Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

E17: The Bad Job Interview

Written on .

In this episode, host Thom Jennings and attorney Kathleen Jennings discuss a Reddit post about a job interview that went terribly wrong. Thom also discusses an inappropriate question he was asked by an interviewer and the pair share some of their usual witty banter at the end of the episode.

Read Reddit thread here.

Podcast Episode Transcript

Narrator (00:04):
You are listening to Cover Your Assets, a podcast that discusses the timely and significant legal issues faced by employers. Kathleen Jennings is an attorney who has over 30 years of experience in advising employers as to their legal responsibilities and has written extensively about employment law. Inner Popular Cover Your Assets blog. If your business has employees you cannot afford not to have your assets covered.

Thom Jennings (00:33):
Everyone and welcome to Cover Your Assets, the Labor and Employment Law Podcast. I am your host and I am here with my resident expert slash not to be confused with the Guns N Roses guitarist, sister Kathleen Jennings. And she's also an attorney. I was supposed to say, did I say attorney slash sister? I got sidetracked with a whole Guns N Roses things. How are you sis?

Kathleen Jennings (00:59):
Doing great, Thom. It's always a pleasure to be here with you talking about the law and your experience as an employee.

Thom Jennings (01:08):
My experience and, and in today's topic, now we've, we've kind of, we've broached this one before. We'll be talking about job interviews, but this one came up today when I was going through Reddit, and I know my sister is not a huge Reddit fan. She doesn't, not a fan does not read Reddit. So the, she actually when I sent her this post she never read itt. You see what I did there? Yes, yes, yes.

Kathleen Jennings (01:36):
<Laugh>, yes. And in case our listeners aren't aware, Thom does have another life as a standup comedian. Well,

Thom Jennings (01:43):
Yeah, former life. I don't really do that much anymore, but there is a, a Reddit thread called a I T a and those letters, which are all capitalized, very exciting stand.

Kathleen Jennings (01:55):
What do they stand for? Thom?

Thom Jennings (01:56):
They stand for m i v and we're gonna use the term a hole as opposed to using the actual term because we as a podcast are clean and to date, have not used any what words that my granddaughter would call potty words. So this is a potty word free podcast. And we're gonna talk today about a Reddit that I read regarding a job interview. Now, we, we did a job interview episode with illegal and, and legal interview questions. This particular scenario. Now, I will rpreface it by, we don't know the whole truth here. Obviously it was a Reddit thread. So I don't know the individual, we haven't spoken to them. So we will just take this individual's word for what happened. Okay? So that, that's the only thing we could do. There's no, as attorney say, cross-examination here, but I

Kathleen Jennings (02:51):
Found this, well, what we could do, Thom, is use it as a scenario that we could talk about.

Thom Jennings (02:56):
And that's exactly what we're going to do today. So I'm gonna read this and there's probably some stuff that I will skip over or maybe summarize. But here's, here's the, here's the gist of it. All right, so this is the, the headline is, am I the A-Hole for getting my interviewer fired? So let's begin. This comes from a female, she was 27. She went to a job interview for a potential job opportunity at this company. The interviewer will call him Eddie, 30 ish. She doesn't identify the gender, but we will, we will say male cuz that's a traditionally male name welcome to me, into the office and had me sit down. Oh, she says here, first thing he did was look at my CV that started asking me questions that seemed a little too personal and unrelated to the job, like if I was in a relationship, whether my eye color was real or just lenses.

Thom Jennings (03:54):
He also asked me how I spend my time went alone and what type of dudes I like, like legit personal questions. Don't know if he was testing how I would react, but I kept my cool till he asked me the question of what my greatest weakness was. I responded by saying, keeping up with your inappropriate questions and answering them politely. He looked upset, told me I had an attitude, and then the interview was over long and short of it to sum the rest of it up. She did not get the job. She reported the interviewer. The interviewer was fired. The interviewer continued to contact her, and the company said that they would offer her an opportunity to have another interview, which she turned down. And evidently her parents said she should never have gotten the interview interviewer fired. You know, snitches get stitches mentality, which I don't subscribe to,

Kathleen Jennings (04:52):
Or ditches.

Thom Jennings (04:53):
Or ditches. So I guess we'll, we'll begin with the, the obvious stuff. I mean, there's a lot of, there's a lot of underlying issues in just this scenario. And again, we are taking it for face value. We are assuming that this interaction happened exactly as this young lady presented it in this Reddit thread. So where do we even begin to, to look at this and, and the potential problems that it could cause?

Kathleen Jennings (05:19):
I would start by disagreeing with her parents about getting the dude terminated, because those kinds of questions during an interview are clearly inappropriate. Hopefully everybody recognizes that after our previous podcast where Thom Jr was our special guest. It was a really good podcast. So everybody needs to listen to that, but those questions are so inappropriate that it certainly could even be construed as possible evidence of sexual harassment. I mean, just asking personal questions about dating relationships. I'm glad he asked about eye color rather than whether perhaps other body parts were real. And so if, if that's what he's doing, and then he continued to contact her after he was terminated. This to me sounds like a guy that does not have good judgment and is the kind of employee that is just a magnet for legal action.

Thom Jennings (06:30):
I, and I wonder on that because as, as I'm sitting here thinking about it, this is an interview. The, it sounds like the company did what they needed to do in terms of terminating this employee as soon as they found out what happened in, in this case. And I know every case is different and, and we can't fully litigate it obviously, but in this case, could the employer shield themselves a little bit for at least reacting to it appropriately in terms of, you know, terminating the employee? And, and, and here's another question I have that kind of popped into my head as we're talking. It, it, would the company even be able to tell the oth the, the person that, that they had terminated the employee? Because it doesn't that step into the area of confidentiality.

Kathleen Jennings (07:21):
If the candidate, which I guess is what this person is, because she was never hired, if she makes a complaint to the company, the company probably should not tell her that the person was fired or terminated. As you point out, what the company can tell her is that and should tell her, is that it heard her complaint, it took it seriously, investigated the complaint, and then took appropriate action to make sure that the same scenario didn't happen to another applicant. In this case, the company's probably lucky that she didn't go to E E O C or that they didn't get a letter from an attorney. And, you know, we don't know how many times this dude has asked the same questions of other young women candidates. This may not be the first time, maybe he's already been disciplined. So I I would also say because we don't know his history, that's another reason for her to not necessarily feel like an a-hole for feeling like she got him terminated.

Thom Jennings (08:32):
I, I mean, but again, going back to the company, like you said, obviously the company has to exercise proper judgment when it comes to handling both the, the candidate and the employee. So the verbiage saying that, you know, we took appropriate action, obviously the the candidate can look at that and say, well, at least they did something. But you're right, right? I i, I mean that's what I figured. You can't just come and say, well, we fired Eddie because he did this, because then potentially couldn't Eddie turn around and sue the employer even though he was the person that was in the wrong and was terminated under, I mean, he should have been terminated, I guess is the, is the easiest way to put it. But he still would be able to have some legal action if it turned out that the company was telling people that he was fired for this particular scenario.

Kathleen Jennings (09:20):
It's, it's, yeah, it's not the kind of information the company should be publicizing, even though it's true. So it's not defamation if what the company is saying is true, but it could be subjective and certainly a company doesn't want to get involved in a defamation lawsuit with Eddie because it still costs money to defend any lawsuit, as we've talked about on other episodes. So it's best just to, when you're terminating an employee that's why a lot of companies, the majority of companies, if they're contacted about a reference, they will simply give the employees dates of employment and last position held and not get into any details about why they left or if there was a termination for cause.

Thom Jennings (10:13):
And, and speaking of termination by cause, and I'm not trying to defend Eddie, I'm just trying to again, look at this scenario and, and flesh out anything that that could, could be here. So this could potentially have been, he said, she said, so maybe the young lady made up all of these allegations. You've got the word of the employee, you've got the word of a potential candidate. How does an employer properly investigate these types of scenarios in a way that is respectful of both people? And a, again, what level of proof would they need to terminate Eddie in this particular scenario? Obviously, if there was a recording of the, the job interview, which we've discussed recording in the workplace, and I don't know what your opinion is, but I think on some level, if, if need be, it may not be a bad idea to record job interviews if there's the, the legal ability to do that. And of course, I think that depends on what state we're talking about. But certainly back to the original question, what, what do you believe in this scenario and what would you say would be the level of proof that you would need to discipline Eddie?

Kathleen Jennings (11:25):
Well, you're right. It's, it's going to be a matter of her word against his. So part of the investigator's challenge is evaluating the credibility of each party. And in this case, if you have this young female, if she has no history of being litigious, if she's not asking for money, she's just reporting a situation to the company, has no acts to grind with Eddie, those are some of the factors that you would evaluate on her end. And then with Eddie, you would look at his prior employment history, have other females made complaints about him? Have there been other candidates who have mentioned that he has asked inappropriate questions? So it's, it's a lot of factors that have to be looked at analyzed. At the end of the day, you may not know what actually happened unless you have a recording. And I don't know that I would recommend recording job interviews because I think that would be very intimidating to a lot of applicants and candidates who don't wanna have their job interview being recorded.

Thom Jennings (12:39):
Well, I, I would imagine during the, the pandemic era where there were a lot of job interviews done via Zoom, that, that maybe that was just done by default. But, but again, I don't know, I'm just speculating. Now let's take, let's again, take this scenario and let's flip it. Now, you mentioned before E O C equal it's, what is it? The equal op,

Kathleen Jennings (12:58):
Equal Employment Opportunity

Thom Jennings (12:59):
Employment Mission. Okay. I always forget the employment aspect of it, which of course, this is an employment law podcast, so maybe I should start remembering that part of it, <laugh>. So

Kathleen Jennings (13:06):
Maybe you should re-listen to the podcast, Thom,

Thom Jennings (13:09):
So the E E O C. Now, in order to file a complaint with the E E O C, and I'm asking this because I'm, I'm not certain, and you indeed are the legal expert. You, you, I believe you have to be considered in a protected class, right? So in this case,

Kathleen Jennings (13:23):
Well, anybody can file a charge with E E O C. The charge form will ask the person to check off a box as to what category they're claiming discrimination under. So they'll have boxes for sex or gender, age, disability, those types of things. So I, in this case, she would probably check a box for sex or gender.

Thom Jennings (13:51):
So if the, if the roles were reversed and she was the interviewer and he was the interviewee, and I mean the, the questions that were asked, I, I don't know about the eyes and things like that, but clearly this was a, this was an attempt at, at being, you know, flirtatious or he, it was an overt act of being flirtatious. What, what do you think, I mean, do you think that this would be different if again, it was the female and the male, and would the male still have recourse through the E O C or would he have to go through another avenue to get legal recourse

Kathleen Jennings (14:26):
In 2022? It should be the same. And men are protected from gender discrimination just as women are, and men are protected from harassment by women or by other men. So if this interview happened where Eddie was the candidate, and maybe we have Elise as the interviewer, it's still problematic. Bottom line is a job interview is not an opportunity to find possible dating companions. It's not a dating app. So no interviewer of any gender or no gender at all, should be asking the types of questions that Eddie was asking her.

Thom Jennings (15:14):
And, and, and here again, again, just kind of come up with different scenarios and we're these are just coming to me, you know, this isn't really scripted as we've been told by some people before They go, do you script this secret folks? We don't script this stuff. Which is why it's so wonderful and authentic.

Kathleen Jennings (15:32):
It is, it's, it's the banter that really makes it.

Thom Jennings (15:35):
So here's another scenario, which I think made it must happen on occasion. So the interviewer, Eddie, and then you have the young lady who's a female, she's 27 years old, and it turns out that she is an ex-girlfriend or maybe, you know, some, something along those lines. Now, I think I know the answer to, to your, to this question, but do you think that companies should train their employers or employees that, especially people that are handing job interviews to maybe not interview people like this, not interview friends or anyone that, that they could have potentially had, I guess that would be considered what a conflict of interest, but obviously it could look as look, you know, could be poor form, and then to throw in another monkey wrench into that particular scenario. Let's say we got Eddie doing the interview and this young lady actually goes for his advances, and then they, they hook up, but then she doesn't get the job. I would assume that

Kathleen Jennings (16:37):
That, or even worse, she gets the job and they hook up

Thom Jennings (16:41):
Well, which would be worse. I mean, in all honesty, because if you think about it, if, if they do hook up and then she turns around, I mean, that would, that would basically negate her complaint to a certain degree. But if they hooked up, they dated for a short period of time, and then they break up, let's say two, three weeks down the road, at that point, couldn't the same scenario be presented where she calls and says, oh, you know, I went to this job interview, this guy picked me up and we dated for a couple weeks, and then he dumped me. I think he kind of, he kind of promised me that I would get this job and that I didn't get it. I mean, that to me seems like that could be a very sticky situation.

Kathleen Jennings (17:15):
Could, yeah, that could be a big problem, because then you are basically promising a benefit in exchange for sex, and that's your quid pro quo sexual harassment, which would result in strict liabilities. So that's one of the reasons why we don't want to have our interviewers asking personal questions that sound like they're trying to date the candidate. Because if they actually do start dating, then when things go south, the candidate, now employee may claim, well, I only slept with the guy because he said that I would get the job if I slept with him, otherwise I never would've done it. So that's, that's a problem.

Thom Jennings (17:57):
Can you craft a policy that addresses that? I mean, if you were going to hire somebody who was interviewing potential candidates, because I know I've worked at places in the past that said that there was a, I guess it's called a no fraternization policy from manager to employee. I mean, could you, in the case of an HR professional, say, okay, if you're interviewing a candidate you cannot date them or, or you know, I don't know how you put it in a way that could protect yourself. If again, that type of scenario came up,

Kathleen Jennings (18:27):
That would be where you'd have your overlap with your workplace romance or anti fraternization policy that ought to be in place. And I think we talked about that in our workplace romance episode. Also, you should forbid your interviewers from asking these types of personal questions. So it doesn't even give the appearance that the interviewers using the interview process to find dates with applicants. And to your point that you made earlier, I think a company should have a policy that if an interviewer knows the candidate or a, a particular candidate, either because they used to date, or maybe they're related or they have some relationship with a candidate, they need to disclose that so that the company can then make a decision as to whether this person should go ahead and interview the person that they have the relationship or X relationship with, or should somebody else do it. So it's, it's a requirement of disclosure so that then the company can take whatever action they need to, to make sure that the interview process is not tainted by some kind of bias or either for or against a candidate.

Thom Jennings (19:47):
And I, I mean, it, and it really does go back to selecting the right person for the right job. I mean, somebody that's gonna be handling, interviewing potential candidates, it kind of goes without saying, but we'll say it anyway. It should be somebody that, that exhibits professionalism at all times because things could be misconstrued too. I mean, there's, there's questions that may seem benign, like you're sitting in through an interview and, and again, I mean, I could see this happening where a gentleman looks up at a, a young lady, and let's say one eye is blue and one eye is green, and maybe said, oh, I noticed, you know, your one eye is blue and the other one's green. Are you using lenses to change the color of your eyes? Maybe just some curiosity, throwing in a little bit of banter within the interview process itself.

Thom Jennings (20:35):
But again, ages could come into play, genders could come into play, all that kind of stuff. But to me, that could be something that could turn out to be a problem, especially if that person doesn't get the job, because I don't know about you, but if I'm applying for a job and maybe I'm really excited about it, I feel that I'm a, I'm a great candidate, which I mean, if you're applying for a job on some level, you should feel that way, and then you don't get it. There is a level of disappointment, and that can turn into anger. And anger of course can turn into litigation.

Kathleen Jennings (21:09):
I feel like, Thom, that you were probably a great candidate for every job that you applied for. So I compliment you for that. And I, as we talked about in the interviewing podcast, really questions in an interview should focus on the requirements of the job and the candidate's ability to do the job. So if a candidate has two different color eyes, unless that job requires the candidate to have two eyes of the same color, and I can't imagine what job that would be, there's no reason to comment on it in the interview. Yep. And I, you know, the bottom line, the takeaway, we should, one of the takeaways, I know I'm anticipating our takeaways, but I'm gonna give you a takeaway right now, is that an interviewer should not sound like a dude on the prowl.

Thom Jennings (22:08):
Yeah, yeah. Or, and, and again, this or,

Kathleen Jennings (22:10):
Or goes do that on the

Thom Jennings (22:11):
Prowl, right? I mean, and we're talking, right? And especially now, because it could be male to male, it could be female to female. I mean, any number of these scenarios could come up and

Kathleen Jennings (22:21):
A person should not sound like a person on the prowl. Yes. A lot of people meet significant others in the workplace. We talked about that in workplace romance. The interview is not the, the place where that should start.

Thom Jennings (22:39):
Yeah. And I, I think during one of the things that came up, if I remember correctly during the interview questions podcast, which you haven't list, if you have not listened to it, go back in the archives and check it out, is just that, you know, understanding that, that the process itself has more to do with kind of seeing how a person is going to react under pressure. But don't try to be too tricky and throw questions in there that could just, you know, I, I, I mean, sometimes employers ask questions in a way to figure out things like if people have kids, if they're married and things like that. And going back to that married scenario, that that could be the dude or dude that on the prowl type question, which gonna get you into a little bit of trouble now. I was, I will say that I was asked once during an interview exactly like this, are you gay? Somebody asked me that. <Laugh> specifically, yes, <laugh>.

Kathleen Jennings (23:35):
And what was the purpose of that question? Was that a job that required the, the person to be gay to perform the job?

Thom Jennings (23:43):
I, this story is going, going to sound so outlandish that it's almost unbelievable. But I, I promise you as not only my sister, but as an attorney that this did, this scenario is exactly what happened. Wow. The person asked me if I was gay. I was in my mid thirties. I didn't have a wedding band. And when I said no, they proceeded to say, well, that's good because I really hate these lesbians that run this place around

Kathleen Jennings (24:12):
Here. <Laugh>. Wow. Yeah. <laugh>, I mean, wonder how long that person kept working there? Well,

Thom Jennings (24:21):
They were, they were very old school, a New York City. And I'm not picking on people from New York City.

Kathleen Jennings (24:27):

Thom Jennings (24:28):
Think you are, we all know people from New York City, and I think many of them embraced their their, their brashness. And this was a very brash, brash, and it was, it was a woman. So, and yes, she evidently was not a fan of the, the lesbians who were her bosses and wanted to make sure that if I was hired, that I wouldn't side with the lesbians. So I, I didn't, by the way, get that job <laugh>, and I don't know, I'm not even sure if I would've taken it, but yeah, that was that was one of my great, great interview moments. That's

Kathleen Jennings (25:04):
A great interview story, Thom. Yeah.

Thom Jennings (25:07):
And if I had just recorded that, yeah, we could have played that recording right now, and that thing would've gone viral, although that was many years ago. That had to be, oh, 2004, 2005, but

Kathleen Jennings (25:17):

Thom Jennings (25:18):

Kathleen Jennings (25:18):
That's good stuff. That

Thom Jennings (25:20):
Is, it's it's interesting stuff. And, and yeah, and, and I must say when I was looking through this this Reddit thread as, as well, my pet peeve in terms of, we, we joke, you know, you mentioned that I was doing standup comedy and I actually had tried to work out a standup joke related to that question. You know, what is your greatest weakness? To me, that is just the lamest question that you, that

Kathleen Jennings (25:42):
You're not a lesbian. Yeah.

Thom Jennings (25:43):
That I'm not a, what's my greatest weakness that I love lesbian supervisors. Well, thank you very much next candidate. But yeah, it, it's, and it's one of those Thom Jr who was on our previous episode, he used to say that, that that's, that's the kind of question that you have to, to turn it into a positive in, in, it's in, in its own goofy way. Like, you know, my greatest weakness is, is that I show up early every day and I, I stay late. I just work too much. I'm so dedicated to my job <laugh>. So those, so that's the kind of thing that, you know, cuz they're really not looking for you to say, you know, what, what is your greatest weakness? Well, you know, I tend to drink on the job

Kathleen Jennings (26:22):
<Laugh>. I like to ask applicants if they would like to date me. Yeah. I, I don't see that as a weakness to perhaps Yeah, you don't see that as weakness, right? Yeah. Okay.

Thom Jennings (26:33):
Yeah. It's the greatest weakness I had. And we actually, a a little bit off the beaten trail. I, I did have a coworker who was terminated for drinking on the job, and he when I asked him about what happened, and he had mentioned that he was terminated for, for drinking, he said and we worked with children by the way. He said, who doesn't have two or three drinks during the work day? I mean, what's the big deal? <Laugh>? And my wife and I looked at each other and we're like, most people don't do that, do they? Are we are we in a weird category? But who knows? That may

Kathleen Jennings (27:04):
Be no. I, I I think that person may have had a problem.

Thom Jennings (27:07):
It may have had a bit of a problem. They certainly did. Yeah. Again, another spirited episode today, always thanks to the the platform Reddit, which always comes

Kathleen Jennings (27:19):
Up. Thank you for providing us with a great scenario. Yes. Maybe we'll, we'll find another one for a future podcast.

Thom Jennings (27:24):
And you know, who I would love to have Eddie on as a guest. So if Eddie is listening out there, maybe he could tell us

Kathleen Jennings (27:30):
Wherever Eddie's working,

Thom Jennings (27:31):
Tell us his side of the story. And you know, it would be awkward if Eddie came on the podcast and flirted with both of us.

Kathleen Jennings (27:41):
You know, what dude's gotta do, what a dude's gotta do, you know? Yeah,

Thom Jennings (27:45):
Absolutely. All right. Takeaways from today, other than the fact that I have admitted to our audience today that I indeed am not gay, nor do I hate lesbian supervisors. What are the other takeaways today?

Kathleen Jennings (27:57):
Good to know. Well, don't drink on the job and don't use the interview process as a way of sorting out dating prospects. Focus your interview questions on the ability to do the job at hand, and that's the way you cover your assets.

Thom Jennings (28:18):
And I would say that, that probably it is a good practice to make sure that the people that are conducting your job interviews are trained. They they, they're given parameters that they follow and make sure that, that they've always exhibited nothing but the utmost agree of professionalism.

Kathleen Jennings (28:39):

Thom Jennings (28:39):
Bad enough to get sued by an employee that's been hanging around for two or three years. It's even worse to get sued by somebody who's never even provided a single minute of work for your organization. That is just not good.

Kathleen Jennings (28:53):
That's a good point, Thom.

Thom Jennings (28:55):
Alright, contact information.

Kathleen Jennings (28:58):
You can of course shoot me an email at kj j whim

Thom Jennings (29:05):
Okay. And we'll have a link to your blog, the famous blog in our show notes. And as always, thank you everyone for listening. We hope you enjoyed this particular episode. If you did, please share it, write a review, send us send us your stories about any kind of crazy interview or employment situations. And we would love to talk about 'em e even if it's not in the form of a Reddit. So until next time, thank you again for myself and my sister. Thanks for listening to cover your assets.

Podcast Disclaimer

The Cover Your Assets-The Labor and Employment Law Podcast is produced by Thom Jennings of the Caronia Media Group. For more details, you can contact him at

The information provided in this podcast is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this podcast or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Kathleen J. Jennings. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual hosts and guests.

Kathleen J. Jennings
Kathleen J. Jennings
Former Principal

Kathleen J. Jennings is a former principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. She defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters.

Related Content

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

webinar promo graphic: Religious Accommodations

Sometimes We Just Have to Talk About It: Navigating New Rules on Religious Accommodation

Join us for an informative webinar where we dive into recent Supreme Court decisions that address the often delicate issue of religious a...
webinar promo graphic: avoid forced unionization card

How Employers Can Avoid Forced Unionization Through the New NLRB Card-Check Case

On August 25, 2023, the NLRB issued an extremely important ruling basically forcing a union on employers who have committed any unfair la...
person handing a card to another, indoors with a window in the background

New NLRB Case Forces “Card-Check” Analysis on Employers

Probably no National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concepts scares employers more than the concept of the “card-check.”  This is a concept...
bird caught fish, in water

Employers Caught in the Middle for Attacks on DEI Programs

As a result of the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in college admissions, employers seem to be caught in the middle in the deb...
woman at a computer sitting at the desk indoors

Big Labor Is Front Page

Big labor is flexing its muscles, and the nation should be concerned.  While the most pro-union President in history touts organized labo...
pages of a book fanning out, indoors

NLRB Sets Forth New Standard for Judging Legality of Handbook and Other Employer Policies

Employers have been long awaiting the Biden National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) view of what types of employer handbook and other p...