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: there is continued instability and fluctuation with the (attempted) changes in federal labor and employment law resulting from executive orders (EOs) and court decisions, so check with us or another employment lawyer before taking any action based on something in our posts.
The post on Sunday 6/22/2025 noted that on the way to quiet quitting there is now quiet cracking. Like the quiet quitting and quiet vacationing trends before it, quiet cracking gets at worker insecurity fueled by the current economy. Let’s go deeper.
Because “quiet quitting” and “quiet firing” are not enough, there is now another silent crisis: “quiet cracking.” It means employee disengagement, tanked performance and plans to quit.
What percentage of survey-takers said they experience workplace unhappiness “occasionally” versus “constantly” or “frequently”? See the post. And just over half of those surveyed said they feel like “quite cracking” to some degree.
So what did the report say is the root cause of quiet cracking? Workers feeling insecure in their current jobs. One thing that might lead to that lack of confidence might be a lack of training. And there might be other facts too – see the post.
A few years ago, there was an attempt to get employers and employees to meet in the middle and ensure work-life balance for all involved amid the rise of “quiet quitting”. Then, at the same time, other companies moved to quiet firing (in case you forgot, that is described in the post) as a possible response to quiet quitting.
So what should employers do to “fix” quiet cracking? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must know the issues faced by their workers to keep them engaged – and productive.
The post on Monday 6/23/2025 talked about 5 ways to avoid a hiring mistake that will land your company in court. Lawsuits are costly, so business owners would be wise to avoid hiring someone likely to sue, right? But how do you know if they are likely to sue? Kevin Dahlstrom, an entrepreneur, tweeted about his recent experience with an employee who had a litigious track record (see the post).
Yes, being sued is a rotten thing. But not hiring people who have sued previous employers is the wrong way to do it — and it is illegal. Let’s talk about that a bit more.
Owners (should) know that if an employee files a complaint alleging that a co-worker sexually harassed them or they were passed over for a promotion due to race, you cannot retaliate against them in any way for filing the compliant. But do you know that you also cannot take adverse action against them for filing a complaint against a different company? An employment attorney sets that out clearly in the post. Even if you have that information, you cannot legally take it into consideration in your hiring decision.
A reply to Dahlstrom’s tweet illustrates this perfectly. A person with the username Neil responded as in the post. Another commentor chimed in about HR (see the post) and an employment lawyer explained whether the HR person had acted wisely or not (also in the post). Yep, the hiring manager would have acted illegally had HR not saved him from himself.
So how do you avoid lawsuits? Of course the easiest way to avoid lawsuits is not to break the law. Knowing what you can and cannot do relative to an employee’s protected activities. But while there are people who look for every opportunity to sue, and you don’t want them working in your company, taking into consideration their history of lawsuits is not the way to avoid hiring them. Those same people have probably learned a lot about their rights, including non-discrimination based on their protected activities, so don’t give them the opportunity to test that out on you.
What if you inadvertently hire someone who is more likely to file a lawsuit than the other candidates? Fixing the underlying problems in the business will likely resolve it. It won’t stop the “vexatious litigants” (see the post for how that is defined), but the EEOC has a process for handling that (as do the courts).
There will probably be other red flags during the hiring process that will help weed out those people legally. For instance, Stanton suggests including the question, “Is this person eligible for rehire?” in your background checks. Why? See the post.
So what else can you do in an attempt to not hire someone with a litigious history? A big one is to contract with an employment attorney so you have someone to contact when a problem occurs. That starts with ensuring that the attorney reviews and approves any employment contracts or agreements you use along with your handbook. Also give your managers regular training; don’t just assume they automatically know how to behave. And there are more things listed and described in the post too.
TAKEAWAY: Your best defense, i.e., risk management, is preparation, training, and following the law (with assistance from an employment lawyer).
The post on Tuesday 6/24/2025 detailed effective social media strategies for condo and HOA boards. Admit it: in today’s world, if it’s not online, did it even happen? Social media can be a fantastic tool for condominium and homeowners’ association boards to connect with residents, share important updates, and showcase the community. But just like any tool, it’s all about how you use it, and if not properly managed, social media can cause havoc in an instant. If your community has a social media account, here are some ways to make sure the posts are helpful, respectful, and legally sound — without turning the newsfeed into a neighborhood soap opera.
Before you go live, adopt a clear social media policy. It’s your roadmap. It should include things like the following:
- Acceptable and Unacceptable Posts: For example, “Join us for Movie Night at the Pool!” is just fine, but “Can you believe what Jim did at the pool?” should probably stay off the internet. Monitoring is important – see the post for more on this and why it is important;
- Effective and Timely Communication: If the social media chosen is two-way, meaning that it is not just pushing out information but people can comment or otherwise interact, then you need to plan ahead. What to do is in the post;
- Rules for Usage: In addition to communicating with owners via the chosen social media channel, establish the process for how owners can communicate with the association; and
- Get Legal Guidance: You knew that was coming, right? Run your policy by a community association lawyer to ensure it aligns with your governing documents and relevant laws. Talk to the attorney about the other item in the post.
Once you have your policy and procedures in place, think about WHAT to post. The post has some good ideas for content, including general announcements and reminders and much more. And not just text – think photos and videos too (but see below). How often to post is important too – see the post.
There are also things NOT to post on social media. They include photos without consent by the people in them (especially if children are involved), confidential business (like those things listed in the post), and the other items discussed in the post.
Want to go deeper with your social media success? The post has some pro tips for you. One that is key is to use the official page only. Don’t dilute its effectiveness by posting on personal profiles or informal neighborhood groups.
TAKEAWAY: Social media can help boost owner engagement, but it must be used properly (and legally). Do it right!
The post on Wednesday 6/25/2025 told us employer will pay $42K to settle EEOC allegations it called a pregnant bartender a “liability”.
The suit was filed against Corner Bar in 2023. The EEOC’s complaint alleged that the business reduced an employee’s work hours after she became visibly pregnant and then fired her after she was hospitalized with a virus. The EEOC alleged pregnancy discrimination, in violation of Title VII.
The federal court has now approved a three-year consent decree, under which Corner Bar agreed to the payment plus the various non-monetary relief detailed in the post. Corner Bar denied any wrongdoing or legal violation.
In its enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination, the EEOC has said that adverse treatment of pregnant workers “often arise from stereotypes and assumptions” about those workers’ job capabilities and commitment. Some examples cited by the EEOC are in the post. Here the EEOC alleged that the plaintiff’s manager informed her that Corner Bar was “genuinely scared something bad [was] going to happen” to the plaintiff, specifically citing one thing (which is in the post). Other allegations by the EEOC are also in the post as is the EEOC’s statement about the settlement.
Other employers have been in the news in recent years based on numerous allegations regarding adverse employment decisions made on the basis of pregnancy, including Perdue and an Arizona-based call center (both of whom settled with the EEOC – see the post for more details).
TAKEAWAY: Don’t treat pregnant employees differently because you think they may not be able to do something; either ask them or wait for them to come to you.
In the post on Thursday 6/26/2025, we saw that an increasing percentage of Gen Z workers turning to blue collar roles for security. This is a follow-up to our posts of 6/20/2025 and 6/21/2025. What could this mean for your business?
A report from a May 20 survey of over 1400 Gen Z adults found that forty-two percent of Generation Z adults are currently working in or pursuing a blue-collar or skilled trade job. Of those, 37% have a bachelor’s degree. Was there a difference between men and women? See the post.
What are some reasons this might be happening? Concerns about AI replacing traditional white-collar roles (as contrasted with trade jobs offering hands-on work that’s difficult to automate). Also, degrees not leading to careers in their field and wanting more practical, in-demand alternatives.
In the survey, Gen Z workers with degrees noted several reasons they chose blue-collar work over a career aligned with their degree. See the post. Among Gen Z workers without degrees, blue-collar work appears to offer a path to financial independence without student loans. Other things respondents noted are listed in the post.
Will all of this result in the US job market facing a white collar recession in the future? See the post for some things that might affect that or be affected by it.
TAKEAWAY: Workers now often feel like they are walking on eggshells; they are looking for job security. Know how to quell fears in your business.
The post on Friday 6/27/2025 was about ‘Nonsense’ or necessary? HOA board approves $82K in assessments to challenge trademark of name. Enforcement is one thing, but this is certainly different than the usual.
Note that states have different laws on entity names which might affect how the facts here would evolve or turn out elsewhere. Let’s look at this small neighborhood association at the center of a very expensive legal battle. Homeowners in the Stonebriar subdivision are racking up thousands in legal fees. The HOA is fighting a neighbor who applied to trademark the association’s name.
“It’s a good family neighborhood. It used to be very peaceful. No drama,” said resident Ken Christensen. The community in Florida consists of 59 single-family homes, with mature trees and well-landscaped yards. For 33 years, the HOA has overseen things like road paving, maintained common areas and enforced the non-profit HOA’s covenants and bylaws. But that recently changed as owners have faced six-figure assessments (you read that right!) from the HOA to cover past and future legal bills.
The cases involve homeowner John Siamas, who ran for Florida State Senate in 2024 but was defeated in the primary. He posted an ad on YouTube seeking support for his candidacy. Siamas’ first run-in with the HOA started in 2020 when he put a small plastic shed in his backyard. The governing documents do not allow sheds. The board sought to enforce and eventually sued Siamas. How did Siamas respond? See the post.
Last August, owners received a $35,000 assessment … $595 per household… to cover the HOA’s legal fees for the case. Christensen blames the HOA president for the unexpected expense. What he said is in the post. But that was just the beginning.
Very recently, the five-member HOA board approved an $82,000 assessment… almost $1,400 per household…for more legal fees. Will all owners be able to afford that? The notice to owners says the HOA will use the funds to pay a trademark attorney to oppose an application Siamas filed with the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) to trademark the term “Stonebriar Improvement Association, Inc.”. What did the HOA do? See the post. The PTO provided a dispute resolution calendar showing that the process is expected to run through November 2026.
One owner said the HOA has operated for 33 years without a trademark and he doesn’t know why they need it now. His quote is in the post.
After the HOA challenged the trademark, John Siamas filed state and federal complaints against the HOA and its president, Gayle Zelcs. What Siamas alleges in the suits is in the post. Neither Siamas nor Zelcs responded to requests for comment.
Siamas did, however, write a letter to Stonebriar residents. Part of its content is in the post. Siamas also offers to drop his cases if residents vote out the current HOA board (for the reason noted in the post). Owners are understandably weary of the ongoing legal battles.
The homeowner’s association just recently had its annual election for board members.
TAKEAWAY: Boards are responsible for the operations of the association, but they must also be conscious of members’ money. Being a fiduciary is not always easy – get assistance from a community association lawyer.
Finally, in the post yesterday 6/28/2025, we learned widow sues Coca-Cola under ERISA for former exec’s retirement benefit. Resolution will probably turn on definitions in the underlying plan documents.
The widow of a former Coca-Cola executive sued on May 16 for allegedly violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) after it withheld the executive’s retirement benefits following his death. Shortly before he retired, the executive enrolled in a “Key Executive,” or “top hat,” retirement plan offered to certain senior executives. He also enrolled in a qualified pension plan available to all eligible employees and elected to have his surviving spouse receive 100% of payments from the “Key Executive” plan. The executive retired and began receiving payments totaling about $29,580 per month. At the time, he was married to someone else who later died and he became engaged to the plaintiff. An HR rep allegedly “unambiguously” told him that if he was married to the plaintiff at the time of his death, she would be his “spouse at death” and entitled to 100% of the benefits under the executive plan. HR said the plaintiff had been added as a beneficiary and was in the system. But did it play out that way?
Years later, following the executive’s death, Coca-Cola allegedly refused to pay the plaintiff the retirement benefits the executive had been receiving under the Key Executive plan. What was not at issue in the suit is also noted in the post. While the Key Executive plan doesn’t define “spouse,” Coca-Cola now allegedly argues that the term could only mean the executive’s spouse at the time he began receiving benefits (as opposed to a later date while he was still receiving benefits).
Coca-Cola did not respond to a request for a comment.
ERISA sets minimum standards for most voluntary retirement plans in private industry. Information on “top hat” plans is in the post. HR personnel often have to deal with at least certain aspects of the plans. For example, if someone asks for information about a retirement plan, employers have 30 days to comply; usually they go to HR and a failure to timely respond can lead to big fines.
In the Coca-Cola case, the widow alleged the company’s denial of benefits was inconsistent with the terms of the “Key Executive” plan. Who she sued is noted in the post. She also had an alternative theory of recovery, also described in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Companies might be bound by something a manager or HR says or does – be careful and train everyone so that your liability is minimized or non-existent. Also keep your employment lawyer on speed dial.