Filing an EEOC charge doesn’t automatically buy an employee job immunity

Some believe that once an employee complains to the EEOC, discipline must stop. Supervisors must tread lightly. Performance problems must be ignored.

The 4th Circuit just reminded everyone that's not how Title VII works.

In Andrews v. DeJoy, the court affirmed summary judgment for the Postal Service on a retaliation claim brought by a clerk who had a long history of documented performance problems — both before and after she filed an EEOC complaint.

After loudly clashing with her supervisor and being escorted from the building by police, the employee, a clerk, filed an EEOC charge. After her post-suspension return to work, management continued documenting attendance issues, insubordination, and performance deficiencies, eventually issuing a notice of removal (later reduced to a suspension through arbitration).

She sued, claiming retaliation. She lost.

WIRTW #785: the 'sometimes a coffee cup is just a coffee cup' edition

Arsenal–Tottenham is one of the nastiest rivalries in sports. If you don't follow English football, think Eagles–Cowboys, Yankees–Red Sox, or Ohio State–Michigan, and then crank it up a notch or ten. London neighbors. More than a century of history and hatred.

Which is why it was a really, really big deal earlier this week when Thomas Frank, Tottenham's manager, was photographed holding a coffee cup with an Arsenal logo on it.

Social media lost its mind.

By all accounts, it was an accident. Spurs were away at Bournemouth. Arsenal had just played there over the weekend. Frank grabbed a cup from the away dressing room without noticing it belonged to his club's biggest rival. Asked about it, he responded the only way he could: "Of course I wouldn't do that. That would be really stupid." He added that with Spurs not playing well, it would be "absolutely stupid" for him to focus on something so trivial instead of the football.

Fair enough. Especially when the Arsenal sit 22 points clear at the top of the table and Spurs are mired in 14th.

Your workplace could have its own version of this moment. The trade show photo. The LinkedIn post. The Instagram story that lives forever in screenshots. There's your employee—company badge on—wearing the wrong quarter-zip. Holding a competitor's tote bag. Standing a little too close to a rival's booth. Marketing panics. Leadership fumes. Someone asks whether "this is a problem."

Start with the obvious question: Was it intentional? Most of the time, no. Swag is everywhere. People grab what's clean, warm, or nearby. That's not disloyalty. It's human.

Next question: Was there any real harm? Did a customer complain? Did a deal fall apart? Or did only internal pride take a hit? If the damage is theoretical or ego-based, you're already flirting with overreaction.

Then ask the most important question: What culture are you reinforcing? If you treat honest mistakes like acts of betrayal, employees learn to hide things—or to stop using judgment altogether. A quiet reminder about branding expectations is reasonable. Discipline usually isn't. Sure, if an employee is deliberately promoting a competitor or repeatedly ignoring guidance, that’s a different conversation. But earn that conclusion with facts, not outrage.

Not every rival logo is treason. Sometimes it's just the wrong cup in the wrong locker room. Sometimes a coffee cup is just a coffee cup.

And for the record…

Up the Arsenal! Come on you Gunners!

---

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

4 solid steps to win your disability discrimination/reasonable accommodation case

The 6th Circuit just delivered an opinion that reinforces two lessons employers should already know: accommodations require clarity and documentation, and timecard falsification is a litigation killer.

Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp. reassigned a maintenance supervisor with nearly 30 years of service to 12-hour night shifts. He complained that the schedule was worsening his Type 2 diabetes, specifically that the night shift was "killing" him. Management told him to provide medical documentation if he needed an accommodation. Upon his presentation of a doctor's note, the company moved him to day shift as requested.

Then came the problem. The company audited his outage time entries against objective badge-swipe data from the plant's protected area. The audit revealed discrepancies in 21 of 26 entries, including 10 overstated by more than 30 minutes. Management interviewed him (with a witness present), reviewed security data, escalated the issue to HR, and a separate internal review team conducted its own investigation. The company fired him for falsifying time records.

He sued for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.

The law is clear: protect your employees, not a problem customer

He's a regular. Spends money. Knows the beer list. The kind of customer small breweries are told they can't afford to lose.

But the female staff would disagree.

Over time, they start to notice things. Lingering looks. Comments that don't quite cross the line — but get uncomfortably close. Walking employees to their cars when no one asked him to. Nothing overtly sexual. Nothing you can circle in red and say, that's the moment. Just a steady accumulation of unease.

Then management learns something else: the customer is a registered sex offender. His offense? Sexually propositioning a minor.

The question isn't whether your employees are using AI at work (they are), but whether you're prepared for it

Employees using AI at work will be the workplace issue of 2026.

Not remote work.
Not noncompetes.
Not DEI.

AI.

Because employees are already using it — to draft emails, summarize documents, create work product, prepare presentations, and even help with performance reviews — whether employers have approved it or not.

And most companies are completely unprepared.

A tale of two (alleged) sexual assaults

A popular Cleveland restaurant and a popular Charlotte brewery chose very different paths after their owners were accused of sex-based crimes.

After rape charges were filed against the owner of Cleveland's TownHall, the owner's response was to fight—attack the prosecution, question the process, threaten legal action, and keep operating as usual. The framing was unmistakable: this was a legal fight, not a business crisis.

In contrast, after the owner of Charlotte's Sycamore Brewing was charged with raping a 13-year-old child, the response went the other direction. Leadership changed. The owner was removed. Divestment was announced.

And this week, Sycamore went further. Its taproom will close beginning today—not because the business committed any wrongdoing, but to allow for community healing and reflection. The current owner publicly expressed concern for the alleged victim, confirmed the complete removal of her former partner from the business, and made clear that Sycamore's future must align with the values of the community it serves.

'Twas the Employment Law Night Before Christmas (2025 edition)

In what has become an annual tradition for my final post of the year, I present the holiday classic, 'Twas the Employment Law Night Before Christmas … tweaked and updated for 2025.

To all of my readers, connections, and followers, new and legacy, thank you all for reading, commenting, and sharing throughout the year. Please have a happy and, most importantly, healthy and safe holiday season.

I'll see everyone on January 5, 2026, with new content to kick off the new year, including a fresh batch of Worst Employer nominees.

*  *  *