That matters. Because under federal law, and organization can file an EEOC charge:

1. On someone else's behalf—but you need their permission or some connection to the case.
2. On its own behalf—but only if you've actually been harmed.

AFL checks neither box here. It's not a plaintiff. It's a political organization with a vendetta against DEI. Filing an EEOC charge isn't the same as rage-posting on X.

So what happens now? The EEOC doesn't need a formal charge to open an investigation. A Commissioner Charge—filed by any sitting EEOC commissioner—can kickstart an inquiry if there's reason to believe an unlawful employment practice occurred. AFL's letter is effectively a political provocation, daring the Commission to act. And with the EEOC's current composition, it just might.

Procedure aside, let's talk some substance. Is having a DEI mission statement illegal? No. Is recruiting from underrepresented communities unlawful? Also no. Is having resource groups illegal? No, as long as they are open to everyone.

Title VII bans using race, sex, or other protected traits as deciding factors in employment—not talking about diversity, tracking it, or fostering inclusion.

If an employer uses identity as a plus factor or sets hard quotas, that's where the legal risk grows. But mission statements and resource groups? They're not smoking guns. They're best practices, unless, of course, you're trying to drag us back to 1963.

Not every DEI policy is illegal. Not every disagreement is discrimination. And not every right-wing nonprofit gets to play the role of victim without an actual victim. That's called political theater.

     

Related Stories

• EEOC issues guidance on "DEI-related discrimination," but doesn't bother to define it
• The "Restoring Biological Truth to the Workplace Act" isn't about truth, it's about protecting bigotry
• PIPs are performance improvement plans, not employee termination plans

 

     

Related Stories

• When rights collide: religious beliefs vs. gender identity in the workplace
• 🚨 SCOTUS refused to extend Bostock—but it also didn't gut it. That matters, a lot.
• When immigration policy change overnight…

 

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects employees' rights to engage in concerted activity—including organizing a union and discussing it with co-workers. That protection applies whether you're a warehouse worker or a pediatric subspecialist.

An employer can restrict employee use of internal systems—like email or directories—for nonwork purposes, including union organizing. But:

An employer certainly can't enforce restrictions only when union talk makes it uncomfortable. So even if UH has a policy limiting directory use (which is far from clear), targeting only the doctors organizing a union is likely unlawful anyway.

Aside from the legalities, from a union-avoidance perspective this move is as shortsighted as it is risky. Retaliation, real or perceived, doesn't silence organizing. It fuels it. It validates the exact concern these employees are raising—that leadership is unresponsive, punitive, and unwilling to listen.

What should UH have done instead? Focus on what it can control: create space for employees to raise concerns broadly—about staffing, workloads, management responsiveness—and actually act on that feedback. When employees feel heard and respected, they're much less likely to seek outside representation.

By trying to stamp out this spark, however, UH may have just dumped gasoline on it. Because nothing grows union support faster than a heavy-handed reminder of why employees are organizing in the first place.

     

Related Stories

• Do not undervalue the importance of confidentiality in workplace investigations
• A day without associates
• This is how NOT to respond to employee complaints

 

For the past 18+ years, I've written about the intersection of law, policy, and the American workplace. But more and more, the news I feel compelled to cover—and the commentary I'm driven to write—has expanded far beyond employment law and HR drama.

Because the truth is, something much bigger is happening in this country.

America today barely resembles the nation it claims to be. In our institutions, our politics, and even our public discourse, we're beginning to mirror the authoritarianism we've spent the last 249 years claiming to oppose. We're becoming what the Founding Fathers created this country to resist.

So I've launched something new: Authoritarian Alarm—a Substack newsletter dedicated to tracking America’s quickening slide into authoritarianism. My first post is now available: We've become everything we've fought against for 249 years.

If you've valued my perspective on these issues before, I hope you'll join me there. Subscribe, share, and help me sound the alarm.

Because silence is complicity.
And democracy doesn't defend itself.

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

The Kids Are Organizing—and the Law Can’t Keep Up — via Michael VanDervort's Labor Relatedly

The National Labor Relations Act worked for 90 years. Suddenly, it's in the crosshairs — via William B. Gould IV, professor of law emeritus at Stanford Law and chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, writing at the Los Angeles Times

​​Six Ways a 78-Year-Old Law is Still Screwing Workers — via CounterPunch

SCOTUS Endorses Disappearing People — via The Firewall

When ICE arrives: A strategic communications playbook — via Ragan Communications

Finally, Some DHS Guidance for Employers Dealing with the Termination of Work Authorization for CHNV Parolees — via BeLabor the Point

This CEO's Rant Against HR Went Viral. It's a Lesson in What Not to Do — via Suzanne Lucas, the Evil HR Lady, writing at Inc.

"If she went along with it, it's not harassment." Employers: Stop. Rewind. Think again. — via The Emplawyerologist

A Meme, a Minister, and a Judge Who Was Not Amused — via Eric Meyer's Employer Handbook Blog

Welcome to the 'infinite workday' of 8 p.m. meetings and constant messages — via CNN

I've Got a "Question" For You: 25 years of "Once in your life…" — via Time and Temperature by Rhett Miller

25 Years Later, De Stijl by The White Stripes Remains a Dime-Store Masterpiece — via Consequence

     

Related Stories

• WIRTW #763: the 'shiny and new' edition
• WIRTW #762: the 'cheers' edition
• WIRTW #761: the 'boss' edition

 

That's the viral line from Jennifer Sey, who founded XX-XY Athletics in March 2024. She thinks Human Resources is just the "social-justice police." According to her, they are nothing more than a department of hall monitors: "They produce nothing. They monitor our words. They tell us what we can and cannot say. They inhibit creativity. It's bad for business."

Let's clear this up:
HR is not the problem.
HR is not your censor.
HR is not some DEI-driven thought police force trying to ruin your fun.

What HR is—done right—is the foundation of every successful, scalable, and sustainable company. It's the function that recruits the people who build your business, builds the culture that retains them, and puts the guardrails in place to keep you out of court and off the front page.

Want innovation? You need people.
Want people? You need culture.
Want culture? You need HR.

Who's addressing burnout, fixing dysfunction, making sure your managers actually know how to manage, and keeping you out of court? Spoiler alert: It's HR.

Any company that wants to grow needs HR to have a real seat at the table, shaping strategy alongside finance, operations, marketing, tech, and every other core function.

If your idea of "freedom" is the ability to ignore harassment, pay women less than men, deny accommodations, and build a company where "disruption" means no rules and no respect—then you're not running a business. You're running a liability factory.

HR doesn't kill creativity; it enables it—by creating a workplace where people feel safe enough to take risks, speak up, and do great work.

Requiring employees to be respectful human beings isn't a threat to your bottom line. It's the bare minimum.

So no, HR isn't the problem. HR is the reason your company hasn't burned to the ground.

     

Related Stories

• Don’t eat the chicken (yet): A lesson in workplace investigations from a Portuguese rooster