When rights collide: religious beliefs vs. gender identity in the workplace

An employee tells HR, "I can't use my coworker's preferred pronouns. It's against my religion." What now?

This isn't theoretical or hypothetical—it's happening in businesses across the country. Just ask Spencer Wimmer, a former Generac Power Systems employee who refused to use a transgender colleague's pronouns on the basis of his Christian faith and was fired as a result. He's now filed an EEOC charge, claiming religious discrimination.

This is not an isolated development. It's the front lines of a growing legal and cultural tension: What happens when one person's protected rights collide with another's?

Here's my take: We can't use religion as a license to discriminate.

DEI-washing

Verizon just made headlines — by eliminating its entire DEI program. In a memo to the FCC, the company announced sweeping changes:

NO DEI roles or departments

NO DEI references in training materials

NO demographic hiring goals

NO supplier diversity benchmarks

NO scholarships or internships targeted at underrepresented groups

NO diversity-focused recognition surveys.

NO mention of “diversity, equity, or inclusion” on its website or in recruiting materials

NO mention of “diversity, equity, or inclusion” in recruiting materials

And yet, despite this full-scale rollback, Verizon insists it remains "committed to … an inclusive culture."

Let me be very, very clear: You cannot claim to support inclusion while dismantling every tool you've built to achieve it. That's like closing your fire department while saying you're committed to fire safety.

WIRTW #760: the 'sportswashing' edition

What do you know about "sportswashing"? If you're like me, it's very little. That is, until I asked ChatGPT.

Sportswashing is a practice by which governments use sports to improve or launder a tarnished reputation. I needed to education myself on this topic fairly quickly so that I could read my son's 10th grade history research paper with a base of knowledge upon which to critique it.

So, I activated ChatGPT's deep research tool in its new 4.1 model and asked the following: "Can you draft a detailed and persuasive memo on sportswashing in global football."

ChatGPT responded with some follow-up questions:

1. Who is the intended audience? (e.g., general public, a school project, a policy maker, a sports organization)
2. Do you want the memo to focus on specific countries or cases, like Russia 2018, Qatar 2022, or Trump's involvement in 2026?
3. Should the memo include proposed actions or solutions, or just explain the issue?
4. How long or in-depth would you like the memo to be?

I answered: University-level research paper; No; Propose solutions; 10 pages, double-spaced. And off it went. 15 minutes later, I had my results—a well-researched and detailed memo on the issue—which can download and read here.

This experience highlights both the powerful advantages of using generative AI tools like ChatGPT for legal and professional research. Still, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out their inherent risks.

On one hand, ChatGPT's speed, breadth of knowledge, and ability to produce clear, structured analysis can dramatically enhance efficiency—delivering well-informed content in minutes that might otherwise take hours, days, or even weeks. This democratizes access to complex topics and supports professionals in making faster, more informed decisions.

On the other hand, reliance on AI-generated content without critical review can be risky. ChatGPT, while capable, is not infallible and may present information that lacks nuance, context, or up-to-date accuracy.

For legal professionals in particular—where precision, source validation, and ethical responsibility are paramount—AI should be treated as a powerful assistant, not as a substitute for human expertise and judgment. Used thoughtfully, it can be an important tool; used carelessly, it may lead to oversights or misinformed conclusions. Blind reliance without verification is reckless and irresponsible. Nevertheless, I remain impressed by the work product that ChatGPT can produce, and can't wait to see how it continues to develop, evolve, and improve.

---

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

---

Brewing up a tipped wages nightmare

Brewery owners: Let's talk why class-action lawyers are just as interested in your payroll practices as your flagship IPA.

A new lawsuit against a Georgia craft brewery is making the rounds, and it's the same old recipe—alleged FLSA violations in how tipped employees are paid. Don't brew the same legal trouble for yourself. 

Here's what every taproom, brewpub, and brewery owner needs to know to stay out of court in wage and hour lawsuits:

Do not undervalue the importance of confidentiality in workplace investigations

After a Costco employee filed a sexual harassment complaint, she and others were required to sign an "Acknowledgement of Confidentiality" form. It prohibited employees from discussing the investigation. 

Later, the company sent a letter instructing her to treat the outcome as confidential, even after the investigation had concluded.

Costco said the practice was necessary to preserve the integrity of the investigation.

Federal court guts EEOC guidance on trans rights

Federal court to SCOTUS: "We read your opinion, but we're going to pretend you didn't mean what you said."

That's essentially what just happened in Texas v. EEOC.

A federal judge struck down part of the EEOC's 2024 harassment guidance, ruling that Title VII does not protect transgender workers from being misgendered, denied access to bathrooms aligned with their gender identity, or required to dress according to their sex assigned at birth.

WIRTW #759: the 'HBD' edition

🎉 My blog is officially an adult. Last week, it turned 18 years old.

On May 9, 2007, I hit "publish" on my very first post. It was about a Supreme Court retaliation case, because of course it was. It's fascinating to see how my tone and style have matured (or, perhaps more accurately, immatured) over the years.

Fast forward to today: 4,470 posts later, and this blog is somehow still going strong. That's:
✅ Millions of words on employment law
✅ Hundreds of stories about HR disasters

✅ 759 "What I Read This Week" lists
✅ Dozens of "Worst Employer" nominees
✅ Too many musical references no one asked for

When I started, blogs were cutting edge. LinkedIn barely existed. Twitter was a baby. AI was still science fiction. And I honestly didn't know if anyone other than my dad would read this thing. (He still does.)

Eighteen years in, the blog has given me a platform, a voice, and a way to connect with readers, clients, reporters, and colleagues around the world. It's also brought me lasting friendships and provided a much-needed creative escape from the daily grind of practicing law.

Thanks to everyone who's read, shared, commented, or said, "Hey, I actually like reading legal content." You’ve kept me writing—day after day, week after week, year after year.

Here's to the next 18!

---

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

---