Just when you thought it was tough enough to keep your own workforce in line.
Most of you have either seen or heard about Mean Tweets from Jimmy Kimmel Live! That’s the segment where celebrities stand in front of the camera with smartphone in hand awkwardly reading the snippets of vitriol that Twitters users can spew about them in 140 characters or less. The celebrities have a good sense of humor about it. And the segment is generally good for some LOL moments.
We have an extra-special guest blogger today. It’s my mentee, Meaghan Londergan. (Sorry, folks, all of The Karate Kid images were copyright protected). Sadly, I no longer work with Meaghan. But, in her defense, there’s only so much Meyer that a young impressionable associate can take. Since then, Meaghan’s been a real mover and shaker. Now, she’s a Partner at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.
I also want to give a shout out to Meaghan’s law clerk Erika Mohr, a third-year law student at the Drexel University, Thomas R. Kline School of Law, graduating May 2016. If I taught Meaghan anything — Meaghan, did I teach you anything? Don’t answer that. — it’s to delegate responsibility, especially on law-related articles. So, let’s assume that Erika did all the heavy lifting on this guest post.
If you want to reach Meaghan, maybe hear some
blackmail old Meyer war stories, you should connect with her on LinkedIn. Ditto for Erika, less the dirt. And if you want to guest blog on an employment-law topic at The Employer Handbook, email me.
Like a couple of sexting rabbits, a female employee and her male supervisor carrying on like, well, a pair of sexting rabbits. And, then, after the defendant-company fires the plaintiff-employee, she sues and claims that she was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment.
So, could it have gotten to the point that unwelcomed sexting became a required term or condition of the plaintiff’s employment?
Who would have guessed that, in a state without a state administrative agency to accept discrimination charges, where only age discrimination is against state law, a federal judge would rule that sexual orientation is considered sex discrimination and, therefore, a violation of Title VII.