But it didn't stop there. Prayer services began appearing in government buildings. Invitations circulated. Policies allowed employees to "persuade" coworkers of their religious views. Leadership messaging leaned into a single faith tradition. And with that, the atmosphere changed. Employees described a growing sense of discomfort, pressure, and division—even when everything was labeled "voluntary."

That shift isn't surprising. When religion enters the workplace through leadership, it stops being personal and becomes institutional. This isn't about hostility to religion. Employees have every right to their beliefs, and Title VII protects those rights. Employers must accommodate sincerely held religious practices. People can pray, observe holidays, and express their faith within reasonable limits. None of that is controversial.

The problem arises when the employer becomes the messenger. Power changes everything. When a coworker shares their beliefs, you can disengage. When your boss—or your agency head—does it, the message carries weight. It signals expectation, even if none is explicitly stated. "Optional" starts to feel like a test. "Voluntary" starts to feel like a signal. And silence begins to feel safer than honesty. That's not inclusion; it's pressure.

That's why neutrality matters. Workplaces are not houses of worship; they are shared environments for people of different faiths and no faith at all. The only way that works is if the employer stays out of the religion business. Not anti-religion. Not pro-religion. Neutral. Because once leadership elevates one belief system, others inevitably feel like they don't quite belong.

There are legal risks, of course—religious harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and for public employers, constitutional concerns. But the more immediate damage is cultural. Trust erodes. Division grows. Employees who should feel safe speaking up instead stay silent.

Employers need to stay in their lane. Protect religious expression and accommodate it when required. But don't promote it, don't organize it, and don't wrap it in your institutional voice. Once that line is blurred, the consequences are no longer within your control.

     

Related Stories

• Let's count the ways Pete Hegseth's speech would get your company sued
• Civil-rights enforcement isn't a culture-war trophy
• When you protest too much, we all think you're hiding something

 

That's what a Black legal assistant claims a law firm partner told her in a closed-door meeting.

The employee sued for a hostile work environment.

The employer won.

That's where the court case ends—but it's not where the employer lesson should.

The Eleventh Circuit applied settled law. One offensive comment—even one this grotesque—is usually not "severe or pervasive" enough to violate Title VII. A single remark typically isn't enough.

So yes, the case was dismissed.

But what does it say about the workplace that produced it?

A partner—someone with authority—said that out loud in a closed-door meeting. That doesn't happen in a vacuum. It reflects a culture that failed to draw clear lines or enforce them.

The firm did what many employers do after the fact. It apologized, reassigned the employee, and created distance between her and the partner. Those steps likely helped limit liability.

They don't make this a success story.

Courts aren't evaluating your culture. They're applying a high legal threshold. Title VII is not a civility code, and plenty of unacceptable behavior falls short of liability.

Too many employers read decisions like this and take comfort in the wrong takeaway. "Case dismissed" becomes "we're fine," or "we don’t have risk."

You're not. And you do.

Because the real risk isn't this plaintiff, who alleged one comment and lost. It's the next one who alleges two. Or brings a witness. Or shows a pattern. Then you're not reading a dismissal—you're defending a case you might not win.

And even if you never see a courtroom, you're still paying for it. Comments like this don't just create legal exposure. They destroy trust in ways no apology can fully repair and damage your reputation in the community.

The law gave this employer a win. It didn't give it a pass.

If you're training managers to stay just shy of "severe or pervasive," you're aiming at the wrong target. The goal isn't to avoid liability. The goal is to make sure no one thinks a comment like that is ever acceptable to begin with.

Because "we won that lawsuit" is a terrible measure of your workplace—and an even worse one of your culture.

     

Related Stories

• Culture is what you tolerate
• Employers can no longer count on private arbitration when sexual harassment is on the docket
• A wiener of a lawsuit

 

That's the story out of Ontario, California.

The most chilling detail? Authorities say the suspect filmed himself setting fires while saying, "All you had to do was pay us enough to live."

If true, that's more than evidence. It's a warning.

Most unhappy employees don't light matches. They quit. They disengage. They complain.

But some simmer. And when frustration festers—about pay, treatment, or something deeper—it can spill over in ways employers never see coming.

This case also appears to involve something more than a paycheck dispute. Prosecutors say the suspect expressed hostility toward corporations and framed his actions as workers versus shareholders.

That's not just dissatisfaction. That's ideology.

You can't litigate ideology out of someone. But you can manage risk around it. Start here:

1. Treat onboarding as a risk-control function.
Three weeks. That's all it took. New hires are your least connected and most unpredictable population. Set expectations early. Check in often. Don't assume silence equals satisfaction.

2. Create real channels for employee voice—and use them.
If employees feel unheard internally, they may express it externally. Exit interviews are too late. Pulse early. Train managers to escalate concerns before they calcify.

3. Pay attention to fairness, not just pay.
You don't need to win every compensation argument. But you do need to explain decisions. Perceived inequity drives behavior far more than absolute dollars.

4. Train supervisors to spot escalation, not just performance issues.
Withdrawal, agitation, fixation on grievances—these are management issues before they become security issues.

5. Assume everything is recordable and public.
This was allegedly filmed, narrated, and posted. Your workplace is one viral clip away from becoming evidence. Act—and train—accordingly.

6. Don't ignore cultural signals.
Language that frames the workplace as "us versus them" isn't just rhetoric. In the wrong hands, it becomes justification.

You can't prevent every bad act. Some people will make terrible decisions no matter what. But you can make your workplace less likely to produce one. Because it only takes one employee to turn a people problem into a business-ending event.

     

Related Stories

• Bribery scandals don't start with bad employees; they start with bad culture
• A tale of two (alleged) sexual assaults
• Five things to consider in a difficult termination

 

Not when they walk through the office door. There is no office door.

So is it when they log in? When they boot up their computer? When they launch the software that actually lets them take calls?

For remote non-exempt employees, those questions aren’t academic. They’re the difference between paid time and unpaid time.

And the 6th Circuit just signaled it’s ready to answer them.

In a case involving remote call center workers, the court is taking up when the workday actually starts for non-exempt employees who must power up computers, log into multiple programs, and get fully “call ready” before they can do the job they’re paid to perform.

That matters under the FLSA. Because once the workday begins, the pay clock is running.

Historically, the “continuous workday” doctrine tied compensable time to the first principal activity. In a physical workplace, that might be donning required gear or logging into a workstation.

But what’s the first principal activity for a remote call center employee?

Is it turning on the computer? Logging into the VPN? Opening the call-handling software? Or only when they’re officially available to take calls?

Employees will argue that all the required boot-up and log-in steps are integral and indispensable to their jobs—and therefore compensable. Employers will argue that the workday starts only once the employee is fully operational and ready to take calls.

The 6th Circuit now gets to draw that line.

Here’s the problem: in a remote environment, that line is anything but clear. And ambiguity is fertile ground for wage-and-hour litigation—especially class and collective actions.

If your business uses remote employees, you should be paying attention.

Define when the workday begins. Be explicit about what pre-shift activities are required—and which are indispensable versus ancillary. Align your timekeeping systems with the reality of how employees actually start their day. And train managers not to create expectations that employees should be “ready to go” before their paid time begins.

Because if employees must perform a series of required steps before they can do their jobs, a court may very well decide that the workday starts with the first of those steps—not the last.

The 6th Circuit may soon give us clarity. Don’t count on it landing where you want.

     

Related Stories

• 5 steps for an employer to win an off-the-clock overtime claim
• A dollar saved, a tip credit destroyed
• There are no “quick favors” in wage-and-hour law

 

Those were the concluding words in a scribe Bill Ackman, a hedge fund CEO, posted on X in defense of a discrimination lawsuit facing his company.

His post, while deeply personal, is a masterclass in how NOT to handle employment litigation.

Let me be clear. CEOs absolutely have the right to defend their companies against what they believe are meritless claims. Some lawsuits are opportunistic. Some are not. That's what courts are for.

But the moment a CEO decides to litigate that dispute in the court of public opinion, the risk calculus changes—and not in the company's favor.

Start with control. Once you take your story public, you no longer own it. The narrative splinters. Media outlets cherry-pick details. Social media amplifies outrage. And plaintiff's counsel? They sit back and watch you do their work for them.

Because that's the second problem—you're creating evidence. Every assertion, every characterization, every "fact" you post is now part of the record. Opposing counsel will dissect it line by line, looking for inconsistencies, exaggerations, or admissions. What feels like a defense becomes a deposition exhibit and evidence of pretext.

Third, you're inflating the stakes. Most employment cases are business decisions dressed up as legal disputes. They resolve quietly because that's often the rational outcome. But once you go public, you've turned a dispute into a spectacle. Now settlement isn't just about dollars—it's about saving face.

Fourth, you're undercutting your own lawyers. Effective legal strategy requires discipline, precision, and timing. A CEO posting a blow-by-blow account on X is the opposite of all three. You're not helping your case; you're destabilizing it.

And then there's your workforce. Employees aren't reading your post as a principled stand. They're asking a simpler question: if something goes wrong for me, will my employer take it to the internet? That's not a culture-builder.

None of this means CEOs should roll over. They shouldn't. Defend the case. Take it to trial if necessary. Push back against meritless claims.

But do it in the right forum.

Because the court of public opinion has no rules of evidence, no burden of proof, and no off switch. And once you step into it, you may win the argument, and lose everything else.