Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
NOTE: remember that we now post every other day.
The posts on Sunday 2/8/2026, here and here, explained owner accused of walking around HOA resort naked and engaging in sex act with vacuum cleaner. Ugh – what does HOA do in these circumstances?
This concerns an Airbnb host and an HOA resort outside of Disney World. Kevin Dale Westerhold allegedly exposed himself in front of properties and was seen naked in hallways at the Windsor Hills Resort in Kissimmee, Florida, according to Ring footage reviewed by the police. It was outside one property where Westerhold allegedly carried out the disturbing act, as reported by local TV. Westerhold fled the scene before cops arrived. Officers also reviewed other footage submitted on Jan. 21 – what it showed is in the post. “The investigating deputy canvassed the area … and spoke with other residents that provided statements of similar behavior by the suspect,” cops said. Other residents also sent videos – what they showed is in the post.
Why is the HOA involved at all? Because complaints had been filed with the local homeowner’s association around a month before Westerhold was arrested. Westerhold, who hosts Airbnb homes with his wife in the area, was arrested near his home on Jan. 27; the charges against him are noted in the post (and you just gotta read it to believe it).
Windsor Hills Resort (the HOA) is located less than 3 miles outside of Disney World. The tourist hotspot bills itself as the “Best Kept Secret” for Disney vacationers. Indeed this author is pretty sure Westerhold’s (alleged) action was indeed a kept secret.
TAKEAWAY: Does your condo association or HOA have in place a policy or procedure dealing with this or a similar behavior? Should it? Contact a community association lawyer.
The posts on Tuesday 2/10/2026, here and here, taught us that the Pennsylvania Ban the Box law applies to self-disclosures. Employer alert!
The Decision came down from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on January 28. Firat let’s talk about what “ban the box” means. It refers to how employers can use criminal conviction information. In this case Pennsylvania limits when and how employers can use a job applicant’s criminal history.
Here Rodney Phath applied to drive for Central Transport, a trucking company. He had a commercial driver’s license, relevant experience and federal clearance to access secure ports. Central Transport decided to interview Phath. Central Transport also said it would check his criminal record. Before it could do that, Phath told them what was there: a 15-year old armed-robbery conviction and the time he spent in prison for that conviction. Central Transport then said it would not hire Phath because of that. Phath sued Central Transport in federal court for violation of the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act (which limits disclosure and use of “criminal history record information.” . The trial court dismissed the case because Central Transport had learned of the conviction from Phath and not from the state. Phath appealed.
On appeal the Court determined that the outcome relies on the statute itself. There is no question as to whether Pennsylvania employers can ask state agencies for criminal history record information – they can. Instead, the question is whether the Act covers an applicant’s self-disclosure (versus obtaining the information from the state). Subsection (a) of the statute talks of what may happen when “an employer is in receipt of information ….” Subsections (b) and (c) talk of the use to which the information may be put and what must happen is the information is used in the hiring decision.
Phath alleged violations of Subsections (b) and (c). But the Court said the issue arose under Subsection (a) (on the basis noted in the post). The Court first analyzed the quoted portion of Subsection (a) and noted the statue does not limit how or from whom the employer must receive the information. The Court also analyzed whether the subject information was covered – see the post for that analysis. In the end, the Court came back to the same conclusion; the issue is the type of information received, not the source of the information.
Central Transport argued that the Court’s interpretation would make ban-the-box laws pointless. The Court easily countered that argument as detailed in the post. So in the end the Court held that Central Transport received information about Phath’s robbery conviction (that is part of his criminal history record information file) and used it without satisfying the other requirements of the Act, such that the trial court’s dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must be careful when using carinal history record information in hiring decisions. Make sure to fully comply with the law.
The posts on Thursday 2/12/2026, here and here, told us authorities seize tiger at condo, detain resident. (Yes, you read that correctly!) What if this were your community?
Granted this happened in Mexico but just close your eyes and imagine this in your community or one close to you. Here authorities seized a tiger during an operation at a condominium complex in Puerto Vallarta, where a foreign resident was detained amid allegations the animal had been kept illegally on the property.
What happened? A large group contingent from the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection, known as PROFEPA, along with members of the Mexican Navy, surrounded the condominium complex. The operation also involved personnel from the other agencies noted in the post.
Neighbors said this was linked to the removal of a tiger allegedly kept inside a unit at the complex. A man identified by residents as Karl Allen Griggs, a U.S. citizen originally from Detroit (who currently lists New York City as his home on social media) was reportedly detained and remained in custody.
According to condo neighbors, Griggs had allegedly kept the tiger on his property for over a year (!) and had even constructed a cage on the exterior area of his unit to house the feline. Look at the photo attached to the post. (This author bets you may have a grill, furniture or flower pots on your deck/balcony, but here it was a caged tiger). The cage, which is visible from outside the complex, reportedly violated condominium association rules. More information on Griggs as provided by neighbors is in the post. And that’s not all – Griggs is an author. Yep, see the post.
Under Mexican law, individuals may possess exotic animals only if they are acquired from breeders accredited by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and if all required permits are obtained. The comment from local authorities is noted in the post.
Interestingly (or sadly?), this is not the first instance of an exotic animal being kept as a domestic pet in the area. As recently as July 17, 2025, PROFEPA and FGR agents visited a residence after social media posts reported a lion cub being walked along a nearby boardwalk. That time a lion cub named “Kiri Kiri,” aged 4-7 months, was seized. The action thereafter taken by authorities is noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Many condo associations and HOAs have restrictions on pets; here’s betting they’ve not had to deal with a resident having a tiger or lion. Contact a community association lawyer relative to pet restriction (or other governing document) violations.
The posts on Saturday 2/14/2026, here and here, relayed that EEOC obtains $1.1M from Kickback Jack’s for allegedly refusing to hire male servers. Yep, shades of Hooters … Let’s dive deeper.
Battleground Restaurants and Battleground Restaurant Group, owners of the Kickback Jack’s brand, are the employers at issue. The complaint (linked in the post) was filed against them by the EEOC in September 2024 alleging violation of Title VII. The companies operate 19 Kickback Jack’s restaurants in NC, VA and TN. The suit alleged that between December 2019 – February 2022, only about 3% of the more than 2,100 people employed in non-managerial, customer-facing positions were male, with some restaurants having no male servers at all.
Now, according to a Feb. 3 consent decree, Battleground/Kickback Jack’s will pay over $1M to settle the EEOC’s allegations that the companies refused to hire men as servers, bartenders, hosts and other nonmanagerial front-of-house positions because of their sex. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said, “Hiring must be based on merit — not sex — as Title VII requires.” More of her statement is in the post (and may ring a bit hollow given the EEOC’s solicitation of reverse-discrimination claims – see our posts of Sunday 12/28/2025, here and here).
While the consent decree involved large dollars, it did not go to the merits of the allegations and the Battleground employers denied any liability or that they failed to employ male applicants because of their sex (things that are common on settlements).
As noted, this case offers key guidance for employers reckoning with the EEOC’s new priorities under the Trump administration including the EEOC’s aggressive pursuit of bias claims by White male applicants and employees. The post contains some statements from the EEOC on this topic.
As an example of how to avoid perceived bias (thus avoiding EEOC scrutiny), the consent decree requires that any promotional materials depicting one or more front-of-house employees must include at least one male server. More of what is included in this consent decree is discussed in the post.
And what will happen with the settlement monies? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must know what they can and cannot say or do when advertising for or filing positions; consult an employment lawyer to help you avoid becoming an EEOC target.