Providing another artificial legal reason for employers to prohibit social-media “fraternization” between managers and the employees they supervise. [Molly DiBianca, Delaware Employment Law Blog]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
{ 3 comments }
oh lord, as required by CA law for public employee supervisors, I have to complete (including passing a quiz) Harassment and Discrimination Training every two years. Just finished it a few weeks ago … and I did find the section on “retalization” vague enough to be worrisome.
Heck, I guess this would mean if one is going to invite some subordinates from work to one’s wedding, then you invite all or none. Ditto off grounds baby showers and private christmas parties.
sheesh
oh crud .. should be “retaliation” — I blame the “z” on the flu ….
I’m guessing the retaliation charge was added to increase the employee’s chances of winning the case, not because they were genuinely offended. How psychotic would you have to be to presume that you should still be considered friends with someone even after you try to charge them for discrimination?
Comments on this entry are closed.