Ohio Employer Law Blog | Daily Updates | 01CWIRTW #780: the 'breakup' edition>01D plus more

WIRTW #780: the 'breakup' edition

"You deserve someone who loves you for who you are, not who they want you to be."

That's the heart of this week's episode of The Norah & Dad Show.

Norah got dumped, and we talk all about it:

"Fake boundaries" (like rules about what she can wear, who she can hang out with, and how many drinks she's allowed)
One-sided codependency (not her)
Why being single in college is freeing
And how two parents ended up on an emergency highway run to triage her mental health.

It's part heartbreak, part humor, and part masterclass in learning to walk away from unhealthy dynamics.

If you're raising (or working with) young adults, I think you'll get a lot out of this conversation. Here's a short preview.

Listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Amazon Music, Overcast, in your browser, or wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoy it, please like, review, and subscribe—it truly helps!

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

Workers Don't Trust AI. Here's How Companies Can Change That. — via Harvard Business Review

Can AI be evil? — via Minding the Workplace

OpenAI Surprise Launches GPT-5.1, Promising A More Conversational Experience — via Boy Genius Report

Lucas named EEOC chair, commits to 'merit-based, colorblind equality' — via HR Dive

In-House Attorney Blames Firing On DEI, Jury Disagrees — via Above the Law

A Fertile Ground for Lawsuits: Employer Risk in Embryo Personhood Jurisdictions — via The L•E•Jer

I got an abusive message from an email subscriber — should I let his employer know? — via Ask a Manager

Why People Who've Failed Make the Best Employees — via Improve Your HR by Suzanne Lucas, the Evil HR Lady

Why You Got Fired After the Holiday Work Party — via Workology

Connecticut Appellate Court Reminds Employers: Timing Matters in Pregnancy Discrimination Cases — via Dan Schwartz's Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Employee Refused to Return to the Office Over "Mold." The Court's Response? Breathe Deep and Report Back to Work. — via Eric Meyer's Employer Handbook Blog

On South Park, Donald Trump and JD Vance Just Want to Know What Love Is — via Consequence

Donald Trump's path to authoritarian rule is wide open — via Salon

THC Beverages' Biggest Enemies Are Going for the Kill — via VinePair

When you protest too much, we all think you're hiding something

If you're fighting this hard to hide a file, everyone already knows what's in it.

Donald Trump trying to stop the release of the Epstein files feels a lot like that lawyer in discovery who really doesn't want to turn over a document.

You know the type. They argue every privilege, invent new ones, insist it's "irrelevant," "burdensome," or "confidential." They huff and puff, threaten sanctions, and act personally insulted that anyone would even dare to ask for it.

And every lawyer in the room thinks the same thing: There's something in that file they don't want us to see. They're trying to hide the truth.

Because if there's truly nothing there, you just produce it. You turn it over, prove your point, and move on. Transparency kills speculation. Obstruction feeds it.

If Trump really wanted to show there's nothing in the Epstein Files, he'd be first in line to release them. Instead, he's fighting like that obstructionist lawyer who knows exactly what's in the folder—and exactly why it can't see daylight.

Anyone who fights transparency this aggressively ends up in the same place. You can stall, you can spin, you can throw every objection in the book—but the truth has a way of pushing through the cracks. Files get opened. Witnesses cooperate. Courts lose patience. And the fallout isn't just the facts, it's the obvious panic behind the cover-up.

Because in law, politics, and life, innocent people don't fight this hard to hide the truth. They open the file, smile, and say, "See? Nothing there."

The louder you scream "Don't look!", the clearer it becomes that we should.

Target's new "smile" policy has some serious legal problems

You can't policy your way to happy employees. But Target sure is trying.

The retailer just rolled out its new "10-4" policy. Employees must now (1) smile, make eye contact, wave, and use "welcoming body language" within 10 feet of any customer, and (2) when within 4 feet, personally greet guests and "initiate a warm, helpful interaction."

We all appreciate good customer service. But from an employment law and HR perspective, this policy raises some serious red flags.

What happens if an employee with anxiety, autism, or another disability struggles with forced social interaction? That's a potential ADA accommodation issue.

What about employees who don't "smile enough" or make "sufficient" eye contact? That's an impossible-to-define performance standard ripe for inconsistency, which is the gray area where discrimination claims are born.

There's also potential for harassment and retaliation claims. What if employees are told to smile and engage even with customers who are being rude, aggressive, or inappropriate. If an employee refuses such an interaction and gets written up or fired, you can bet there's a retaliation claim coming.

And let's not forget the obvious: you can't mandate genuine warmth. You can only create a workplace where employees feel respected and supported enough that the smiles come naturally. If your workers are miserable, no amount of "friendly body language" training is going to fix that.

As one Reddit commenter correctly pointed out, "If your employees aren't smiling at guests, it's probably because your employees are wildly unhappy." Exactly.

The 10-4 policy may look good on paper or in a press release, but if Target really wants happier customers, it should focus less on forced smiles and more on why its employees stopped smiling in the first place.

A Veterans Day primer on USERRA

Every November 11, we pause to honor the men and women who've worn our nation's uniform. But beyond parades, flags, and "thank you for your service," there's another way employers can show real respect — by understanding and complying with USERRA, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

USERRA protects employees who serve in the military — whether active duty, National Guard, or Reserves — from discrimination and retaliation because of that service. It also guarantees their right to be reemployed when they return from duty.

The law is simple in principle but often mishandled in practice. Here are a few key reminders.

Unlike many other workplace statutes, USERRA covers virtually everyone. There's no small-business exemption, no "we're too tiny for this" exception. If you employ even one person in the United States, you're covered — whether you're a mom-and-pop shop, a city government, or a Fortune 500 company. Federal, state, and local employers are covered too. The only real exceptions are foreign governments and genuine independent contractors (who aren't "employees" under the law).

No discrimination, no retaliation. You can't make hiring, firing, promotion, or pay decisions based on someone's military obligations.

Reemployment rights are strong. When a service member returns, they must be reinstated to the job they would have had if they'd never left — with the same seniority, pay, and benefits.

Training and updates matter. If they missed training or certifications, you must give them a fair chance to catch up.

Health benefits and pension rights continue. USERRA ensures certain benefits carry through their service period.

The law doesn't care if compliance is inconvenient or if schedules are tight. Employers must adjust. It's the least we can do for people who put their civilian lives on hold to protect ours.

So today, as we thank our veterans, let's also commit to backing up those words with action — by honoring not just their service, but also their rights.

WIRTW #779: the 'fell in love with a band' edition

On August 10, 2001, I fell in love with a band.

I was at the Beachland Ballroom with my college roommate, who was in town visiting. He'd heard about an up-and-coming two-piece calling themselves The White Stripes and suggested we check them out.

When the first few chords of Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground crashed through the speakers, I was hooked — instantly.

From that moment, with the raw, simple thunder of Jack and Meg White, something clicked. It was love at first note, and I fell hard. I've since passed that love on to my daughter, Norah, with whom I share a deep musical kinship (and to whom I proudly gave impeccable taste in music).

This Saturday, The White Stripes will be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. And it feels not just appropriate, but inevitable. They didn't just ride a trend — they created one. As the Hall itself notes, they "reinvigorated rock & roll by returning it to its primal blues roots, proving that a duo with unique style could captivate."

That night at the Beachland changed how I heard music. I was lucky enough to see The White Stripes live four times before they disbanded, and Jack many more times across his various projects. I even had an unforgettable chance encounter with him in the House of Blues' Foundation Room before a Raconteurs show.

But that first show is etched. It was the beginning of a relationship that forever changed how I listen.

When their induction happens — with or without the notoriously reclusive Meg, with or without an on-stage reunion — I'll be thinking of that August night at the Beachland. I'll be thinking about how a two-piece from Detroit rewrote what live rock could feel like. And I'll be thinking about sharing that sound with my daughter, and what it means to pass that love on.

Read more about the band and their induction: