inclusive workplaces in this new landscape. 

Join me, along with host Lindsey T. H. Jackson, Kim "Kimfer" Flanery-Rye, MBA , and Justice Horn for this important conversation.

Register here.

---

Also, please check out the most recent episode of The Norah and Dad Show. Noah and I not only tackle Valentine's Day, but also bad science pick-up lines, Chick-fil-A Daddy/Daughter dates, and robotic toilets. It all fits together; I promise. 

You'll find the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Amazon Music, Overcast, the web, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. 

---

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

Will SCOTUS heighten the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in "reverse discrimination" cases?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who sued the Department of Youth Services for sex discrimination under Title VII. She alleged that she was passed over for a promotion, then demoted, and that a gay man was subsequently promoted into her former position—all due to her sexual orientation (straight).

Ames claimed sex discrimination, but the 6th Circuit disagreed, ruling that she failed to establish the "'background circumstances' to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

What are these "background circumstances"? According to the 6th Circuit, plaintiffs typically prove this with evidence that a member of the relevant minority group (here, gay individuals) made the employment decision at issue or with statistical evidence demonstrating a pattern of discrimination against the majority group. Ames lost because she provided neither.

And that's the issue SCOTUS will decide—does "discrimination" under Title VII mean discrimination regardless of majority or minority status, or does it take on a different meaning when the claim comes from a member of the majority class? Does a member of the majority class have to show something "more" to establish discrimination.