I've narrowed down my list of 12 nominees to the worst seven finalists.

The Finalists

🗳️ The Terrible Trafficker — Tobacco farm stole wages, forced brutal hours, and threatened deportation

As with the last few years, Ranked Choice Voting will determine the winner.

How does Ranked Choice Voting work?

When voting, rank each of the seven finalists in order of awfulness. If one finalist receives more than 50% of first-choice votes, they will be declared the winner. If no finalist achieves a majority of first-choice votes, the counting will proceed in rounds. At the end of each round, the finalist with the fewest votes will be eliminated. If your first-choice finalist is eliminated, your vote will automatically go to the next highest-ranked finalist on your ballot. This process continues until one finalist receives a majority of first-choice votes or only two finalists remain, at which point the finalist with the most votes wins.

Voting Details

Voting closes on Dec. 16 at 11:59 PM (Eastern Time).

Share the ballot with your coworkers, friends, family, and social networks. I'll announce the winner (or loser, depending on your perspective) on Dec. 18.

You can read full descriptions of the seven finalists here.

CLICK HERE TO VOTE

     

Related Stories

• The 12th nominee for The Worst Employer of 2025 is … The Corpse Killer
• The 10th nominee for The Worst Employer of 2025 is … The Corpse-Concealing Taskmaster
• The 9th nominee for The Worst Employer of 2025 is … The Malignant Museum

 

That's the number a jury needed to send a very loud, very clear message to the Society for Human Resource Management — the self-proclaimed standard-bearer of HR "best practices."

Last week's verdict against SHRM — $1.5 million in compensatory damages and a staggering $10 million in punitive damages — is not just a legal loss. It's an institutional indictment. When the organization that tells the rest of us how to run fair, lawful, ethical workplaces gets hit for racial discrimination and retaliation, the problem is bigger than one terminated instructional designer.

This case was always going to be about credibility. Rehab Mohamed told SHRM's leadership — up to and including CEO Johnny Taylor — that she believed she was experiencing race discrimination and retaliation. According to testimony, the investigation that followed was conducted by someone who had taken exactly one training on HR investigations and couldn't remember a single thing from it. That's not "best practice." That's barely practice at all.

Johnny Taylor testified that he wasn't involved in the termination. But leadership isn't just about who signs the paperwork. It's about the culture you create, the accountability you demand, and the seriousness with which you treat allegations of discrimination in your own house.

And that's the part SHRM still hasn't reckoned with. This verdict didn't happen in a vacuum. Over the past few years we've seen headlines about draconian attendance rules, "conservative" dress codes banning sequins, and internal meetings where Taylor reportedly called staff "entitled," "complacent," and "sloppy." Add in multiple discrimination complaints revealed during discovery, and a not-so-great picture starts to form.

SHRM's statement after the verdict insists that it "acted with integrity, transparency, and in full alignment with our values." The jury thought otherwise. So does the court of public opinion.

SHRM will of course appeal. But appeals don't fix culture. Appeals don't repair trust. And appeals don't change the growing perception that the organization preaching workplace excellence isn't even coming close to modeling it.

For the rest of the corporate world, there's a bigger lesson here: If you hold yourself out as the expert, you don't get to cut corners. You don't get to ignore complaints. You don't get to forget your training. And you don't get to tell others to do things you won't do yourself.

When you sell "best practices” but deliver "barely practices", juries start adding commas to the consequences. Just ask SHRM.

     

Related Stories

• Civil-rights enforcement isn't a culture-war trophy
• A noose, a workplace, and a court that finally got it right
• Let's count the ways Pete Hegseth's speech would get your company sued

 

Maybe it’s because, growing up Jewish, we never decked out our house each December with strings of twinkling bulbs. So as an adult, one of my favorite nights of the entire year is the evening my family piles into the car and cruises around to take in the neighborhood displays. It's simple, it's cozy, and it never fails to make me smile.

Two houses just up the street from me perfectly capture the annual holiday condundrm:

🎄 Do you prefer "A" — the full Clark Griswold experience, with tens of thousands of lights, glowing inflatables, and enough wattage to be seen from the ISS?

🎄 Or "B" — the Hallmark Movie/Norman Rockwell classic, with warm white lights, clean lines, and understated charm?

While I absolutely appreciate the effort and awe of the Griswold approach (seriously, that's dedication!), my heart leans toward the quieter, timeless elegance of the Hallmark version.

So, I'm curious: which christmas-lights team are you on—A or B? And more importantly … why?

'Tis the season for strong opinions on holiday lighting. 

     

Related Stories

• WIRTW #781: the 'EEOC' edition
• WIRTW #780: the 'breakup' edition
• WIRTW #779: the 'fell in love with a band' edition

 

In Reliant Services v. Brown, a construction-staffing company tried to enforce a noncompete against a punch-list worker it had consistently called an independent contractor. Reliant wanted to stop him from doing the exact same punch-list work directly for Ryan Homes — the same work he'd been doing for decades before ever meeting Reliant.

Here's the problem: you can't call someone "independent," claim they run their own business, and then turn around and try to control where they work, who they can work for, and what they can do once they stop working for you. That's the very definition of control. And control is the dividing line between an employee and an independent contractor.

The court saw it the same way.

Not only was the noncompete overly broad and geographically unlimited, but Reliant couldn't show any legitimate business interest that justified restricting Brown's right to make a living. He brought 25 years of experience to the table. He didn't learn the trade from Reliant. There were no trade secrets. No confidential information. No customer relationships that existed before he showed up on the jobsite. And perhaps most telling — Reliant couldn't show it lost a dime of business because Brown worked directly for Ryan Homes.

The lesson for employers is simple and worth repeating:

👉 If you need a noncompete to protect your business, you probably don't have an independent contractor — you have an employee.
👉 If you want someone to be truly independent, you cannot control where they work, who they work for, or what they do when they finish your job.

Misclassification isn't just a wage-and-hour problem. Sometimes, as here, it becomes a contract-enforceability problem too.

If you want enforceable protections, classify properly. If you want the flexibility of contractors, accept the lack of control that comes with it. You can't have it both ways.

     

Related Stories

• What are you doing to protect your company's trade secrets and keep them secret?
• When your top talent drops the leg on your trade secrets…

 

SHRM — the world's largest human resources trade group and an organization that literally brands itself as THE authority on HR — asked a federal court to prohibit a plaintiff from referring to it as an expert in human resources.

Yes, you read that right. SHRM didn't want a jury to hear that … SHRM is an expert in human resources.

So, what was the theory behind this motion? SHRM argued that acknowledging its own expertise would "confuse the issues," "mislead the jury," and — my personal favorite — "improperly hold SHRM to a higher standard than any other employer."

To the surprise of no one who has ever tried a case in federal court, the judge rejected that motion outright. He called SHRM's asserted expertise "integral" to the case and said it "cannot reasonably be excluded."

Which raises this obvious question: If SHRM isn't an expert in HR, what exactly does it do and why does it exist?

A trade association that sells expertise in HR best practices is being sued for the very conduct it tells employers to avoid — in this case, terminating an employee after she complains that her supervisor treated her differently because of her race.

Every employer can make mistakes. Even one that markets itself as the guardian of HR wisdom. But trying to shield yourself from your own claimed expertise in front of a jury? That's a strategic choice that's going to raise eyebrows in any courtroom. And, apparently, in the court of public opinion, too — starting right here.

     

Related Stories

• Jury tags SHRM for $11.5 million in discrimination lawsuit
• Civil-rights enforcement isn't a culture-war trophy
• If you think women ruined the workplace, the problem isn’t women — it’s you