Without HR, you're not running a business. You're running a liability factory.

"I want to be the first company without HR."

That's the viral line from Jennifer Sey, who founded XX-XY Athletics in March 2024. She thinks Human Resources is just the "social-justice police." According to her, they are nothing more than a department of hall monitors: "They produce nothing. They monitor our words. They tell us what we can and cannot say. They inhibit creativity. It's bad for business."

Let's clear this up:
HR is not the problem.
HR is not your censor.
HR is not some DEI-driven thought police force trying to ruin your fun.

PIPs are performance improvement plans, not employee termination plans

The point of a performance improvement plan isn't to fire someone, it's to help them improve. It's right there is the name. But too often, PIPs aren't about performance or improvement.

For example, in Murphy v. Caterpillar Inc., the 7th Circuit just reversed summary judgment on the employee's age discrimination claim, and the court's reasoning serves as a stern warning to any employer using PIPs as a shortcut to termination.

Here's what Caterpillar got wrong about the PIP it delivered to Brian Murphy, a 58-year-old engineer:

I want my records back, records back, records back

When you destroy the evidence that could justify a termination, don’t be surprised when a court refuses to take your side. That's the message from the 6th Circuit's recent decision in Kean v. Brinker International, Inc., where a 59-year-old general manager of a Chili's, owned and operated by Brinker International, was fired despite running one of the most successful stores in his market.

Brinker claimed he was let go for not "living the Chili's way"—an amorphous explanation about bad "culture." Instead, Kean claimed age discrimination, supported by his stellar performance records and his post-firing replacement by someone 26 years his junior.

Brinker, however, could not support any its reasons for Kean's termination because it had destroyed all of the documents related to the termination.

WIRTW #763: the 'shiny and new' edition

Our new website is live!

I am excited to share that Wickens Herzer Panza has officially launched a completely redesigned website.

Our goal was simple: make it faster and easier to find our insights, resources, and people—while showcasing our depth and agility.

Our new site features a clean, modern design, along with refreshed and expanded content:

• Attorney Bios – Experience, focus areas, fun facts, and direct contact details.

• Practice Area & Industry Pages – Plain-language overviews of how we solve problems for businesses like yours.

• News & Alerts – Timely articles, case analyses, and thought leadership geared toward business owners and entrepreneurs.

• Firm Insights – Events, community involvement, and the culture that drives our client service.

Our refreshed branding—Big Firm Ability; Small Firm Agility—features prominently on the new home page. This isn't marketing rhetoric; it's who we are:

• Big Firm Ability – Seasoned lawyers, multi-disciplinary teams, and the bench strength to handle sophisticated transactions, complex litigation, and strategic planning.

• Small Firm Agility – Direct access to decision-makers, responsive service, and customized solutions delivered at the pace a business demands.

Massive shoutout to PaperStreet Web Design for knocking our new website out of the park!

Check out the new WickensLaw.com and let me know what you think. If you've got questions about how we can help you or your business, just grab my contact info right from the site.

---

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

🚨 SCOTUS refused to extend Bostock—but it also didn't gut it. That matters, a lot.

Yesterday, in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court held that states can constitutionally prohibit puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender teenagers, rejecting a Equal Protection challenge to the law. It's a dangerous decision. Because of the votes of six Supreme Court justices, many children will suffer and some will even die.

The Court also refused to extend Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII protects LGBTQ+ employees from workplace discrimination "because of sex."

Yet, there is hope from this opinion. The Court could have used Skrmetti to start walking back Bostock. It didn't. In fact, it went out of its way to distinguish Bostock without undermining its holding.

FIFA gets a red card for its missing anti-discrimination stance

FIFA says it has a zero-tolerance policy against racism and discrimination.

But during this year's inaugural Club World Cup—in the United States of all places—that commitment has gone missing. No "No Racism" signage. No "No Discrimination" videos. No announcements. No armbands. No social media messaging. Just silence. (And a Dance Cam encouraging people to "Be Active.")

Compare that to past FIFA tournaments, where anti-racism and inclusion messages were projected on jumbotrons, splashed across LED boards, and worn on armbands—from "Unite for Gender Equality" to "Unite for Inclusion." Now? Nothing.

FIFA hasn't explained why. But the silence speaks volumes.

When immigration policy change overnight…

What's an employer supposed to do when immigration policy shifts overnight?

That's the question employers across the country are now facing. More than 500,000 immigrant workers—who entered the U.S. legally under a humanitarian parole program—were recently told to leave their jobs and “self-deport” after the Department of Homeland Security abruptly ended the program.

The headlines are emotional. The legal issues are complex.

Generally, if an employee has a properly completed I-9 form, the employer is not liable for hiring someone who later turns out to be unauthorized. As long as the documents provided at the time of hire reasonably appear genuine and relate to the employee, you're in the clear. That's exactly how the system is meant to work.

This situation, however, is different. In this case, the government is notifying employers that certain employees' immigration status has changed—and that they are no longer authorized to remain in the U.S. Still, even under these circumstances, telling an employee to "self-deport" carries legal risk.