Search
So, your employee just tweeted that she moonlights as a porn star…
Seems appropriate to broach this trench-HR conundrum on a hump day, amirite?
(Don’t worry. I’ll be here all week).
Seems appropriate to broach this trench-HR conundrum on a hump day, amirite?
(Don’t worry. I’ll be here all week).

The answer to this question, because I’m a lawyer, is “it depends.”
Naturally, of course.

You’ll have to pardon the headline.
I’m not nearly as articulate as the Third Circuit was in yesterday’s opinion in Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, using words like “cognizable” and “disproportionate adverse impact.” And, even though the Third Circuit sits in Philadelphia, you won’t find local lingo like “old head” or “jawn” anywhere in the opinion.
Although, I’m pretty sure page 6 has a cheez whiz stain on it.
Nope, no clickbait here. And no irony in the lede either.
Plus, I feel like I’ve seen this one before.
Remember Hank the Septopus from Disney’s Finding Dory? I found his missing tentacle. And, my son ate it!
Tuesday’s Disney theme may have been germs and yuck, but we turned the corner on Wednesday.
Starting tomorrow.
Today, let’s talk about the employee who claimed sexual harassment because her male co-worker constantly stared at her with an erection — which she subsequently photographed and showed to other co-workers, and all of that morphed into a retaliation claim.
So, basically, this post will be like a sophisticated bar exam question.
Out of 276,376 page views in 2016 — thanks for reading and clicking refresh, dad — these five were straight fire!!!
5. The new DOL overtime rules are here. You’ve got HR questions? I have answers!
4. Foul! Nasty tweets to Steph Curry’s family cost a Cavs fan his job.
These are the key allegations underpinning ***Googles “underpinning”*** yes, underpinning a complaint filed in California against luxury retailer Versace.