Lessons from a recent retaliation case

Dr. Carla Campbell-Jackson, a Black woman with 30 flawless years working at State Farm, found herself out of a job after raising concerns about systemic discrimination within the company against minority customers and employees. When she spoke up, she claimed her stellar performance reviews dropped, and soon after, State Farm terminated her for allegedly violating company policy by sending an email with sensitive information defending her performance.

Campbell-Jackson believed her termination wasn't about the email—it was retaliation for her complaints.

She sued, and the 6th Circuit revived her case. 

📱 Apple’s BYOD lawsuit: a cautionary tale for employers 💻

A recent lawsuit filed by an Apple employee against the company highlights the risks of mishandling Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies. The employee claims the tech giant monitored personal devices and iCloud accounts, sparking privacy and legal concerns. It's a stark reminder that allowing personal devices at work requires a carefully crafted policy that balances company needs with employee rights.

Here's how to do it right:

Life without a Department of Labor isn't as efficient as some will tell you

What happens if the Department of Labor vanishes? It's not some dystopian fantasy—it's an actual possibility under Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's "Department of Government Efficiency." They could eliminate the DOL entirely. The pitch? Let states handle it. The reality? It's a disaster waiting to happen.

Leave us bald guys alone!

This one hits close to home. In Tony Finn v. British Bung Company, a UK tribunal ruled that calling a man "bald" constitutes sexual harassment. Why? Because baldness disproportionately affects men, the comment was deemed inherently tied to sex. The insult—a crude "bald c---"—was judged degrading, offensive, and gender-based.

But let's take this across the pond. Would a U.S. court agree? 

WIRTW #739: the 'rage against the machine' edition

In this week's episode of The Norah and Dad Show, my daughter and I discuss how we're feeling in the aftermath of the 2024 election. Hint: it's not great. Sadness, anger, acceptance … we work through our stages of grief throughout a tight 25 minutes.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Amazon Music, Overcast, the web, and anywhere else you get your podcasts.

---

If you missed the live broadcast of this week's webinar on how the election will shape employment law in 2025, with host Eric Meyer, Dan Schwartz, Amy Epstein Gluck, Dessi Day, and me, our gracious host posted the video to YouTube. You can watch the replay — once, twice, on an endless loop until you have it memorized — here.

---

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

10 Things to Include in Your Artificial Intelligence Policy — via hr bartender

Apparent AI Hallucinations in AI Misinformation Expert's Court Filing Supporting Anti-AI-Misinformation Law — via The Volokh Conspiracy

ChatGPT's search engine might end your dependence on Google — via Boy Genius Report

Have the Trump-ets Sounded for AI Regulation Protecting American Workers? — via The L•E•Jer

The 2024 Election and Small and Independent Breweries — via The Brewers Association

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have spelled out their plans for DOGE — via The Verge

5 Ohio Law Schools Drop Their Diversity Scholarships and Programs — via Above the Law

What the Election Tells Us About How Employers Should Support Worker and Family Health — via EntertainHR

Déjà vu all over again: a Texas federal judge erased the new OT rules nationwide — via Eric Meyer's The Employer Handbook Blog

How Will the U.S. Election Outcome Affect Labor Law? A Deep Dive into the NLRB's Future — via Employment Law Worldview

Bad Dough: N.J. Bakery Hit With $385K Fine by OSHA For Not Fixing Workplace Safety Dangers — via Joe's HR and Benefits Blog

GLP-1 drug coverage for obesity making inroads with large employers — via HR Dive

One Use of the "N-word" Lands an Employer in a Jury Trial – Lessons to Learn — via California Employment Law

Bluesky Captures My Attention Like Twitter Did 18 Years Ago — via Real Lawyers Have Blogs

We Asked 10 Beer Pros: What’s the Biggest Red Flag at a Brewery Taproom? — via VinePair

DOL confirms the obvious — the FMLA covers time off spent in clinical trials

Can employees use FMLA leave to participate in clinical trials for their serious health conditions? Of course, they can—how is this even a question?

In a recent opinion letter, the Department of Labor confirmed what feels like common sense: treatment provided during a clinical trial counts as treatment for a "serious health condition" under the FMLA. If an employee is eligible for FMLA leave and the trial addresses their condition, the statute covers their absences—end of story. It doesn't matter if the treatment is experimental, uses a placebo, or hasn't yet proven effective.

"Biological Women Only" = "Whites Only" = Discrimination

Can someone please explain the difference between labeling a women's restroom for "biological" women and labeling one for "white" women? Because I fail to see any difference between these two blatantly discriminatory scenarios.

Rep. Nancy Mace recently affixed the former label to a restroom in the Capitol and introduced legislation requiring people to use Capitol bathrooms that correspond to their sex assigned at birth.

When asked about her actions, Mace openly admitted that her intent was to target Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender person elected to Congress. This kind of targeting is bigoted, unacceptable, and unlawful.

New NLRB Ruling: Employer "captive-audience speeches" on unionization are now illegal

In a significant decision, the NLRB ruled that requiring employees to attend anti-union meetings under the threat of discipline or termination violates their Section 7 rights. This is a short-term victory for unions and employees—but the landscape may shift again soon.

In Amazon Services LLC, the NLRB held that these mandatory meetings unfairly pressure employees to participate, infringe on their right to choose freely, and create a chilling effect that deters workers from exercising their rights. The Board noted that such meetings amplify an employer's economic power over employees, adding coercion to the message.