Dimerco Express USA didn't hide it. They didn't bury it in coded language. They didn't even pretend it was anything else.

They wanted to hire white employees—and they acted on it.

That directive came from the top. The company’s president pushed for "Caucasian" sales hires because he believed that’s who would best attract business. HR was expected to follow that lead. Recruiting reflected it. Internal materials reflected it. Candidate decisions reflected it.

And when someone inside the company raised the obvious issue—this is illegal discrimination—the response wasn't to stop.

It was to be more careful about saying it out loud.

An internal warning spelled it out in plain terms: if this ever becomes a lawsuit, these emails will lead to a "guilty verdict and large damage award."

The company didn't dispute that risk. It just wanted the language cleaned up.

Then came the real-world test.

Kenny Faulk applied. He had the credentials. He interviewed. He got the offer.

Then the company learned he was Black.

The offer was pulled.

The explanation given to Faulk pointed to a background issue. But internally, the story didn't hold. Because not long after, the company hired a white candidate with a more serious record—someone who got a chance to explain and was ultimately approved.

Same company. Same decision-maker. Same type of issue.

Different race. Different result.

And when HR asked why, the answer wasn't nuanced. The company wanted to hire white employees.

That's not a close call. That's not a miscommunication. That's not a poorly applied policy.

That's discrimination, carried out exactly as intended.

It was also repeated. The evidence showed a pattern of rejecting non-white candidates, reinforcing the same preferences, and continuing the practice even after internal warnings made clear it violated the law.

This wasn't a one-off decision. It was how the company operated.

A jury saw that and returned a verdict: $390,000 in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed it all, concluding the conduct was intentional, repeated, and reprehensible enough to justify significant punishment.

There's a lot of bad employer behavior out there. This one separates itself from the pack.

When you adopt a race-based hiring preference, enforce it, ignore internal warnings about its illegality, and then try to justify the outcome with shifting explanations, you're not just breaking the law.

You're making a statement about who you are as an employer.

And that's why Dimerco Express USA earns its place as the latest nominee for the Worst Employer of 2026.

Microsoft just gave corporate America a new playbook for thinning the ranks without ever uttering the words "layoff" or "older workers."

For the first time in its 51-year history, Microsoft is offering a voluntary retirement program. The eligibility formula? Your age plus your years of service must equal at least 70.

Do the math and the story tells itself. The youngest realistic participant is someone around 45 with 25 years at the company. In other words, this is a program designed—intentionally or not—to target older, long-tenured employees.

And just to make things more interesting, senior directors and above need not apply. This is aimed squarely at the middle layers of the organization.

So, is this illegal age discrimination?

Not so fast.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects workers age 40 and over. But it does not prohibit employers from offering voluntary early retirement incentives—even ones that disproportionately appeal to older employees. These programs have been around for decades, often built on similar "age + service" formulas (think the old "Rule of 80" in pension plans).

The law even provides a roadmap for how to do this correctly. The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act allows these programs so long as they are truly voluntary and include specific safeguards—clear disclosures, time to consider the offer, encouragement to consult counsel, and a revocation period after signing.

That's the legal framework Microsoft is almost certainly relying on.

But legality on paper doesn't end the analysis.

Because here's where things get risky.

If "voluntary" starts to feel like "you really should take this," the legal exposure changes. If managers subtly (or not so subtly) steer older workers toward the exit, or if those who decline find themselves sidelined, marginalized, or selected for future layoffs, plaintiffs' lawyers will have a field day.

Intent matters. Execution matters more.

There's also something undeniably strategic about the structure. By using a neutral-sounding formula—age plus years of service—Microsoft doesn't have to say anything about age. The math does the talking. And by excluding senior leadership, the company avoids losing its top executives while still reshaping the broader workforce.

Smart? Yes.

Risk-free? Not even close.

And here's the bigger takeaway for employers: when Microsoft moves, others tend to follow. Expect to see variations of this program pop up across industries, especially among companies looking to reduce costs without the optics (or morale hit) of layoffs.

Before you copy and paste, though, understand this: these programs are lawful only if you get the details right. The paperwork, the communications, the training of managers—all of it matters. A poorly executed "voluntary" program can quickly turn into an Exhibit A in an age discrimination lawsuit.

Microsoft may have found a clever way to thread the needle.

Time will tell whether others can do the same without getting stuck on it.

A longtime employee tells her employer she has breast cancer. She needs time off—intermittent leave—to undergo chemotherapy and recover. The company sends her to a third-party benefits administrator. She and her daughter try to navigate the system. They file a claim. They call. They follow up.

Nothing happens.

Instead, the absences pile up. The attendance points accrue. Even with doctor's notes.

She shows up to work, scans her badge at the door... and it doesn't open.

That's how she learns she's been fired—for missing work to treat her cancer.

If the EEOC's allegations are true, this case isn't just about a failure to accommodate. It's about an employer that checked out entirely.

According to the complaint, Marie Marc worked for Butterball for more than a decade, starting in 2013. She speaks almost exclusively Haitian Creole and often relied on her daughter to communicate with the company.

When she was diagnosed with breast cancer in August 2023, she did what the law expects. She notified her employer. She asked for leave for treatment. The company's response? Call Voya.

So she did. With her daughter's help, she tried to request leave. Voya pushed her to an online system. She filed what she was told to file.

And—according to the EEOC—no leave request was ever opened.

Meanwhile, Butterball did exactly what the ADA forbids: it treated cancer-related absences like ordinary attendance violations. It assessed points. It issued a final warning. And when chemotherapy forced her to miss additional shifts, it terminated her for exceeding the policy limits.

It gets worse.

The company didn't even tell her she was fired. It removed her from the schedule, terminated her, and left her to figure it out when her badge stopped working.

And when she finally met with HR—after showing up and being locked out—she brought yet another doctor's note and again asked for leave.

The answer was still no.

Jimmy Donaldson, better known as YouTube's biggest star, MrBeast, is calling this lawsuit "clout-chasing," a grab for headlines and a payday.

Maybe.

But before you dismiss it, look at what's alleged—and what it says about two issues entirely within an employer's control.

The lawsuit, in brief.

Lorrayne Mavromatis, the former head of Instagram operations for MrBeast, claims she was a fast-rising employee, promoted twice in her first year, until she complained about sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.

According to her complaint, that's when things changed: she was transferred, demoted to a role where "careers go to die," and then fired less than three weeks after returning from maternity leave. She also alleges she was treated differently than male colleagues and that complaints about inappropriate conduct were minimized.

The company denies it all and says it has the "receipts."

We'll see.

But two structural issues jump off the page.

First, HR.

Reports indicate that MrBeast's mother served as head of HR.

Not illegal. Still a flashing red risk light.

HR must be a neutral, trusted channel—especially for complaints about leadership. Now ask yourself, how likely is an employee to report misconduct when HR is run by a close family member of the founder or the CEO?

Even if done well, the perception alone can chill complaints. And when complaints don't surface internally, they show up in lawsuits.

Smart employers build redundancy:

• Multiple reporting channels
• Paths outside the chain of command
• Anonymous options
• Third-party resources

If employees don't trust the system, you're not managing risk. You're stockpiling it.

Second, the handbook.

The complaint points to alleged language like this:

"It's okay for the boys to be childish" and "if talent wants to draw a dick on the white board… let them."

You can call it edgy or brand voice.

I call it culture. 

When my daughter was in high school, we fired her therapist.

Not because therapy doesn't work. Not because she didn't need help. But because the therapist insisted on something that was deeply counterproductive—an obsessive focus on the negative.

Every session circled the same drain. What was wrong. What hurt. What wasn't working. Week after week.

And guess what? She didn't get better.

At some point, it clicked for my wife and me: if all you do is stare into the darkness, don’t be surprised when that's all you see.

So we made a change. We found someone who helped her see the full picture—yes, the struggles, but also the wins, the growth, the things worth building on. That's when things started to shift.

I thought about that experience a lot this week in Philadelphia.

I was at the Craft Brewers Conference. Same event as last year. Same people as last year. Very different vibe than last year.

CBC 2025 felt like a funeral.

Breweries were closing at a record pace. Margins were getting squeezed. Then came the steel tariffs—an immediate gut punch to anyone relying on cans, kegs, or equipment. The uncertainty was suffocating. You could feel it in every conversation, every panel, every handshake.

No one knew what came next.

Fast forward one year.

CBC 2026 felt… Lighter. Airier. Hopeful.

Not naive. Not delusional. No one's pretending the challenges have magically disappeared. They haven't. Closures are still happening. Costs are still high. People are still drinking less beer. Competition isn't getting any easier.

But the tone has changed.

People are innovating. Adapting. Talking about opportunity instead of just survival.

Indeed, the Brewers Association made a conscious choice not to let this year's conference become a post-mortem. They didn't ignore the hard truths, but they refused to let the industry wallow in them.

Instead, they created space for optimism.

That matters.

Because culture—whether in a therapist's office or an entire industry—is shaped by what you choose to emphasize.

Focus exclusively on failure, and you'll breed paralysis.

Acknowledge the challenges but elevate the wins, and you create momentum.

This isn't about toxic positivity. It's about balance. It's about perspective. It's about giving people something to build on.

The craft beer industry continues to face significant headwinds. Anyone suggesting otherwise is either being disingenuous or not paying attention.

But there's also resilience. Creativity. Passion. And, yes, opportunity.

The light isn't lacking; you just have to step into it.

WIRTW #796: the 'museum of fascism' edition The easist thing you can do as an employer to engage your employees Social-media account redundancy is a MUST HAVE for branded accounts WIRTW #795: the 'girls club' edition Forced religion at work is a very bad idea