It's also a ton of fun … in the right setting. The workplace is not that setting.
That's precisely what led to the hostile work environment claim in O'Connor v. Soul Surgery.
Kerry O'Connor, a Behavioral Health Technician at Soul Surgery, a residential rehab center for patients with addiction and mental health issues, claimed that his supervisor required him to play Cards Against Humanity with co-workers and residents, which he argued created a hostile work environment based on his sex, religion, race, disability, and age.
The court disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, dismissing O'Connor's lawsuit.
1./ While O'Connor described the game as offensive and inappropriate, he failed to show that it specifically targeted him or his protected characteristics. Instead, he described it as "equal opportunity" offensiveness rather than unlawful discrimination.
2./ O'Connor was only required to play the game once, for 90 minutes, and as soon as he raised concerns, management removed it immediately. Because harassment must be severe (a serious, one-time incident) or pervasive (occurring repeatedly over time), a single instance of playing a board game—even an offensive one—wasn't enough.
TL;DR: Work is not for playing Cards Against Humanity. Just because it's not unlawful doesn't mean it's appropriate. Or, in the style of Cards Against Humanity:
Cards Against Humanity doesn't belong at work because _____.
🃏 HR already plays enough Whac-A-Mole with bad decisions.
🃏 It turns team bonding into billable hours for the company's outside counsel.
🃏 No employee should ever have to explain why "Grandma's special massage" was a winning card.