October 31, 2023 • 68 mins
In a comprehensive discussion with renowned employment attorney Steven, the alarming issue of toxic workplaces is explored in depth. Steven, who has a strong track record in handling high-profile employment cases, shares his insights on various subjects ranging from unfair dismissals during parental leave to workplace discrimination. The conversation also examines the case of artist Lizzo to explain the intricacies of litigation and power dynamics in work environments. Steven discusses the impact of change management on employees' rights, especially in the context of the U.S. and New Zealand, highlighting the importance of transparency and the "three strike rule." The dialogue also explores the challenges and benefits of remote and hybrid work models. Steven emphasizes the crucial role of documenting evidence, which can be pivotal in legal cases. The discussion aims to deepen understanding of employment rights and workplace dynamics.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stevenchizen/
https://www.chizenlaw.com/
Welcome to Season 2, where we embark on authentic and unfiltered conversations about life, relationships, society, and more. Our opinions are solely our own and don't represent professional advice. It's just our perspective, so form your conclusions. Heads up, this podcast may contain adult content and explicit language. Let's dive in!
Buzzsprout refer a friend!
Grab a $20 off when you sign up!
With SiteGround's Click-and-Install WordPress, we're leaving manual setup in the past. Our podcast is powered by the seamless one-click installation and WordPress Starter wizard. Choose from pro designs, add contact forms, online stores, portfolios – all automated, no tech stress. Say goodbye to mundane setups and hello to a stunning podcast platform. Dive into impactful discussions without the technical hassle. Launch your podcast website effortlessly.
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2108585/subscribe
Social Media:
https://www.instagram.com/toxic_workplace_pod/
Find us in these places!
Instagram
Linkedin
Newsletter
YouTube
___________________________________________________
This podcast does not constitute professional advice (financial, legal or otherwise) and you should seek your own professional advice where required. By listening to and/or accessing this podcast , you acknowledge this, and you acknowledge that no warranty, guarantee or representation is made as to the accuracy of any information featured in this podcast.
Any action you take based on the information contained in the Podcast is strictly at your own risk, and Hosts and guests will not be liable for any losses or damages in connection with the use of the Podcast.
The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed are the speaker’s own and do not represent the views, thoughts, and opinions of any organisation they are employed by. The material and information presented here is for general information and entertainment purposes only.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Nicola (00:00):
Good morning Steven.
Steven (00:03):
Hey.
Nicola (00:03):
Nicola.
Steven (00:04):
Hey Gina, how are you doing?
Nicola (00:05):
Hey, good how are you doing?
Good thanks with yourselves.
Steven (00:09):
Oh good, I'm glad this worked.
I'm doing well, I'm doing verywell.
Yeah, it's been a while it'sbeen a while since we talked I
think it was what a month ago orso it was like a month ago
maybe.
Yeah.
Nicola (00:20):
Maybe a month ago, was it a month?
Gina (00:23):
Was it late.
Nicola (00:25):
Yeah, we got a little sidetracked there.
We definitely got sidetracked.
Um, Steven, would you like tointroduce your lovely self?
Gina (00:33):
Yes, tell us about who you are and what you do.
Steven (00:36):
Sure, I'm super glad to be on.
Gina and Nicola, it's great tosee you doing this podcast.
I feel like there needs to bemore talking about toxic
workplaces.
I'm glad you're doing it.
Thanks for having me on.
I am an employment attorney.
I'm almost exclusivelyrepresenting employees against
employers in California.
(00:57):
I'm based in Oakland,California, and so I do a lot of
dispute resolution on behalf ofemployees who have endured all
sorts of toxic workplaces, muchof which is illegal
discrimination, retaliation,harassment, sexual harassment
those types of things thatpeople endure in the workplace
(01:18):
and try to get them some somesort of resolution that's,
that's fair and that tries tohold some of these companies
accountable.
So that's me in a nutshell.
Gina (01:29):
All right, I like it.
So what are some of?
I don't know if you're allowedto say um, but have you taken,
have you done like any AaronBrockovich stuff like really big
companies?
You went against Like you seeall these movies right, and it's
like someone in uncovers likeillegal gas or oil dumping.
Nicola (01:46):
you know that's like poisoning a ton Illegal gambling
ring in their underground house.
Gina (01:51):
Have you done anything like wild, like that?
Steven (01:55):
I don't know about wild, but I being in the Bay Area is
fun because chances are you'llgo up against big tech companies
.
So I've had cases against meta.
I've had cases against Apple,google, um sort of every name.
Name your tech company.
There's cases against them.
Gina (02:13):
Of course yeah.
Steven (02:15):
Now and then.
But but sometimes you knowthose companies at least have
some sort of mechanism, theyhave processes in place.
They're they're so big, theyhave tons of lawyers, tons of HR
people.
Some of the more interestingcases are smaller entities that
don't know what they're doing,that that are that don't have an
(02:35):
HR consultant or lawyers onstaff, and so auto body shops um
sports coaches for for for highschoolers.
You know, like those types ofemployer employee relationships
sometimes are juicier cases,just because the employers uh,
not as prepared for for whenissues come up For you.
Nicola (02:56):
They're not prepared for you.
Steven (02:57):
Yeah Right, they think they can get away with it.
Uh, and they usually can untilsomeone, until something happens
and someone thinks oh, weshould know.
I should, I should do somethingabout this.
Nicola (03:09):
So what's been your most , what do you feel has been, I'm
going to say, your mostimpactful case so far?
Steven (03:18):
I've had a few cases this year involving leaves and
uh.
In in California and in the U Sgenerally, you get protected
leave for maternity andpaternity leave and you get 12
weeks.
Uh, it doesn't necessarily haveto be paid, but your employer
can't retaliate against you fortaking the leave and so you're,
you're entitled to your job, uh,when you come back.
(03:41):
And so had a few mothers orfathers come uh, and they were
working.
They told their employer hey,I'm about to have this, this new
baby take off, and either someof them it's been during the
leave, some of them it's beenright after the leave Uh, the
employer decides that they don'twant them, that they never need
them, and they terminate them.
(04:03):
Um, and those cases, I think,for whatever reason.
For me hearing people take whatthey think is going to be
protected time off to bond withtheir new baby, only to be fired
, um, and never get that timeback.
For, particularly for those whohave been fired during the
leave, so maybe they're sixweeks into a 12 week leave and
(04:23):
they're notified that they'reterminated.
Not only do they have to gofind a new job, but also they
lose forever really, that theextra six weeks of of protected
leave, and so um finding somesort of resolution for them, I
think is has been probably themost rewarding.
Gina (04:41):
So have you proved that they're fired because they took
their leave Cause, of course,I'm assuming the companies are
somewhat smart enough to be likeoh no, we just did like an
evaluation of all the reasonsthat we realized it's right,
it's a redundant orrestructuring or whatever.
So I'm assuming the theemployment, whoever the company
(05:04):
might be, would come back withthat Right.
And so I'm not sure how yousure you didn't fire me because
I took maternity slash paternityleave.
How do you prove that it wasbecause they took the leave?
Steven (05:16):
It's never easy and being in California is helpful
because you get really friendlyjudges and juries in California
for employees, but it's it'schallenging.
It's challenging.
The company will always come upwith reasons when they hire
attorneys.
Those attorneys job to putevery possibility on the table
(05:37):
of why there was some otherreason that they terminated the
employee, and usually I thinkthe timeline speaks for itself.
They the employee had never hadany issues with performance.
It wasn't a mass layoff, so itwasn't like we got rid of, you
know, 60% of the company.
It wasn't like Twitter whereyou know we're getting rid of
(05:57):
almost everyone.
So, yes, some people are goingto be on maternity leave when
they're, when they're fired.
These are individuals who areterminated.
No one else was terminated.
They never had performanceissues and the entire during
leave or within a few weeks oreven a couple months after the
leave, and the timeline speaksfor itself and you get
reasonable judges and juries whoare going to see that timeline
(06:20):
and understand that there'sreally only one one reason.
Gina (06:25):
Yeah, okay.
So what has been some of yourmore challenging cases in terms
of, you know, an employee beinga whistleblower, so to speak,
whether it's the real.
You know they had the, thewhat's the word I'm looking for?
I'm like side note, I'm stuckon stupid.
Today.
I'm very like slow and I don'tknow why I slept like way too
(06:50):
many hours last night.
I can't like form a sentence.
My workout this morning took medouble the time it normally did
, because I'm just like.
I'm like I've been staring offinto space for 10 minutes in
between sets, like so this isgoing to be rough.
So what I'm trying to say iswhat has been some more, some of
the more challenging aspects toproving employee, employee or
(07:15):
discriminations or toxicity orwhatever word you want to assign
it.
What has been some of the morechallenging ones?
Steven (07:25):
With respect to to toxic environments, gina, the, the
biggest challenge is that a lotof people experience toxic
workplaces that aren'tnecessarily unlawful workplaces.
Nicola (07:45):
And so I talked to.
Steven (07:47):
I talked to probably a dozen or two Employees a week
doing intake calls and trying tolearn about if they have cases
and and so many people hadnegative interactions with their
supervisors or colleagues andthen but I'm not able to
(08:08):
determine, you know, is thisjust a supervisor that you agree
with, that treated you unfairly, that made a bad business
decision?
Is bad business decisions arebad business decisions, but it's
not unlawful.
It has, you know, harassmenthas to rise to the level of
being a hostile work environment, being severe and pervasive,
being based on your religion,your race, your ethnicity, those
(08:32):
types of things, at least herein California.
And so often there's just a lotof bad managers out there who
aren't, who didn't get anytraining on being a manager and
who just are bad at their jobs.
And there's often no case forthat.
It's just you got yourself intoa situation where you have a
(08:54):
really bad manager.
Nicola (08:56):
So what is what for you when you're doing these like
screening calls.
What is your litmus test?
Like, what sort of questionsare you asking people when
they're calling so that you know, when people do call, what
should they be prepared with?
And kind of what is your litmustest of?
Okay, yeah, okay, this is bad.
What is your litmus?
Steven (09:17):
test of I'm always trying to think about, from the
moment that potential clientscall in, is what would this look
like if there were a trial or,you know, there were a hearing
on the matter?
What could we prove?
And so a lot of times there'swe had this conversation on the
phone.
You know, I had a conversationon the phone with my supervisor
(09:39):
and and they made a commentabout my weight and it was a one
off comment and there wasisolated and it's awful.
It's awful, but it wasn't inwriting.
I never reported it.
It happened a year ago and,yeah, it happened and I believe
them, but it's going to be morechallenging to prove.
(10:01):
And so that's going to be aconversation with the client or
the potential client of how canwe build that evidence.
You know, will they say itagain?
Have they said it to anyoneelse?
You know, was?
Were there any witnesses?
Those types of things.
Alternatively, sometimes peopleput that stuff in writing, they
write it on Slack, they writeit on Teams, they put it in
emails there's or they say it infront of witnesses.
(10:22):
Then there's a case, becausenow we have things that we can
use to prove and to actuallyshow a judge or a jury.
Here are the things you knowthat that that are
discriminatory, and so I think,trying to get to the bottom of
what that evidence is and peopledon't people don't call saying
here's all my evidence.
You know I have a packet ofscreenshots and things like that
(10:45):
because people aren't thinkingthat way, but it's trying to get
people to think that way isimportant to get good.
Gina (10:51):
So what do you think?
And I know, when we first like,whatever long ago, we briefly
touched on this when we chattedwith you, how do you know?
Like, how, how do you handle?
Hold on, you're going to haveto edit that part out.
And someone, what is the thetipping point?
(11:12):
That's the word I'm looking forwhen someone would call you,
like, what is what is generallythe tipping point?
Like, is it something big or isit that they're just realizing
that this whole workplace or therelationship they're calling
you about is problematic?
Like, what does that look liketypically?
Steven (11:35):
Typically I think I'm about to be fired or if I was
just terminated and all thisstuff happens.
That's usually when it comesout.
I think a lot of people havebeen experiencing it, enduring
it, for a long time and theyhaven't necessarily recognized
it as discrimination, harassmentor retaliation.
They're letting it happenbecause when they want this job
(11:59):
to work out, they don't want tobe that person who rocks the
boat with their employer.
There are good things abouttheir job.
Maybe they like the work, butthere's this one supervisor
that's off.
Or they like the fact that theyget to work from home, but they
hate getting emails from thisone person.
I think a lot of people startweighing it and only when things
(12:21):
really blow up to the point ofbeing fired or demoted do they
call.
That's usually the case Now.
Sometimes there's people whoare a little bit more proactive
or just wanting to get aconsultation.
I think I wish that happenedmore often.
I think people should reach outmore often, because the only
(12:43):
way to really educate yourselfabout what's if what's happening
is lawful or not at that timeis to reach out to someone like
me, in whatever state or countryyou're in.
I wish people knew to do itearlier.
Gina (13:00):
I think we did God.
That's what.
Nicola (13:02):
I was going to say so earlier the better.
So if you start seeingrumblings of something weird
unfolding, it's better to giveyou a call and you can then say
this is the stuff that you needto look out for.
Here's a list of things thatyou need to start eyeballing in
your Slack team slash emails, etcetera.
Steven (13:23):
Right, right.
Here are the things you shouldstart documenting.
Here are the things you shouldmake sure there are witnesses
present for.
Here are the things youshouldn't do.
So the earlier the better.
Most lawyers give out freeconsultations when they're
assessing a case, so you shouldbe able to find that for free.
It's worth the hour ofsearching for a lawyer and
(13:44):
having a conversation with thelawyer just to make sure that
you're doing everything you can.
So then, on the back end, ifyou do have a case, you're sort
of as well prepared as possible.
Nicola (13:55):
What are some of the things that you would recommend
people start documenting.
Steven (14:01):
I pretty much and maybe you can agree with this from
your prior work experiences,nicola and Gina I pretty much
tell people to go ahead andthrow away anything that didn't
happen in writing.
So any phone call people aregoing to either lie about or
really.
People have very differentperspectives when they remember
(14:22):
a phone call or an in-personmeeting.
So unless there are witnessesthere and unless it's in writing
, who knows what people aregoing to say months down the
road when their goals change?
But now they're trying toprotect themselves, they're
trying to protect the companythat they work for.
So with that, I always recommendpeople report things in writing
(14:47):
over email to human resources,to the highest person possible
within human resources, and then, in terms of any sort of
discriminatory or harassingcomment that's made, I recommend
reporting it and asking for anywitness to say yes, this is
what I heard too.
(15:08):
So it's not just you, butthere's other people who
contemporaneously said oh yeah,I heard that too.
And if you get that in writing,your case finally becomes a lot
stronger because you can proveit, and that's what matters.
There's the truth, and thenthere's the provable truth, and
the provable truth is, at theend of the day, what matters in
lawsuits and litigation.
Gina (15:31):
So what is the difference and I'm actually asking for
myself between someone's opinionof you as an employee and
discrimination?
Like I remember, because we'retalking, and I'm like thinking,
like I always like to try tolike test myself, like did I do
this?
Could I have been the toxic one?
And it's like I rememberwriting on Slack to someone well
(15:52):
, I don't think she's like, Idon't think she's a true
business person.
She's making poor businessdecisions.
Is that discriminatory or isthat just my opinion Grants that
I should have never said it,period.
And it was to someone under me.
I was just at my wit's end atthis company and I was just like
whatever, like word vomiting, Iwas like I can't stand it
anymore, but like what is theline?
Steven (16:19):
There is.
There's no line.
The line is what a jury ends upthinking at the end of the day.
And so they're going to takethat in the context of
everything else.
And if they're able to say, oh,you know, Gina said that and it
was substantially motivated bythat person's race or that
person's religion or thatperson's sex, then it's
(16:41):
discriminatory.
Alternatively, if it's, if ithas nothing to do with those
factors, then it's your opinionand you're allowed to say it,
and it's about.
Gina (16:53):
It's like what this person was, what their gender rate,
like I don't care, I don't eventhink I knew because we were all
remote, but I just like sawthem making business decisions
that I felt were really poor interms of the company getting to
where they wanted it to go, andI was like who would do this?
Like I just I'm so confused,like this doesn't make sense to
me.
So so I guess the takeawaythere right is that it has to be
(17:20):
motivated by orientation, creed, sex, denomination, politics,
weight, race, any of those likekind of hot button aspects.
But if they just suck as abusiness person, then I'd be
kidding anyone, you're juststupid.
Steven (17:39):
And there should be space.
There really should be space inthe work in a healthy workplace
, right, there should be spacefor people to to give feedback
and to give, you know, feedbackupwards, downwards, across to
peers, supervisors, superviseesand that should be happening on
a regular basis and it should behonest, it should be candid and
(18:00):
it should be specific, andsometimes that's going to look
like this person makes badbusiness decisions, and here's
reason.
So, example one, example two,example three that's not based
on anything.
You should be in a really goodplace as an employer or as a
supervisor, and and and that'swhy people document things, and
(18:23):
if you have that writing and youcan then show, look, this
wasn't based on someone's raceor sex.
This is based on these specificinstances of them just being a
bad business person or makingbad decisions.
Gina (18:35):
Yeah, okay, I think that's actually helpful because you
know.
But then how do you proveintent?
I guess with the facts, right,because, like, anyone can be
like, oh well, I didn't mean itbecause it's a woman, or I
didn't mean it because she'sunderweight or overweight,
whatever you know, you couldalways go back on that.
But how do you prove intent?
Steven (18:58):
People are going to be judges.
Juries are going to bereasonable.
They're going to start lookingat has this person made comments
in the past?
Have other people complainedabout this person?
Are these comments?
Is Gene or the supervisormaking these comments about
every single person on theirteam or just this one person?
(19:21):
They're going to end up havingto make a conclusion or a guess
on your intent.
From my side, representingemployees, all we have to prove
is that it's more likely thannot.
It's not like you hear aboutcriminal cases that are beyond a
reasonable doubt.
You have to prove someonecommitted a crime.
That's not the case, that's notthe burden here in our world of
(19:46):
civil law.
It's just preponderance of thatreference, which means more
likely than not.
So all you have to do is saymore than 50 percent chance that
this happened and we win.
So at the end of the day,there's a lot of risk for
employees because more than 50percent likely is just not that
high to prove.
Gina (20:05):
It's not.
Yeah, that's not right.
So I know, go ahead, nicola.
I feel like you're working onsomething over there that you're
about to launch at us.
Nicola (20:17):
I'm working, sure, launching.
Let's not launching, but I'mokay.
Being in California, I ampretty confident and also, being
a lawyer, I feel like you arepretty all over the Lizzo
allegations.
Steven (20:36):
Yeah, I know I'm unfamiliar with them.
I don't know the ins and outs,but so we had.
Nicola (20:43):
I feel like the year is blending together at this point.
Was it last week that we did alive on LinkedIn.
I think it was yeah, Wheneverit was.
Anyway, we did it kind of adeep dive into the submission
that the plaintiffs had made, towhich it was one of the
(21:04):
counties in Los Angeles.
I don't know how your stupidcounties work.
Steven (21:07):
What do I know in New?
Nicola (21:08):
Zealand.
What do I know?
Gina (21:09):
There's a county I don't know, but he's governed by the
state of California.
So the rules would beapplicable to the whole state.
It doesn't matter the county,that's just where right, that's
where it was filed.
Am I right in saying that,steven?
Steven (21:25):
That's right.
I think it was filed in thesuperior court of the county of
Los Angeles, so each county hasits own court.
That the state law is primarilygoverning.
Gina (21:35):
Yeah, it's the governance.
Nicola (21:37):
Okay, what do I know?
Gina (21:39):
We have like three courts.
Nicola (21:40):
We've got like a court, like the regional court, the
high court and the supreme court.
Gina (21:47):
Do you guys wear the white ?
Do you guys wear the white wigs?
Nicola (21:51):
God fun.
Yes, we do, we do, we don't, wedon't.
Gina (21:56):
We can just show up like we can show up in whatever I
think only.
Nicola (21:59):
I think only in the supreme court they do the cool
wigs.
That's totally irrelevant.
Gina (22:04):
Well, if you're in America , nobody does wigs.
Would you like to wear a wig?
Steven, we're totally on atangent.
Nicola (22:12):
Are you wearing a wig?
Gina (22:14):
Would you?
Wear those like old school wigsthat you see?
No.
Steven (22:19):
I wouldn't, I would not want to, but there is something
about being in the courtroom andhaving a judge wearing a black
robe, and the judge is usuallyon a kind of a level above you
and I think, when you knowlawsuits and the law is a very
serious topic and there issomething to be said about the
(22:42):
decorum and the costumes peoplewear and lawyers were sued, so
there's something to be saidthere.
I think it's a littleridiculous.
During the pandemic, there weresome judges who were doing
remote proceedings, who wouldn'ttalk to lawyers if they weren't
wearing ties, and meanwhile itwas 2020 and in the middle of
the pandemic, people are justtrying to get through a day.
Gina (23:02):
Right so like, who cares if you're wearing a tie?
Nicola (23:05):
They're the judge who who accidentally had like the
cat filter?
Steven (23:10):
Was that a?
Gina (23:10):
reporter, a lawyer or a judge it was one of those three
and they did the whole thinglike as a cat on Zoom or hamster
or something I'm like yes, thisis what we need in our lives.
Steven (23:22):
Anyway, circling back, there was also that right at the
beginning, right when theSupreme Court of the United
States went, went remote for thepandemic, they were doing not
not video, but just audio.
And there was a famous toiletflush, and no one knows exactly
which of the nine Supreme Courtjustices did it.
(23:42):
But you can, only I thinkthat's amazing.
Gina (23:46):
Who do you think it was?
Steven (23:49):
I don't know.
I have my guesses, but I don'twant to say them, I don't want
to be on the record saying them.
Gina (23:55):
So Wait, wasn't there something or was it some one of
some politics?
Politician like farmed somepolitics.
I'm retarded today.
I edit that out because I can'tsay that word anymore.
I'm a child of the 80s.
Everyone, leave me alone.
(24:15):
There was.
There was a politician whofarted like was it Trump?
I should know this, but I don'tknow this Somebody, like during
the pandemic it was somethingvirtual and like it was all over
the internet and it was likewas that a fart?
Like nobody.
Ok, we digress.
Steven (24:35):
Rewrite the tape.
Yeah, it would be surprising ifit were Trump.
Nicola (24:39):
I feel like it wouldn't be surprising.
Steven (24:42):
No.
Nicola (24:44):
Anywho circling back, OK .
So I have got the Lizzo thingopen over here and a lot of
their stuff in.
They've got a list of whatthey've called factual
allegations.
I'm like, OK, cute.
Gina (25:01):
But what can you break down what a factual allegation
is?
Is that actually a legal term?
Steven (25:08):
So yeah, I don't know what you're looking at, Nikola,
but it sounds like I will.
I will share it with you.
Nicola (25:13):
Go for it.
Steven (25:13):
Oh, wonderful.
Gina (25:15):
Hold on, give me a second, but have you heard that
terminology before?
Factual allegation?
That seems like it's anoxymoron.
Steven (25:22):
It is, it is, and so usually what happens is the
plaintiff, the person suing theemployee in these, in this
context, is going to submit acomplaint.
That's the the beginning of alawsuit.
Gina (25:36):
And in that complaint.
Steven (25:38):
OK, I'll take a look in that complaint.
They'll say these are all thethings that we're alleging are
facts, and throughout the nextthree years of litigation we're
going to prove each and everyone of these facts.
And then they're going to turnessentially from allegations to
facts that are proven, and sopeople make the shorthand
(26:01):
factual allegations, which is abit of a oxymoron.
They're almost opposites, butthe goal is to take those
allegations that we claim aretrue and actually proving them
to be facts that other peopleagree with.
Gina (26:16):
It sounds like it's saying like yes, we're alleging this,
but we have factual informationto back it up.
So that's why it's a factualallegation and during the
proceedings, should we go totrial, we'll be able to prove it
.
Because if you know that ofcourse, right, isn't that
usually what happens?
How often now I'm on adifferent like tangent here, but
how often do you actually gointo litigation?
(26:36):
Because that's typicallylengthy and expensive for
everyone, right?
Steven (26:43):
Yep, it's not very common, particularly in the
employment realm, and so Often,you know, anyone can file a
lawsuit, and there's tons andtons and tons of frivolous
lawsuits, unfortunately, onunemployment law and it doesn't
look good for plaintiffs lawyerslike me, because employee
lawyers, because I havecolleagues across the state some
(27:04):
of whom will take any case andfile a lawsuit and it's
completely BS and they call thefactual allegations also and
then they would never be able toprove them, and so it's hard
for when the media takes thiscomplaint, this complaint
against Lizzo.
You know these people can justbe saying these things and we
(27:27):
don't know and I personallybelieve them, but I think
they're going to have to proveit and it's likely going to
settle outside of court and andthe public is not really going
to get a clear picture of whathappened.
Is how it usually ends.
Gina (27:45):
Right.
So have you actually ended upgoing you yourself gone into
litigation with any of yourclients?
Steven (27:54):
Yes, so I have cases in litigation and a lot of it's
back and forth, back and forthinformation just sharing, which
is called discovery.
And so you know there'll be anallegation in the complaint in
the factual allegations section.
It will say something like youknow, on this date Lizzo did X.
You know she I mean I've shedid it.
(28:16):
Apparently some, some somesexual harassment, some
harassment based on weight, Ithink, and and then it's, how do
you go proving that?
So we'll ask for all thedocuments from Lizzo, all the
emails that she sent, anddestroying emails at that point
would be a crime.
So she has a duty to turn over.
Nicola (28:35):
So you're going in and you're deleting emails is going
to Come bite your hands.
That's a big no, no yeah.
Gina (28:44):
So after it's filed in the court system, right?
Like?
Let's say, like you're justdoing maintenance on your in
your email inbox and you're justdeleting things from like 2018
or something, cause I hoard allmy emails, I'm aware Prior to it
, prior to any kind of filing ina court system, that's not
illegal, it's after the filinghappens, correct?
Steven (29:07):
The safest thing to do would be, as soon as someone's
aware of anticipated legalclaims, to hold all their
evidence and not destroyanything that could happen once
the lawsuits filed.
Sometimes it happens beforehand, because an attorney sends a
letter saying you know we'regoing to file a lawsuit, please
(29:27):
hold all your evidence Afterthat point.
If you destroy evidence, it'sillegal.
It's.
It's illegal.
It could be a crime.
That it will be.
It'll be.
If there's anything that'smissing, it'll be deemed to be
in the favor of the other side,and so it also has consequences
that people start assuming thatthat what he deleted was was
(29:52):
something you didn't want to,yeah, something you didn't want
people to see Um.
So they'll look through Lizzo'semails and text messages and you
know phone records, things likethat, um, and they'll take her
deposition under oath.
And so they'll say you know,they'll spend a day or two days
or three days with Lizzo askingum, you know what, what happened
(30:13):
and why are these thingshappened?
And they'll show her proof thatthey have maybe they have
screen, you know photos or videorecordings of some of this
awful sexual harassment.
They'll confront her with itand they'll say you know, is
this you here, um?
Nicola (30:27):
is this you in this picture?
That is actually you.
Steven (30:31):
Right and that sort of stuff, and you're under oath and
um.
It's not fun to be.
I don't think it's me, it's alittle blurry, yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
Gina (30:43):
I actually, I, actually I.
I neither am a fan of Lizzo oragainst, but I, for some reason,
I follow her on Instagram Um, Idon't think, I don't know if I
do anymore, but somehow I was atone point and her Instagram
feed is there, is highlysexualized and it is um, also
(31:06):
surrounding like her weight in apositive way, like she's saying
, like you know, just cause I'moverweight, or she doesn't feel
she's overweight, or she doesn'tmind showing her body.
So, just based on thatinformation, which is a very
shitty information, I wouldn'tbe surprised that if these
allegations ended up beingcompletely truthful, because
(31:29):
there is something very sexualabout the way she operates.
Nicola (31:33):
With this, with these particular allegations.
It wasn't just the sexualharassment right, it wasn't just
the, the, the the.
Gina (31:41):
No, it was also weight and money.
Nicola (31:43):
It was also the the um, the pay that they had.
So they were on like holdingpay, Um, but they, the dancers,
weren't getting any.
Gina (31:54):
I don't know what it's called in America, but it was
almost like um well, it's almostlike a retainer right, like a
retainer to do the dancing.
You can't take other jobsduring this period You're, even
though you're not currentlydancing with us, you're not
allowed to leave until yourcontracts up or whatever.
(32:14):
So they didn't have any sort oflike retainer pay, for lack of
a better word, and they'resaying that they had to.
They wanted to get that, whichseems fair, because all the
other, like full-time dancers,were getting the retainer pay.
Nicola (32:28):
So section 40, um.
This year, the team submittedtheir request for a retainer of
50% of their weekly tour rate toensure they would be paid for
their time while on break fromtouring, since whatever and
Lizzo strongly preferred thedance cast not to take on any
other jobs during these breaks,and they did like so.
(32:50):
There was a huge pay issue aswell, like there wasn't just the
sexual allegations, it was alsoaround fat shaming, racial
discrimination, disabilitydiscrimination.
There was a bit around,obviously the pay and I think,
our favorite one I know what'sthe difference between, like a
(33:13):
toxic work environment and ahostile work environment.
Cause they say hostile quite abit and I'm like that sounds
like you're a hostage in yourhostile situation.
Yep.
Steven (33:26):
Yeah, a few things.
Well, a hostile workenvironment is going to be a, an
environment that's sointolerable that it's severe and
pervasive harassment, whichcould be one really horrible
instance, but usually it's apattern of it, and it's usually
going to be based on someone'ssex or race or gender or
(33:49):
religion, the things that we'vetalked about, those protected
characteristics, and talk aboutthe power.
I mean, how many of thosedancers would probably work for
free if they, you know, if thatwas allowed by the law, because
they just want to be in Lizzo'spresence and it's going to be
their big break, and thenthey're just totally taken
advantage of because of thatpower dynamic must have been, I
(34:13):
imagine must have been reallyintense on the on the sets of
these music videos and things.
Gina (34:20):
Yeah, and a lot of this happened.
What Nicola and I ended up kindof coming to a very general
conclusion was a lot of theirallegations ended up just being
like they were being told whatto do on their own time.
Like technically they're notrehearsing, technically they're
not performing, but after hours,when you should be able to have
(34:45):
your own hobbies, do what youwant, there was pressure to
continue to go out with Lizzoand do stuff with the crew yeah,
and do stuff with the crew andas an employer or even as an
employee, like how do you say no?
and then to what you just saidabout being in Lizzo's presence
and her atmosphere if there's afear, I feel like already
(35:08):
ingrained in you, if I say no,maybe they're gonna fire me,
right?
It's that power dynamic.
If I say no, I'm gonna looklike I'm not a team player.
If I don't do this, what if Imiss out on becoming friends
with her and then gettingpromoted Like who knows right?
There's all of that that comeswith it.
So how do you prove that?
(35:29):
Like, how do you prove thatthose were my thoughts?
And saying yes, that it wasn'tlike a yes, because you
genuinely wanted to go to thisstrip club with Lizzo?
Steven (35:41):
In January there's always a spike of calls about
Christmas parties, companyChristmas parties oh I hate to
come in and so that happens.
Oh my God, we hate that.
But I think it's a goodparallel, right, because you
don't have to go, but there'ssort of pressure to go at some
times and there's usuallyalcohol involved and it usually
sort of feels like it's not worksometimes and I think that's
(36:05):
sort of the situation here withLizzo is we're not really at
work.
So everyone kind of puts theirguards down and, technically
speaking, employees areresponsible for what's in the
scope of their employment, whensupervisors like Lizzo and her
manager, I think, are doingthings within the scope of their
(36:28):
employment and they're gonnaargue I'm sure those LA
attorneys, they're gonna arguevery hard that anything that
happened to the bar outside ofwork has nothing to do with the
employment.
Nicola (36:39):
But that's not really true and we all know that.
Steven (36:42):
And on the flip side, yeah, and the courts have given
a good amount of leeway tothings that happen off the work
site, as long as it was a workevent, a work you know somewhat,
work sponsored, you know.
If a supervisor says, hey,we're all going straight from
the office here.
Those are the types of thingsthat are gonna be a little bit
more gray, but generallyspeaking, there's been a pretty
(37:04):
good amount of leeway forliability for the employer when
they're taking their employeesout to a different place and
putting their guards down andtalking about, you know, asking
about their virginity, andthey're talking about dildos, I
mean all sorts of just crazythings that they alleged in the
(37:26):
Lizzo complaint that you sent me.
Nicola (37:29):
Still, I guess there's some wild allegations in there,
right.
Gina (37:32):
Our favorite, right, nicola?
We read this in depth.
There was one that one of thedancers alleged they were not
allowed to go to the bathroomduring rehearsal and it was like
a 12 hour rehearsal and theyended up peeing their pants,
essentially, and then they weregiven a sparkly see-through body
stocking by wardrobe to wearlike, I guess, home or for the
(37:54):
rest of the day.
Steven (37:58):
It's horrifying, it's like.
Gina (38:01):
I guess.
For me it's like it sounds sofucking weird that it has to be
true, right Like, who's gonnacome up with that?
Nicola (38:08):
I'm getting a little bit of a mess All we had was like
an absolute cheer, like we cansee all of your bits body
stocking.
Oh, we didn't.
You know, I didn't have a sparepair of sweatpants in my
training kit.
Gina (38:21):
I mean yeah, it's like.
So I don't know, like knowingthe very little that you do know
about this particular complaint, or is it a complaint or an
allegation at this point?
Steven (38:34):
It's a complaint, it's a lot.
Gina (38:35):
Okay, it's a complaint.
Steven (38:37):
The allegations are put in a document called the
complaint, and once it's filed,it becomes a lawsuit.
Okay, got it the opening sortof the opening document of a
lawsuit.
Gina (38:46):
It's the lid.
Nicola (38:49):
The lid on the can of worms.
Gina (38:51):
So, based on what you know , which agreed, we can all agree
, it's all very limited and ourretelling of situations yeah,
well, retelling is probablyterrible.
Sweet.
This reminds me Joe, joe's mypartner.
Our listeners know this.
I told him like a year ago Iwas like you got to watch the
show it's about.
(39:12):
And he's like what is it about?
And I forget the name of theshow now because this is a while
ago and I was like it was aboutsomebody getting raped in the
woods, like, and it was likethen covered up by all of these
women at a brewery or something.
So he's like okay, I'm going towatch the show.
He's like two episodes in.
He's like first of all, nobodywas raped.
This is like eyewitnesstestimony, right?
(39:33):
It's like this is why itdoesn't work, because I watched
the fucking show and I still gotthe whole premise wrong.
Anyway, so that's us retellingyou the Lizzo bits.
It's like don't really believeanything that comes out of our
mouth.
Steven (39:48):
Fair enough, I mean.
But I have a gist and I feellike it's been the news enough
that I feel like we've all heardabout it a little bit yeah.
Gina (40:00):
Oh.
Steven (40:01):
I will say this.
You know, often it's sort oflike what's the end goal?
And here it's probably aboutmoney.
It's probably about thesedancers aren't making a lot of
money.
A lot of employers haveinsurance specifically for cases
like this Employment practices,liability insurance, it's E,
(40:21):
what is that?
E-p-l-i insurance.
And so how much does it impactthe company?
You know, when this stuffhappens, they file insurance
claim, like you might do for acar accident, and their
insurance flips the bill andtheir premiums go up.
Now sometimes insurance won'tcover it or it's gonna come
right out of their pocket.
But generally speaking, it'slike what's the end goal?
(40:43):
And I feel like here it's money, but it's also let's expose
Lizzo's sort of operation forwhat it is.
And so it'll be interesting ifthey wanna settle quickly and
you know, is this really aboutmoney?
I think it will settle quicklyIf it's less about money and
it's more about let's reallyexpose all the wrong doing for
Lizzo.
I think it will last for yearsand there'll be a lot of back
(41:05):
and forth, discovery whereinformation will come out.
Nicola (41:09):
Interesting.
I'm curious to know one of thethings that they bring up a
couple of times in this document, and this happened at our
workplace as well.
So I'm interested to know, justlike, what your thoughts are on
.
This Is.
One of the things that theybrought up was always the
commentary about that jobsaren't safe.
Oh, everybody's gotta be on.
(41:32):
You know their best behaviorbecause the jobs aren't safe,
and Lizzo mentions it here.
She does a couple of commentshere, especially in April she
goes, she told everybody thattheir jobs weren't safe and that
drinking alcohol before theshow was prohibited, and there
was like a bunch of things thatshe said along that line as well
.
But I'm curious to know, like,when a leader or manager says
(41:57):
that to the team, obviously it'sgonna demoralize the team, like
of course, but like, is thatsomething that they shouldn't be
doing?
Like, what's the kind of, whatis the legal aspect of that?
Steven (42:12):
I don't know for these dancers, for Lizzo, because I'm
not sure if they were in a unionor something like that but
typically and I know you'retalked about this a bunch of
times on your podcast aboutbeing an at-will employee so in
California, the vast, vastmajority of non-union employees
are at-will, and so they can beterminated for any reason no
reason at all and theiremployers can remind them that.
(42:35):
And I agree, nicola, it'shorrible for morale, but there's
nothing really unlawful aboutit until it's tied to something
else.
If you're threatening theirtermination unless they do
something, that's illegal,that's when it starts to become
more of an issue.
But I think there was aninstance this spring or last
(42:58):
fall Mark Zuckerberg sayingtelling all the meta employees
your job's not safe, we're gonnabe cutting and we're gonna
decide who gets cut, and it'shorrible for morale and you go
home to your family thinking Imight lose my job any day.
Nicola (43:11):
And it's just stressful, like it creates additional
stress that probably you'redoing in the end.
Gina (43:16):
But would you rather not be warned that they're doing?
They're going to be coming upon massive layoffs, like in the
case of meta.
Nicola (43:25):
That's why change management is really important.
Right Like, do it in the rightway.
Say look, we're doing a review,we know that we have to save
$40 million.
This is how we're gonna save$40 million.
One of these interventions thatwe're gonna use is to cut some
jobs, but we're gonna go througha rigorous process.
(43:46):
Everybody's gonna have theopportunity to provide feedback
and this is the changemanagement process we're gonna
use.
Steven (43:53):
And what ends up happening is it's a lot of
favoritism, a lot of I like thisperson, even though it's not
tied to any real objectives ormetrics or anything like that,
and those are how decisions are,unfortunately, often made.
Gina (44:08):
Yeah, I would agree with that, especially in America,
because we don't.
I don't think America, likecorporate America, for lack of
better terminology has a goodhandle on change management.
Nicola (44:20):
I don't think they would know what change management was
if they put them in the air.
Gina (44:24):
I think it's a word you know, like I remember years ago
when I was starting to likethink, oh, maybe I want a
different job, whatever.
Like all of these acronyms likeKPIs, like look at that, and
it's like, oh, you just want toand benchmark, that's benchmark
it.
It's like, oh, you wannacompare prices.
Just fucking say compare prices.
(44:44):
Like let's not like you knowfluff, what it actually is.
Okay, you wanna get twodifferent quotes from two
different vendors and see who'scheaper for the exact same item.
Great, like they're calling itbenchmarking and everyone calls
something different.
You know something completelydifferent.
So it's like I feel like changemanagement is a buzzword that
(45:05):
just means like how are we gonnakeep our employers and
employees on the same page interms of what's happening at a
higher level?
Right, and I don't thinkAmericans are good at that.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I've neverbeen part of an organization
that has been particularly goodwith being transparent about
what they're doing, why and howthey're going to arrive at the
(45:28):
decision what you just described, and I think that's very
typical of American employees,employers, rather sorry, and I
think, steven, you would agreewith me.
What are your thoughts on that?
Steven (45:41):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, I think there isn't alot of transparency and I think
some of that sometimes has to dowith once you start telling
employees things, they starttalking, they start questioning
and there's little rebellions,that sort of happen.
I think companies are reallyworried about that and like to
(46:01):
safeguard decisions on sort of aas needed basis to know, and I
mean from the sort ofpessimistic capitalist viewpoint
, these.
They think it's best forprofits, as if we make decisions
(46:22):
this way and our employees justwork for us.
We pay them the salary andthey're not entitled to this
information.
Nicola (46:31):
So here in New Zealand just as a.
Oh yeah, here in New Zealand,here down in our little freezing
, cold little bucket of joy,when?
So we have to, by law, gothrough a change management
process which includesconsultation, fair process,
(46:52):
selection criteria, consultingwith any unions if they're
involved.
Notice and severance alternatewe offer alternative employment,
should that be an optionredundancy compensation, and
then obviously, we've got tomake sure that we're keeping
records of Wow.
Gina (47:11):
That sounds amazing, right See like yeah, that it how in
America does that?
Steven (47:16):
It's unheard of.
That is, it's so.
It's such a better society tolive in.
Nicola (47:20):
It's very difficult to fire people here.
Firing someone is incrediblyhard.
So unless you are like a serialkiller and you have murdered
people in your office, which isserious misconduct, getting
someone fired is really tricky.
Yeah, so it's pretty muchserious.
Misconduct is, or you know,like serious, serious things
(47:47):
will get you into trouble.
Gina (47:50):
We had someone from New Zealand tell us that it was
proven that this guy it was theEOS woman.
She was in a workplace that sherealized that all the higher
ups knew that Kevin Smith, orwhoever it was, was embezzling.
They had proof, but theyweren't going.
They couldn't fire him forwhatever reason.
I forget what was the reasonlike.
(48:11):
I can't remember what the we'dhave to go back.
There was a reason that kind ofmade sense.
But they were basically likehey, kevin, stop embezzling.
Okay.
And he was like, okay, and hekept his job, yeah because
you've got to, it's almost likea three strike rule.
Nicola (48:26):
So you've got to do your first warning, second warning
and then your third warning, andyou've got to provide
performance management optionsas well.
So if you suck at your job andwe all hate you and we want to
fire you, we've got toperformance manage you out,
which is a very long and drawnout process and can take
anywhere from like three monthsto a year.
So you've got this, let's say,toxic person in the workplace
(48:50):
that is just going to maintainthere because it's really,
really difficult.
And it's kind of from thatpoint onwards that you have to
start keeping as an employee, asan employer, you have to start
documenting all the evidence ofthe times that they didn't meet
the performance requirementsthat you've set out in this
performance development plan.
Steven (49:10):
That sort of sounds a little bit like government
government workers in the US.
I think it's hard to fire.
It's hard, you know, and ifyou're underperforming unless
you're really grosslyunderperforming you're usually
going to be able to stick aroundfor a long time past.
Probably should be there.
Gina (49:29):
Past due expiration date.
I also feel like even though,like in theory, the way you guys
do it in New Zealand, it soundsa lot more thorough and you
know a better way to do changemanagement or you know getting
rid of an employee.
I also feel like it opens youup to keeping, like what Steven
(49:51):
and you are saying, like peoplewho are embezzling or who are
really just not really pullingtheir weight and creating a more
toxic environment.
The reason why that woman toldus about the story is because
she left because she couldn'twrap her.
That was the deciding factorfor her to leave, because she
was like, if they're lettingKevin Smith get away with it,
(50:11):
who's going to say that?
Kevin Smith and 12 of his otheryou know team members won't
start doing that and they'reletting.
This is a well-known secret, butwe're turning a blind eye to it
.
How can you run a successfulorganization in that manner?
So I feel like it's openingyourself up to having people who
(50:33):
aren't really pulling theirweight, don't really know what
they're doing, to stay in thesaid position that they have.
Would you agree with that,nicola?
Nicola (50:41):
Yeah, I do agree with that.
I think that makes.
Gina (50:44):
There's really no.
You're always going to havetoxic people.
You're always going to havetoxic workplaces.
Like it's such, like.
It's like a mind fuck right.
It's like.
So here's New Zealand, who'sdoing everything properly in
terms of change management andletting redundant staff go and
it sounds great.
(51:04):
And then here's America, who'sjust like you didn't curl your
eyelashes in the right way.
You're an at-will employee, sofuck you, you're done.
Today's your last day.
You're kicked out of all youremail.
So it's like is there a middleground that could possibly be
the sweet spot for corporatecorporations and organizations
across the world?
(51:25):
Like what do you think aboutthat, steven, seeing what you've
seen through?
All of your clients andemployees come through your door
who are disgruntled.
Are they all disgruntled?
Steven (51:37):
Almost.
Yes, people are never happytalking to me.
I would say at the beginningit's such a good question, I
think.
I agree that I'm not sure ifthere's a great solution.
One idea is employee owned orpartially employee owned
businesses.
I think people who haveownership stakes in their own
(51:58):
work are going to do a betterjob and act ethically, and if
they're not, their fellowemployees can terminate them
more easily, because they allhave an ownership in the company
too.
So I think there's some workaround.
Gina (52:13):
It is a good.
More employee owned businesses,or at least partially owned.
I hope that's very common,though these days I feel like
that was something that happenedyears ago.
Like many years ago, I don'tthink that's something that
Americans even think of anymore.
Steven (52:31):
Yeah, on the small scale , I feel you know there's a
pizza shop here in Oakland thatis about to become employee
owned and I was thinking I waseating my pizza there a couple
of weeks ago, thinking you knowhow's this going to change the
employees?
I think I'm assuming therewould be less instances of
discrimination, harassment,retaliation, also less
(52:53):
experiences of poor performerssticking around way longer than
they should, and it seems likeit could really work.
I think for bigger.
If it was pizza, I'm not sureit would work.
I think once it gets too big itgets harder to manage when so
many people have input and Ithink it's an interesting idea,
(53:14):
at least for experimentationpurposes.
Gina (53:18):
Yeah, yeah, I don't think many people even think about
that.
I mean, I think years and yearsago, at my first job out of
college, I think, technically,we had employee stock options,
but it was like so minimal thatit didn't even make a difference
in the whole grand scheme ofthings, because the people you
(53:39):
know, the higher ups, had themost share.
So even if we voted onsomething, it didn't even really
make a difference.
Whatever they decided was goingto be what ended up happening.
So in theory it's a good idea,but I think you're right, when
it gets to be too big, it getsso watered down that you're
really not your say doesn'treally make a difference anyway.
Steven (54:01):
Right and you're not waking up thinking you know, how
can that contribute to mycompany today?
It's just, there's myemployer's company I work for.
Gina (54:09):
Right yeah.
Nicola (54:11):
That's so true.
What do you think is importantin toxic workplaces to cover off
when gathering up evidence?
Steven (54:24):
This isn't that, but have you talked about diversity,
inclusion, equity initiativeson your podcast before?
Gina (54:31):
We were just talking to someone who has autism, who's
very you wouldn't really know ituntil he mentioned it, but who
might need, you know, specialaccommodations.
But yeah, if like, then I'mlike well, I'm special needs too
, because I have a period it'slike huh Right.
Steven (54:47):
Right, and people have been doing that with working
from home, accommodations, butpeople have been trying to come
up with any possible disability.
Gina (54:55):
Have they really?
Oh yeah, because it's a bigdeal to work from home.
Do tell I'm curious.
Steven (55:02):
And as people have, as employers have required people
to come back into the office,people want to stay working at
home and one of the only ways todo that is say it's a
reasonable accommodation for mymedical condition or disability.
And so there's a lot of peoplewho have legitimate, real
disabilities and medicalconditions where working from
(55:22):
home is necessary, or at least afew days a week, and it's a
reasonable accommodation, it'snot going to hurt the company,
it's not an undue burden.
Then there are other people whojust want to work from home and
can get one doctor's notesaying that they have trouble
driving from due to a medicalcondition.
It would be best if they onlywork from home, if they only
work in office three days a week, and I think that devalues the
(55:47):
people who have real, genuineconditions Absolutely, and so
it's always a little bit toughto sess out of what's going on?
Nicola (55:56):
Why are we pushing people to go back into the
office?
I just don't understand.
Steven (56:02):
Are you asking me?
I don't know the answer to that, I'm just asking in general.
Nicola (56:05):
I'm like it's wild in my mind.
Gina (56:09):
I have been working from home since pre-pandemic, because
my company's office is in NewYork and when I was six months
pregnant with my daughter, Imoved to Florida.
So I've been working remotelyand then the pandemic hit and
then eventually our company gaveup its office space because it
(56:30):
was like we can do our work fromliterally anywhere.
So there's no reason to berenting a space on Amsterdam
Avenue, on the Upper West Side,like in Manhattan.
That sounds fancy.
It wasn't.
It was just a small office, butit was nice to have that sort
of storefront, so to speak.
But I hate working from home.
I feel like there are ben.
(56:52):
Yeah, I hate it.
I feel so isolated.
I feel like it does most otheremployees a disservice.
Because you and you and I havetalked about this before, nicola
Because then you're relying onI am, I'm dating myself or
texting instant messenger interms of whatever it's I message
on your phone or Slack or anyof those or Teams, and it's like
(57:15):
if you've never seen me inperson and you don't understand
my personality, my mannerismsand I've used this example
before in our podcast if I say,oh my God, nicola, you're
killing me In a text, you don'tknow what that means.
But if you saw me in person andI'm like, oh my God, this whole
project is getting like makingme go crazy and, nicola, right
now you are killing me you wouldunderstand.
(57:37):
It was like set in a joking,non-offensive way.
So I feel like it does a lot ofemployees a disservice, right?
Because you don't really trulyunderstand who people are.
Maybe you'll have Zoom meetingsa couple of times a week, but
it's usually for problem solvingor you don't really get to know
(57:59):
someone.
Nicola (58:01):
But maybe that's one of the things that we need to start
looking at is that we'relooking more at a more hybrid
community, rather than justfully in the office or fully
work from home, right, wherewe've got that more flexibility,
where you're like two days inthe office, three days at home.
The other thing is.
Gina (58:22):
I also feel like when you go into the office on the flip
side there's so many moredistractions you get less work
done.
When I'm working from home, Icould do what would normally
take me in an office like allday, in maybe two and a half
hours, like I'm done, like thisI'm not being interrupted, I'm
not doing office chit chat, I'mnot getting up every two seconds
(58:45):
to get water or I'm justplowing through my work.
So I don't know, I don't knowwhat is your opinion, steven?
Yeah, what's your opinion?
Steven (58:57):
I'm pretty mixed.
I think a lot of people, a lotof employers, want to send
people back to work for thewrong reasons and they want Wait
, what are those reasons?
Those reasons are supervisors,mid-level managers, want control
, really direct control, overtheir workers.
They want to be able to seethem there.
Gina (59:16):
There I say micromanagement.
Steven (59:18):
There you go.
You say I think that's reallyunhealthy.
I think it's nice for people,for extroverted people who want
to go into the office, to beable to build that community, to
be able to really understandone another.
I think is important.
I like the hybrid approach.
I just think that some of thesecompanies that are now we're
checking your bad swipe entriesto see how many times you come
(59:42):
to the office.
For me it feels a little bitlike a helicopter employer and I
don't like that.
But I agree with you, gina,that I think it's helpful for
building out community actuallyunderstanding what people are
saying.
You can't really do that.
Gina (59:59):
I think for morale too.
Right, because just using meand Nicola, we didn't realize
that we both felt a certain typeof way about our former
employer because we were notphysically together.
Maybe if I had seen her everyday and we started chatting, we
would have been like maybe weshould come up with an exit plan
, because this place fuckingsucks.
(01:00:21):
This is draining the life outof me.
I just want to go stab myselfwith a blunt object in the eye.
So we didn't have thatopportunity.
So I think maybe hybrid is theway to go, because you can do
your social stuff, build moraleand then go home and bang out
your work and get it done inrecord time.
Sounds like a good plan Withoutthe commute on certain days.
Nicola (01:00:44):
Yeah, exactly.
But then you've got that flipside right.
We've got our micromanagers,who aren't going to like the
fact that you're creatingcommunities of work at work,
because you should be at work todo your work right.
So now they're going to stymieor stifle your opportunities to
create connections because theyjust want you to come into the
(01:01:06):
office and sit at your desk andpound out work.
So what the fuck is the point?
Gina (01:01:11):
I think that would lead us into a whole different
conversation about how do stupidpeople get in places of
leadership.
Steven (01:01:18):
I don't know, but I hate stupid people, and that's the
root of a lot of different roles.
I think why are?
Gina (01:01:22):
people who want to micromanage being leaders, like
it doesn't make any sense.
How has this happened?
And, steven, why are we comingto you thinking you have the
answers?
Well, we know you don't, but Idon't, but one.
Steven (01:01:39):
I think there's one problem, I think and this is the
hot button issue I was going tomention earlier with diversity,
equity inclusion.
I think if there were moresupervisors and managers that
looked like employees racially,with religion, sexual
orientation, whatever it is Ithink it would lead to a more
(01:02:00):
healthy workplace.
And so the fact that now, eversince affirmative action has
been overturned in schools inthe US last spring or early
summer in June, the nextfrontier, I think, for a lot of
people on that side is how canwe end diversity equity
inclusion initiatives in theworkplace?
(01:02:21):
And so that worries me, becauseI think it's going to become a
lot less healthier of workplacesif there are less people that
look like their employees on themanagement level.
Gina (01:02:32):
I can understand why it's an issue.
Right, I can understand foradmissions, but I don't
understand how that, why thatwould then translate to a
workplace.
Steven (01:02:47):
Yeah, it's a good question.
So Edward Blum is one of themain attorneys who's who
represented, he took.
He represented mostly, I think,asian students against Harvard
and he was largely responsiblefor overturning affirmative
action with Supreme Court when Isided with him.
(01:03:08):
And then that happened thisspring and he immediately sort
of declared war on companies'diversity equity inclusion
initiatives.
So he sued two big law firmssaying you have for law students
, you have fellowships for thesummers for people who are
historically underrepresented,so they give out some money and
(01:03:31):
you do sort of an internship andit's sort of known as it's only
for people who areunderrepresented through that
major law firms.
And so he sued these big lawfirms saying that that is
discrimination, that'sdiscrimination against people
who aren't of those historicallyrepresented groups, and so
it'll be interesting to see howthat ends up getting handled
(01:03:53):
through the courts.
I think personally thatdiversity equity inclusion is
super important to a healthyworkplace and so I'm all for
them.
Gina (01:04:02):
But the way that this affirmative action battle is
gone, I think it's going to beinteresting how OK, steven, tell
us where we can find you forany of our listeners, and I'm
sure there's quite a few whomight feel like they have a good
case.
Nicola (01:04:18):
Especially all of those in California.
Steven (01:04:20):
Yes, only California.
You can find me on my websitethat's probably the best place
wwwchisenlawcom my last name'sChisen, so chisenlawcom, that's
probably the best place to findme or on LinkedIn.
Those are my main avenues.
No social media for now.
Nicola (01:04:40):
Other than.
Steven (01:04:41):
LinkedIn.
Nicola (01:04:42):
Yeah, so you're on LinkedIn.
Ok, we'll get people to stalkyou on LinkedIn.
Steven (01:04:46):
LinkedIn's good.
I'm not on the TikTok Instagramworld for now.
Nicola (01:04:51):
Please don't be on TikTok, nobody knows.
Steven (01:04:54):
There's some very popular lawyers on TikTok.
Gina (01:04:56):
I was going to say what do lawyers post on TikTok?
Nicola (01:05:01):
Oh no, there's employee like employment lawyer Ryan.
No, but he's Instagram which Ithink is quite he's on.
Gina (01:05:07):
TikTok too, is he.
I don't even I don't fuck withTikTok, I'm too old.
Nicola (01:05:12):
Fun fact top cities Wellington, new Zealand, new
York, gina and Los Angeles,California.
Listen to the podcast, yeah.
Gina (01:05:23):
OK, so if you guys need an employment lawyer, we know
where to find.
You know where to find one andwe'll put all of your info in
the show notes so anyone canjust click it if they want to
reach out to you.
Steven (01:05:36):
Yeah, great.
Gina (01:05:38):
It was such a pleasure.
Steven (01:05:39):
Chania with you both.
Gina (01:05:41):
You too, and to everyone out there.
Document evidence Is that yourmajor takeaway Document
everything and don't deleteanything.
Document documents, yeah, anddon't delete.
Good morning Steven.
Steven (00:03):
Hey.
Nicola (00:03):
Nicola.
Steven (00:04):
Hey Gina, how are you doing?
Nicola (00:05):
Hey, good how are you doing?
Good thanks with yourselves.
Steven (00:09):
Oh good, I'm glad this worked.
I'm doing well, I'm doing verywell.
Yeah, it's been a while it'sbeen a while since we talked I
think it was what a month ago orso it was like a month ago
maybe.
Yeah.
Nicola (00:20):
Maybe a month ago, was it a month?
Gina (00:23):
Was it late.
Nicola (00:25):
Yeah, we got a little sidetracked there.
We definitely got sidetracked.
Um, Steven, would you like tointroduce your lovely self?
Gina (00:33):
Yes, tell us about who you are and what you do.
Steven (00:36):
Sure, I'm super glad to be on.
Gina and Nicola, it's great tosee you doing this podcast.
I feel like there needs to bemore talking about toxic
workplaces.
I'm glad you're doing it.
Thanks for having me on.
I am an employment attorney.
I'm almost exclusivelyrepresenting employees against
employers in California.
(00:57):
I'm based in Oakland,California, and so I do a lot of
dispute resolution on behalf ofemployees who have endured all
sorts of toxic workplaces, muchof which is illegal
discrimination, retaliation,harassment, sexual harassment
those types of things thatpeople endure in the workplace
(01:18):
and try to get them some somesort of resolution that's,
that's fair and that tries tohold some of these companies
accountable.
So that's me in a nutshell.
Gina (01:29):
All right, I like it.
So what are some of?
I don't know if you're allowedto say um, but have you taken,
have you done like any AaronBrockovich stuff like really big
companies?
You went against Like you seeall these movies right, and it's
like someone in uncovers likeillegal gas or oil dumping.
Nicola (01:46):
you know that's like poisoning a ton Illegal gambling
ring in their underground house.
Gina (01:51):
Have you done anything like wild, like that?
Steven (01:55):
I don't know about wild, but I being in the Bay Area is
fun because chances are you'llgo up against big tech companies
.
So I've had cases against meta.
I've had cases against Apple,google, um sort of every name.
Name your tech company.
There's cases against them.
Gina (02:13):
Of course yeah.
Steven (02:15):
Now and then.
But but sometimes you knowthose companies at least have
some sort of mechanism, theyhave processes in place.
They're they're so big, theyhave tons of lawyers, tons of HR
people.
Some of the more interestingcases are smaller entities that
don't know what they're doing,that that are that don't have an
(02:35):
HR consultant or lawyers onstaff, and so auto body shops um
sports coaches for for for highschoolers.
You know, like those types ofemployer employee relationships
sometimes are juicier cases,just because the employers uh,
not as prepared for for whenissues come up For you.
Nicola (02:56):
They're not prepared for you.
Steven (02:57):
Yeah Right, they think they can get away with it.
Uh, and they usually can untilsomeone, until something happens
and someone thinks oh, weshould know.
I should, I should do somethingabout this.
Nicola (03:09):
So what's been your most , what do you feel has been, I'm
going to say, your mostimpactful case so far?
Steven (03:18):
I've had a few cases this year involving leaves and
uh.
In in California and in the U Sgenerally, you get protected
leave for maternity andpaternity leave and you get 12
weeks.
Uh, it doesn't necessarily haveto be paid, but your employer
can't retaliate against you fortaking the leave and so you're,
you're entitled to your job, uh,when you come back.
(03:41):
And so had a few mothers orfathers come uh, and they were
working.
They told their employer hey,I'm about to have this, this new
baby take off, and either someof them it's been during the
leave, some of them it's beenright after the leave Uh, the
employer decides that they don'twant them, that they never need
them, and they terminate them.
(04:03):
Um, and those cases, I think,for whatever reason.
For me hearing people take whatthey think is going to be
protected time off to bond withtheir new baby, only to be fired
, um, and never get that timeback.
For, particularly for those whohave been fired during the
leave, so maybe they're sixweeks into a 12 week leave and
(04:23):
they're notified that they'reterminated.
Not only do they have to gofind a new job, but also they
lose forever really, that theextra six weeks of of protected
leave, and so um finding somesort of resolution for them, I
think is has been probably themost rewarding.
Gina (04:41):
So have you proved that they're fired because they took
their leave Cause, of course,I'm assuming the companies are
somewhat smart enough to be likeoh no, we just did like an
evaluation of all the reasonsthat we realized it's right,
it's a redundant orrestructuring or whatever.
So I'm assuming the theemployment, whoever the company
(05:04):
might be, would come back withthat Right.
And so I'm not sure how yousure you didn't fire me because
I took maternity slash paternityleave.
How do you prove that it wasbecause they took the leave?
Steven (05:16):
It's never easy and being in California is helpful
because you get really friendlyjudges and juries in California
for employees, but it's it'schallenging.
It's challenging.
The company will always come upwith reasons when they hire
attorneys.
Those attorneys job to putevery possibility on the table
(05:37):
of why there was some otherreason that they terminated the
employee, and usually I thinkthe timeline speaks for itself.
They the employee had never hadany issues with performance.
It wasn't a mass layoff, so itwasn't like we got rid of, you
know, 60% of the company.
It wasn't like Twitter whereyou know we're getting rid of
(05:57):
almost everyone.
So, yes, some people are goingto be on maternity leave when
they're, when they're fired.
These are individuals who areterminated.
No one else was terminated.
They never had performanceissues and the entire during
leave or within a few weeks oreven a couple months after the
leave, and the timeline speaksfor itself and you get
reasonable judges and juries whoare going to see that timeline
(06:20):
and understand that there'sreally only one one reason.
Gina (06:25):
Yeah, okay.
So what has been some of yourmore challenging cases in terms
of, you know, an employee beinga whistleblower, so to speak,
whether it's the real.
You know they had the, thewhat's the word I'm looking for?
I'm like side note, I'm stuckon stupid.
Today.
I'm very like slow and I don'tknow why I slept like way too
(06:50):
many hours last night.
I can't like form a sentence.
My workout this morning took medouble the time it normally did
, because I'm just like.
I'm like I've been staring offinto space for 10 minutes in
between sets, like so this isgoing to be rough.
So what I'm trying to say iswhat has been some more, some of
the more challenging aspects toproving employee, employee or
(07:15):
discriminations or toxicity orwhatever word you want to assign
it.
What has been some of the morechallenging ones?
Steven (07:25):
With respect to to toxic environments, gina, the, the
biggest challenge is that a lotof people experience toxic
workplaces that aren'tnecessarily unlawful workplaces.
Nicola (07:45):
And so I talked to.
Steven (07:47):
I talked to probably a dozen or two Employees a week
doing intake calls and trying tolearn about if they have cases
and and so many people hadnegative interactions with their
supervisors or colleagues andthen but I'm not able to
(08:08):
determine, you know, is thisjust a supervisor that you agree
with, that treated you unfairly, that made a bad business
decision?
Is bad business decisions arebad business decisions, but it's
not unlawful.
It has, you know, harassmenthas to rise to the level of
being a hostile work environment, being severe and pervasive,
being based on your religion,your race, your ethnicity, those
(08:32):
types of things, at least herein California.
And so often there's just a lotof bad managers out there who
aren't, who didn't get anytraining on being a manager and
who just are bad at their jobs.
And there's often no case forthat.
It's just you got yourself intoa situation where you have a
(08:54):
really bad manager.
Nicola (08:56):
So what is what for you when you're doing these like
screening calls.
What is your litmus test?
Like, what sort of questionsare you asking people when
they're calling so that you know, when people do call, what
should they be prepared with?
And kind of what is your litmustest of?
Okay, yeah, okay, this is bad.
What is your litmus?
Steven (09:17):
test of I'm always trying to think about, from the
moment that potential clientscall in, is what would this look
like if there were a trial or,you know, there were a hearing
on the matter?
What could we prove?
And so a lot of times there'swe had this conversation on the
phone.
You know, I had a conversationon the phone with my supervisor
(09:39):
and and they made a commentabout my weight and it was a one
off comment and there wasisolated and it's awful.
It's awful, but it wasn't inwriting.
I never reported it.
It happened a year ago and,yeah, it happened and I believe
them, but it's going to be morechallenging to prove.
(10:01):
And so that's going to be aconversation with the client or
the potential client of how canwe build that evidence.
You know, will they say itagain?
Have they said it to anyoneelse?
You know, was?
Were there any witnesses?
Those types of things.
Alternatively, sometimes peopleput that stuff in writing, they
write it on Slack, they writeit on Teams, they put it in
emails there's or they say it infront of witnesses.
(10:22):
Then there's a case, becausenow we have things that we can
use to prove and to actuallyshow a judge or a jury.
Here are the things you knowthat that that are
discriminatory, and so I think,trying to get to the bottom of
what that evidence is and peopledon't people don't call saying
here's all my evidence.
You know I have a packet ofscreenshots and things like that
(10:45):
because people aren't thinkingthat way, but it's trying to get
people to think that way isimportant to get good.
Gina (10:51):
So what do you think?
And I know, when we first like,whatever long ago, we briefly
touched on this when we chattedwith you, how do you know?
Like, how, how do you handle?
Hold on, you're going to haveto edit that part out.
And someone, what is the thetipping point?
(11:12):
That's the word I'm looking forwhen someone would call you,
like, what is what is generallythe tipping point?
Like, is it something big or isit that they're just realizing
that this whole workplace or therelationship they're calling
you about is problematic?
Like, what does that look liketypically?
Steven (11:35):
Typically I think I'm about to be fired or if I was
just terminated and all thisstuff happens.
That's usually when it comesout.
I think a lot of people havebeen experiencing it, enduring
it, for a long time and theyhaven't necessarily recognized
it as discrimination, harassmentor retaliation.
They're letting it happenbecause when they want this job
(11:59):
to work out, they don't want tobe that person who rocks the
boat with their employer.
There are good things abouttheir job.
Maybe they like the work, butthere's this one supervisor
that's off.
Or they like the fact that theyget to work from home, but they
hate getting emails from thisone person.
I think a lot of people startweighing it and only when things
(12:21):
really blow up to the point ofbeing fired or demoted do they
call.
That's usually the case Now.
Sometimes there's people whoare a little bit more proactive
or just wanting to get aconsultation.
I think I wish that happenedmore often.
I think people should reach outmore often, because the only
(12:43):
way to really educate yourselfabout what's if what's happening
is lawful or not at that timeis to reach out to someone like
me, in whatever state or countryyou're in.
I wish people knew to do itearlier.
Gina (13:00):
I think we did God.
That's what.
Nicola (13:02):
I was going to say so earlier the better.
So if you start seeingrumblings of something weird
unfolding, it's better to giveyou a call and you can then say
this is the stuff that you needto look out for.
Here's a list of things thatyou need to start eyeballing in
your Slack team slash emails, etcetera.
Steven (13:23):
Right, right.
Here are the things you shouldstart documenting.
Here are the things you shouldmake sure there are witnesses
present for.
Here are the things youshouldn't do.
So the earlier the better.
Most lawyers give out freeconsultations when they're
assessing a case, so you shouldbe able to find that for free.
It's worth the hour ofsearching for a lawyer and
(13:44):
having a conversation with thelawyer just to make sure that
you're doing everything you can.
So then, on the back end, ifyou do have a case, you're sort
of as well prepared as possible.
Nicola (13:55):
What are some of the things that you would recommend
people start documenting.
Steven (14:01):
I pretty much and maybe you can agree with this from
your prior work experiences,nicola and Gina I pretty much
tell people to go ahead andthrow away anything that didn't
happen in writing.
So any phone call people aregoing to either lie about or
really.
People have very differentperspectives when they remember
(14:22):
a phone call or an in-personmeeting.
So unless there are witnessesthere and unless it's in writing
, who knows what people aregoing to say months down the
road when their goals change?
But now they're trying toprotect themselves, they're
trying to protect the companythat they work for.
So with that, I always recommendpeople report things in writing
(14:47):
over email to human resources,to the highest person possible
within human resources, and then, in terms of any sort of
discriminatory or harassingcomment that's made, I recommend
reporting it and asking for anywitness to say yes, this is
what I heard too.
(15:08):
So it's not just you, butthere's other people who
contemporaneously said oh yeah,I heard that too.
And if you get that in writing,your case finally becomes a lot
stronger because you can proveit, and that's what matters.
There's the truth, and thenthere's the provable truth, and
the provable truth is, at theend of the day, what matters in
lawsuits and litigation.
Gina (15:31):
So what is the difference and I'm actually asking for
myself between someone's opinionof you as an employee and
discrimination?
Like I remember, because we'retalking, and I'm like thinking,
like I always like to try tolike test myself, like did I do
this?
Could I have been the toxic one?
And it's like I rememberwriting on Slack to someone well
(15:52):
, I don't think she's like, Idon't think she's a true
business person.
She's making poor businessdecisions.
Is that discriminatory or isthat just my opinion Grants that
I should have never said it,period.
And it was to someone under me.
I was just at my wit's end atthis company and I was just like
whatever, like word vomiting, Iwas like I can't stand it
anymore, but like what is theline?
Steven (16:19):
There is.
There's no line.
The line is what a jury ends upthinking at the end of the day.
And so they're going to takethat in the context of
everything else.
And if they're able to say, oh,you know, Gina said that and it
was substantially motivated bythat person's race or that
person's religion or thatperson's sex, then it's
(16:41):
discriminatory.
Alternatively, if it's, if ithas nothing to do with those
factors, then it's your opinionand you're allowed to say it,
and it's about.
Gina (16:53):
It's like what this person was, what their gender rate,
like I don't care, I don't eventhink I knew because we were all
remote, but I just like sawthem making business decisions
that I felt were really poor interms of the company getting to
where they wanted it to go, andI was like who would do this?
Like I just I'm so confused,like this doesn't make sense to
me.
So so I guess the takeawaythere right is that it has to be
(17:20):
motivated by orientation, creed, sex, denomination, politics,
weight, race, any of those likekind of hot button aspects.
But if they just suck as abusiness person, then I'd be
kidding anyone, you're juststupid.
Steven (17:39):
And there should be space.
There really should be space inthe work in a healthy workplace
, right, there should be spacefor people to to give feedback
and to give, you know, feedbackupwards, downwards, across to
peers, supervisors, superviseesand that should be happening on
a regular basis and it should behonest, it should be candid and
(18:00):
it should be specific, andsometimes that's going to look
like this person makes badbusiness decisions, and here's
reason.
So, example one, example two,example three that's not based
on anything.
You should be in a really goodplace as an employer or as a
supervisor, and and and that'swhy people document things, and
(18:23):
if you have that writing and youcan then show, look, this
wasn't based on someone's raceor sex.
This is based on these specificinstances of them just being a
bad business person or makingbad decisions.
Gina (18:35):
Yeah, okay, I think that's actually helpful because you
know.
But then how do you proveintent?
I guess with the facts, right,because, like, anyone can be
like, oh well, I didn't mean itbecause it's a woman, or I
didn't mean it because she'sunderweight or overweight,
whatever you know, you couldalways go back on that.
But how do you prove intent?
Steven (18:58):
People are going to be judges.
Juries are going to bereasonable.
They're going to start lookingat has this person made comments
in the past?
Have other people complainedabout this person?
Are these comments?
Is Gene or the supervisormaking these comments about
every single person on theirteam or just this one person?
(19:21):
They're going to end up havingto make a conclusion or a guess
on your intent.
From my side, representingemployees, all we have to prove
is that it's more likely thannot.
It's not like you hear aboutcriminal cases that are beyond a
reasonable doubt.
You have to prove someonecommitted a crime.
That's not the case, that's notthe burden here in our world of
(19:46):
civil law.
It's just preponderance of thatreference, which means more
likely than not.
So all you have to do is saymore than 50 percent chance that
this happened and we win.
So at the end of the day,there's a lot of risk for
employees because more than 50percent likely is just not that
high to prove.
Gina (20:05):
It's not.
Yeah, that's not right.
So I know, go ahead, nicola.
I feel like you're working onsomething over there that you're
about to launch at us.
Nicola (20:17):
I'm working, sure, launching.
Let's not launching, but I'mokay.
Being in California, I ampretty confident and also, being
a lawyer, I feel like you arepretty all over the Lizzo
allegations.
Steven (20:36):
Yeah, I know I'm unfamiliar with them.
I don't know the ins and outs,but so we had.
Nicola (20:43):
I feel like the year is blending together at this point.
Was it last week that we did alive on LinkedIn.
I think it was yeah, Wheneverit was.
Anyway, we did it kind of adeep dive into the submission
that the plaintiffs had made, towhich it was one of the
(21:04):
counties in Los Angeles.
I don't know how your stupidcounties work.
Steven (21:07):
What do I know in New?
Nicola (21:08):
Zealand.
What do I know?
Gina (21:09):
There's a county I don't know, but he's governed by the
state of California.
So the rules would beapplicable to the whole state.
It doesn't matter the county,that's just where right, that's
where it was filed.
Am I right in saying that,steven?
Steven (21:25):
That's right.
I think it was filed in thesuperior court of the county of
Los Angeles, so each county hasits own court.
That the state law is primarilygoverning.
Gina (21:35):
Yeah, it's the governance.
Nicola (21:37):
Okay, what do I know?
Gina (21:39):
We have like three courts.
Nicola (21:40):
We've got like a court, like the regional court, the
high court and the supreme court.
Gina (21:47):
Do you guys wear the white ?
Do you guys wear the white wigs?
Nicola (21:51):
God fun.
Yes, we do, we do, we don't, wedon't.
Gina (21:56):
We can just show up like we can show up in whatever I
think only.
Nicola (21:59):
I think only in the supreme court they do the cool
wigs.
That's totally irrelevant.
Gina (22:04):
Well, if you're in America , nobody does wigs.
Would you like to wear a wig?
Steven, we're totally on atangent.
Nicola (22:12):
Are you wearing a wig?
Gina (22:14):
Would you?
Wear those like old school wigsthat you see?
No.
Steven (22:19):
I wouldn't, I would not want to, but there is something
about being in the courtroom andhaving a judge wearing a black
robe, and the judge is usuallyon a kind of a level above you
and I think, when you knowlawsuits and the law is a very
serious topic and there issomething to be said about the
(22:42):
decorum and the costumes peoplewear and lawyers were sued, so
there's something to be saidthere.
I think it's a littleridiculous.
During the pandemic, there weresome judges who were doing
remote proceedings, who wouldn'ttalk to lawyers if they weren't
wearing ties, and meanwhile itwas 2020 and in the middle of
the pandemic, people are justtrying to get through a day.
Gina (23:02):
Right so like, who cares if you're wearing a tie?
Nicola (23:05):
They're the judge who who accidentally had like the
cat filter?
Steven (23:10):
Was that a?
Gina (23:10):
reporter, a lawyer or a judge it was one of those three
and they did the whole thinglike as a cat on Zoom or hamster
or something I'm like yes, thisis what we need in our lives.
Steven (23:22):
Anyway, circling back, there was also that right at the
beginning, right when theSupreme Court of the United
States went, went remote for thepandemic, they were doing not
not video, but just audio.
And there was a famous toiletflush, and no one knows exactly
which of the nine Supreme Courtjustices did it.
(23:42):
But you can, only I thinkthat's amazing.
Gina (23:46):
Who do you think it was?
Steven (23:49):
I don't know.
I have my guesses, but I don'twant to say them, I don't want
to be on the record saying them.
Gina (23:55):
So Wait, wasn't there something or was it some one of
some politics?
Politician like farmed somepolitics.
I'm retarded today.
I edit that out because I can'tsay that word anymore.
I'm a child of the 80s.
Everyone, leave me alone.
(24:15):
There was.
There was a politician whofarted like was it Trump?
I should know this, but I don'tknow this Somebody, like during
the pandemic it was somethingvirtual and like it was all over
the internet and it was likewas that a fart?
Like nobody.
Ok, we digress.
Steven (24:35):
Rewrite the tape.
Yeah, it would be surprising ifit were Trump.
Nicola (24:39):
I feel like it wouldn't be surprising.
Steven (24:42):
No.
Nicola (24:44):
Anywho circling back, OK .
So I have got the Lizzo thingopen over here and a lot of
their stuff in.
They've got a list of whatthey've called factual
allegations.
I'm like, OK, cute.
Gina (25:01):
But what can you break down what a factual allegation
is?
Is that actually a legal term?
Steven (25:08):
So yeah, I don't know what you're looking at, Nikola,
but it sounds like I will.
I will share it with you.
Nicola (25:13):
Go for it.
Steven (25:13):
Oh, wonderful.
Gina (25:15):
Hold on, give me a second, but have you heard that
terminology before?
Factual allegation?
That seems like it's anoxymoron.
Steven (25:22):
It is, it is, and so usually what happens is the
plaintiff, the person suing theemployee in these, in this
context, is going to submit acomplaint.
That's the the beginning of alawsuit.
Gina (25:36):
And in that complaint.
Steven (25:38):
OK, I'll take a look in that complaint.
They'll say these are all thethings that we're alleging are
facts, and throughout the nextthree years of litigation we're
going to prove each and everyone of these facts.
And then they're going to turnessentially from allegations to
facts that are proven, and sopeople make the shorthand
(26:01):
factual allegations, which is abit of a oxymoron.
They're almost opposites, butthe goal is to take those
allegations that we claim aretrue and actually proving them
to be facts that other peopleagree with.
Gina (26:16):
It sounds like it's saying like yes, we're alleging this,
but we have factual informationto back it up.
So that's why it's a factualallegation and during the
proceedings, should we go totrial, we'll be able to prove it
.
Because if you know that ofcourse, right, isn't that
usually what happens?
How often now I'm on adifferent like tangent here, but
how often do you actually gointo litigation?
(26:36):
Because that's typicallylengthy and expensive for
everyone, right?
Steven (26:43):
Yep, it's not very common, particularly in the
employment realm, and so Often,you know, anyone can file a
lawsuit, and there's tons andtons and tons of frivolous
lawsuits, unfortunately, onunemployment law and it doesn't
look good for plaintiffs lawyerslike me, because employee
lawyers, because I havecolleagues across the state some
(27:04):
of whom will take any case andfile a lawsuit and it's
completely BS and they call thefactual allegations also and
then they would never be able toprove them, and so it's hard
for when the media takes thiscomplaint, this complaint
against Lizzo.
You know these people can justbe saying these things and we
(27:27):
don't know and I personallybelieve them, but I think
they're going to have to proveit and it's likely going to
settle outside of court and andthe public is not really going
to get a clear picture of whathappened.
Is how it usually ends.
Gina (27:45):
Right.
So have you actually ended upgoing you yourself gone into
litigation with any of yourclients?
Steven (27:54):
Yes, so I have cases in litigation and a lot of it's
back and forth, back and forthinformation just sharing, which
is called discovery.
And so you know there'll be anallegation in the complaint in
the factual allegations section.
It will say something like youknow, on this date Lizzo did X.
You know she I mean I've shedid it.
(28:16):
Apparently some, some somesexual harassment, some
harassment based on weight, Ithink, and and then it's, how do
you go proving that?
So we'll ask for all thedocuments from Lizzo, all the
emails that she sent, anddestroying emails at that point
would be a crime.
So she has a duty to turn over.
Nicola (28:35):
So you're going in and you're deleting emails is going
to Come bite your hands.
That's a big no, no yeah.
Gina (28:44):
So after it's filed in the court system, right?
Like?
Let's say, like you're justdoing maintenance on your in
your email inbox and you're justdeleting things from like 2018
or something, cause I hoard allmy emails, I'm aware Prior to it
, prior to any kind of filing ina court system, that's not
illegal, it's after the filinghappens, correct?
Steven (29:07):
The safest thing to do would be, as soon as someone's
aware of anticipated legalclaims, to hold all their
evidence and not destroyanything that could happen once
the lawsuits filed.
Sometimes it happens beforehand, because an attorney sends a
letter saying you know we'regoing to file a lawsuit, please
(29:27):
hold all your evidence Afterthat point.
If you destroy evidence, it'sillegal.
It's.
It's illegal.
It could be a crime.
That it will be.
It'll be.
If there's anything that'smissing, it'll be deemed to be
in the favor of the other side,and so it also has consequences
that people start assuming thatthat what he deleted was was
(29:52):
something you didn't want to,yeah, something you didn't want
people to see Um.
So they'll look through Lizzo'semails and text messages and you
know phone records, things likethat, um, and they'll take her
deposition under oath.
And so they'll say you know,they'll spend a day or two days
or three days with Lizzo askingum, you know what, what happened
(30:13):
and why are these thingshappened?
And they'll show her proof thatthey have maybe they have
screen, you know photos or videorecordings of some of this
awful sexual harassment.
They'll confront her with itand they'll say you know, is
this you here, um?
Nicola (30:27):
is this you in this picture?
That is actually you.
Steven (30:31):
Right and that sort of stuff, and you're under oath and
um.
It's not fun to be.
I don't think it's me, it's alittle blurry, yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
Gina (30:43):
I actually, I, actually I.
I neither am a fan of Lizzo oragainst, but I, for some reason,
I follow her on Instagram Um, Idon't think, I don't know if I
do anymore, but somehow I was atone point and her Instagram
feed is there, is highlysexualized and it is um, also
(31:06):
surrounding like her weight in apositive way, like she's saying
, like you know, just cause I'moverweight, or she doesn't feel
she's overweight, or she doesn'tmind showing her body.
So, just based on thatinformation, which is a very
shitty information, I wouldn'tbe surprised that if these
allegations ended up beingcompletely truthful, because
(31:29):
there is something very sexualabout the way she operates.
Nicola (31:33):
With this, with these particular allegations.
It wasn't just the sexualharassment right, it wasn't just
the, the, the the.
Gina (31:41):
No, it was also weight and money.
Nicola (31:43):
It was also the the um, the pay that they had.
So they were on like holdingpay, Um, but they, the dancers,
weren't getting any.
Gina (31:54):
I don't know what it's called in America, but it was
almost like um well, it's almostlike a retainer right, like a
retainer to do the dancing.
You can't take other jobsduring this period You're, even
though you're not currentlydancing with us, you're not
allowed to leave until yourcontracts up or whatever.
(32:14):
So they didn't have any sort oflike retainer pay, for lack of
a better word, and they'resaying that they had to.
They wanted to get that, whichseems fair, because all the
other, like full-time dancers,were getting the retainer pay.
Nicola (32:28):
So section 40, um.
This year, the team submittedtheir request for a retainer of
50% of their weekly tour rate toensure they would be paid for
their time while on break fromtouring, since whatever and
Lizzo strongly preferred thedance cast not to take on any
other jobs during these breaks,and they did like so.
(32:50):
There was a huge pay issue aswell, like there wasn't just the
sexual allegations, it was alsoaround fat shaming, racial
discrimination, disabilitydiscrimination.
There was a bit around,obviously the pay and I think,
our favorite one I know what'sthe difference between, like a
(33:13):
toxic work environment and ahostile work environment.
Cause they say hostile quite abit and I'm like that sounds
like you're a hostage in yourhostile situation.
Yep.
Steven (33:26):
Yeah, a few things.
Well, a hostile workenvironment is going to be a, an
environment that's sointolerable that it's severe and
pervasive harassment, whichcould be one really horrible
instance, but usually it's apattern of it, and it's usually
going to be based on someone'ssex or race or gender or
(33:49):
religion, the things that we'vetalked about, those protected
characteristics, and talk aboutthe power.
I mean, how many of thosedancers would probably work for
free if they, you know, if thatwas allowed by the law, because
they just want to be in Lizzo'spresence and it's going to be
their big break, and thenthey're just totally taken
advantage of because of thatpower dynamic must have been, I
(34:13):
imagine must have been reallyintense on the on the sets of
these music videos and things.
Gina (34:20):
Yeah, and a lot of this happened.
What Nicola and I ended up kindof coming to a very general
conclusion was a lot of theirallegations ended up just being
like they were being told whatto do on their own time.
Like technically they're notrehearsing, technically they're
not performing, but after hours,when you should be able to have
(34:45):
your own hobbies, do what youwant, there was pressure to
continue to go out with Lizzoand do stuff with the crew yeah,
and do stuff with the crew andas an employer or even as an
employee, like how do you say no?
and then to what you just saidabout being in Lizzo's presence
and her atmosphere if there's afear, I feel like already
(35:08):
ingrained in you, if I say no,maybe they're gonna fire me,
right?
It's that power dynamic.
If I say no, I'm gonna looklike I'm not a team player.
If I don't do this, what if Imiss out on becoming friends
with her and then gettingpromoted Like who knows right?
There's all of that that comeswith it.
So how do you prove that?
(35:29):
Like, how do you prove thatthose were my thoughts?
And saying yes, that it wasn'tlike a yes, because you
genuinely wanted to go to thisstrip club with Lizzo?
Steven (35:41):
In January there's always a spike of calls about
Christmas parties, companyChristmas parties oh I hate to
come in and so that happens.
Oh my God, we hate that.
But I think it's a goodparallel, right, because you
don't have to go, but there'ssort of pressure to go at some
times and there's usuallyalcohol involved and it usually
sort of feels like it's not worksometimes and I think that's
(36:05):
sort of the situation here withLizzo is we're not really at
work.
So everyone kind of puts theirguards down and, technically
speaking, employees areresponsible for what's in the
scope of their employment, whensupervisors like Lizzo and her
manager, I think, are doingthings within the scope of their
(36:28):
employment and they're gonnaargue I'm sure those LA
attorneys, they're gonna arguevery hard that anything that
happened to the bar outside ofwork has nothing to do with the
employment.
Nicola (36:39):
But that's not really true and we all know that.
Steven (36:42):
And on the flip side, yeah, and the courts have given
a good amount of leeway tothings that happen off the work
site, as long as it was a workevent, a work you know somewhat,
work sponsored, you know.
If a supervisor says, hey,we're all going straight from
the office here.
Those are the types of thingsthat are gonna be a little bit
more gray, but generallyspeaking, there's been a pretty
(37:04):
good amount of leeway forliability for the employer when
they're taking their employeesout to a different place and
putting their guards down andtalking about, you know, asking
about their virginity, andthey're talking about dildos, I
mean all sorts of just crazythings that they alleged in the
(37:26):
Lizzo complaint that you sent me.
Nicola (37:29):
Still, I guess there's some wild allegations in there,
right.
Gina (37:32):
Our favorite, right, nicola?
We read this in depth.
There was one that one of thedancers alleged they were not
allowed to go to the bathroomduring rehearsal and it was like
a 12 hour rehearsal and theyended up peeing their pants,
essentially, and then they weregiven a sparkly see-through body
stocking by wardrobe to wearlike, I guess, home or for the
(37:54):
rest of the day.
Steven (37:58):
It's horrifying, it's like.
Gina (38:01):
I guess.
For me it's like it sounds sofucking weird that it has to be
true, right Like, who's gonnacome up with that?
Nicola (38:08):
I'm getting a little bit of a mess All we had was like
an absolute cheer, like we cansee all of your bits body
stocking.
Oh, we didn't.
You know, I didn't have a sparepair of sweatpants in my
training kit.
Gina (38:21):
I mean yeah, it's like.
So I don't know, like knowingthe very little that you do know
about this particular complaint, or is it a complaint or an
allegation at this point?
Steven (38:34):
It's a complaint, it's a lot.
Gina (38:35):
Okay, it's a complaint.
Steven (38:37):
The allegations are put in a document called the
complaint, and once it's filed,it becomes a lawsuit.
Okay, got it the opening sortof the opening document of a
lawsuit.
Gina (38:46):
It's the lid.
Nicola (38:49):
The lid on the can of worms.
Gina (38:51):
So, based on what you know , which agreed, we can all agree
, it's all very limited and ourretelling of situations yeah,
well, retelling is probablyterrible.
Sweet.
This reminds me Joe, joe's mypartner.
Our listeners know this.
I told him like a year ago Iwas like you got to watch the
show it's about.
(39:12):
And he's like what is it about?
And I forget the name of theshow now because this is a while
ago and I was like it was aboutsomebody getting raped in the
woods, like, and it was likethen covered up by all of these
women at a brewery or something.
So he's like okay, I'm going towatch the show.
He's like two episodes in.
He's like first of all, nobodywas raped.
This is like eyewitnesstestimony, right?
(39:33):
It's like this is why itdoesn't work, because I watched
the fucking show and I still gotthe whole premise wrong.
Anyway, so that's us retellingyou the Lizzo bits.
It's like don't really believeanything that comes out of our
mouth.
Steven (39:48):
Fair enough, I mean.
But I have a gist and I feellike it's been the news enough
that I feel like we've all heardabout it a little bit yeah.
Gina (40:00):
Oh.
Steven (40:01):
I will say this.
You know, often it's sort oflike what's the end goal?
And here it's probably aboutmoney.
It's probably about thesedancers aren't making a lot of
money.
A lot of employers haveinsurance specifically for cases
like this Employment practices,liability insurance, it's E,
(40:21):
what is that?
E-p-l-i insurance.
And so how much does it impactthe company?
You know, when this stuffhappens, they file insurance
claim, like you might do for acar accident, and their
insurance flips the bill andtheir premiums go up.
Now sometimes insurance won'tcover it or it's gonna come
right out of their pocket.
But generally speaking, it'slike what's the end goal?
(40:43):
And I feel like here it's money, but it's also let's expose
Lizzo's sort of operation forwhat it is.
And so it'll be interesting ifthey wanna settle quickly and
you know, is this really aboutmoney?
I think it will settle quicklyIf it's less about money and
it's more about let's reallyexpose all the wrong doing for
Lizzo.
I think it will last for yearsand there'll be a lot of back
(41:05):
and forth, discovery whereinformation will come out.
Nicola (41:09):
Interesting.
I'm curious to know one of thethings that they bring up a
couple of times in this document, and this happened at our
workplace as well.
So I'm interested to know, justlike, what your thoughts are on
.
This Is.
One of the things that theybrought up was always the
commentary about that jobsaren't safe.
Oh, everybody's gotta be on.
(41:32):
You know their best behaviorbecause the jobs aren't safe,
and Lizzo mentions it here.
She does a couple of commentshere, especially in April she
goes, she told everybody thattheir jobs weren't safe and that
drinking alcohol before theshow was prohibited, and there
was like a bunch of things thatshe said along that line as well
.
But I'm curious to know, like,when a leader or manager says
(41:57):
that to the team, obviously it'sgonna demoralize the team, like
of course, but like, is thatsomething that they shouldn't be
doing?
Like, what's the kind of, whatis the legal aspect of that?
Steven (42:12):
I don't know for these dancers, for Lizzo, because I'm
not sure if they were in a unionor something like that but
typically and I know you'retalked about this a bunch of
times on your podcast aboutbeing an at-will employee so in
California, the vast, vastmajority of non-union employees
are at-will, and so they can beterminated for any reason no
reason at all and theiremployers can remind them that.
(42:35):
And I agree, nicola, it'shorrible for morale, but there's
nothing really unlawful aboutit until it's tied to something
else.
If you're threatening theirtermination unless they do
something, that's illegal,that's when it starts to become
more of an issue.
But I think there was aninstance this spring or last
(42:58):
fall Mark Zuckerberg sayingtelling all the meta employees
your job's not safe, we're gonnabe cutting and we're gonna
decide who gets cut, and it'shorrible for morale and you go
home to your family thinking Imight lose my job any day.
Nicola (43:11):
And it's just stressful, like it creates additional
stress that probably you'redoing in the end.
Gina (43:16):
But would you rather not be warned that they're doing?
They're going to be coming upon massive layoffs, like in the
case of meta.
Nicola (43:25):
That's why change management is really important.
Right Like, do it in the rightway.
Say look, we're doing a review,we know that we have to save
$40 million.
This is how we're gonna save$40 million.
One of these interventions thatwe're gonna use is to cut some
jobs, but we're gonna go througha rigorous process.
(43:46):
Everybody's gonna have theopportunity to provide feedback
and this is the changemanagement process we're gonna
use.
Steven (43:53):
And what ends up happening is it's a lot of
favoritism, a lot of I like thisperson, even though it's not
tied to any real objectives ormetrics or anything like that,
and those are how decisions are,unfortunately, often made.
Gina (44:08):
Yeah, I would agree with that, especially in America,
because we don't.
I don't think America, likecorporate America, for lack of
better terminology has a goodhandle on change management.
Nicola (44:20):
I don't think they would know what change management was
if they put them in the air.
Gina (44:24):
I think it's a word you know, like I remember years ago
when I was starting to likethink, oh, maybe I want a
different job, whatever.
Like all of these acronyms likeKPIs, like look at that, and
it's like, oh, you just want toand benchmark, that's benchmark
it.
It's like, oh, you wannacompare prices.
Just fucking say compare prices.
(44:44):
Like let's not like you knowfluff, what it actually is.
Okay, you wanna get twodifferent quotes from two
different vendors and see who'scheaper for the exact same item.
Great, like they're calling itbenchmarking and everyone calls
something different.
You know something completelydifferent.
So it's like I feel like changemanagement is a buzzword that
(45:05):
just means like how are we gonnakeep our employers and
employees on the same page interms of what's happening at a
higher level?
Right, and I don't thinkAmericans are good at that.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I've neverbeen part of an organization
that has been particularly goodwith being transparent about
what they're doing, why and howthey're going to arrive at the
(45:28):
decision what you just described, and I think that's very
typical of American employees,employers, rather sorry, and I
think, steven, you would agreewith me.
What are your thoughts on that?
Steven (45:41):
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, I think there isn't alot of transparency and I think
some of that sometimes has to dowith once you start telling
employees things, they starttalking, they start questioning
and there's little rebellions,that sort of happen.
I think companies are reallyworried about that and like to
(46:01):
safeguard decisions on sort of aas needed basis to know, and I
mean from the sort ofpessimistic capitalist viewpoint
, these.
They think it's best forprofits, as if we make decisions
(46:22):
this way and our employees justwork for us.
We pay them the salary andthey're not entitled to this
information.
Nicola (46:31):
So here in New Zealand just as a.
Oh yeah, here in New Zealand,here down in our little freezing
, cold little bucket of joy,when?
So we have to, by law, gothrough a change management
process which includesconsultation, fair process,
(46:52):
selection criteria, consultingwith any unions if they're
involved.
Notice and severance alternatewe offer alternative employment,
should that be an optionredundancy compensation, and
then obviously, we've got tomake sure that we're keeping
records of Wow.
Gina (47:11):
That sounds amazing, right See like yeah, that it how in
America does that?
Steven (47:16):
It's unheard of.
That is, it's so.
It's such a better society tolive in.
Nicola (47:20):
It's very difficult to fire people here.
Firing someone is incrediblyhard.
So unless you are like a serialkiller and you have murdered
people in your office, which isserious misconduct, getting
someone fired is really tricky.
Yeah, so it's pretty muchserious.
Misconduct is, or you know,like serious, serious things
(47:47):
will get you into trouble.
Gina (47:50):
We had someone from New Zealand tell us that it was
proven that this guy it was theEOS woman.
She was in a workplace that sherealized that all the higher
ups knew that Kevin Smith, orwhoever it was, was embezzling.
They had proof, but theyweren't going.
They couldn't fire him forwhatever reason.
I forget what was the reasonlike.
(48:11):
I can't remember what the we'dhave to go back.
There was a reason that kind ofmade sense.
But they were basically likehey, kevin, stop embezzling.
Okay.
And he was like, okay, and hekept his job, yeah because
you've got to, it's almost likea three strike rule.
Nicola (48:26):
So you've got to do your first warning, second warning
and then your third warning, andyou've got to provide
performance management optionsas well.
So if you suck at your job andwe all hate you and we want to
fire you, we've got toperformance manage you out,
which is a very long and drawnout process and can take
anywhere from like three monthsto a year.
So you've got this, let's say,toxic person in the workplace
(48:50):
that is just going to maintainthere because it's really,
really difficult.
And it's kind of from thatpoint onwards that you have to
start keeping as an employee, asan employer, you have to start
documenting all the evidence ofthe times that they didn't meet
the performance requirementsthat you've set out in this
performance development plan.
Steven (49:10):
That sort of sounds a little bit like government
government workers in the US.
I think it's hard to fire.
It's hard, you know, and ifyou're underperforming unless
you're really grosslyunderperforming you're usually
going to be able to stick aroundfor a long time past.
Probably should be there.
Gina (49:29):
Past due expiration date.
I also feel like even though,like in theory, the way you guys
do it in New Zealand, it soundsa lot more thorough and you
know a better way to do changemanagement or you know getting
rid of an employee.
I also feel like it opens youup to keeping, like what Steven
(49:51):
and you are saying, like peoplewho are embezzling or who are
really just not really pullingtheir weight and creating a more
toxic environment.
The reason why that woman toldus about the story is because
she left because she couldn'twrap her.
That was the deciding factorfor her to leave, because she
was like, if they're lettingKevin Smith get away with it,
(50:11):
who's going to say that?
Kevin Smith and 12 of his otheryou know team members won't
start doing that and they'reletting.
This is a well-known secret, butwe're turning a blind eye to it
.
How can you run a successfulorganization in that manner?
So I feel like it's openingyourself up to having people who
(50:33):
aren't really pulling theirweight, don't really know what
they're doing, to stay in thesaid position that they have.
Would you agree with that,nicola?
Nicola (50:41):
Yeah, I do agree with that.
I think that makes.
Gina (50:44):
There's really no.
You're always going to havetoxic people.
You're always going to havetoxic workplaces.
Like it's such, like.
It's like a mind fuck right.
It's like.
So here's New Zealand, who'sdoing everything properly in
terms of change management andletting redundant staff go and
it sounds great.
(51:04):
And then here's America, who'sjust like you didn't curl your
eyelashes in the right way.
You're an at-will employee, sofuck you, you're done.
Today's your last day.
You're kicked out of all youremail.
So it's like is there a middleground that could possibly be
the sweet spot for corporatecorporations and organizations
across the world?
(51:25):
Like what do you think aboutthat, steven, seeing what you've
seen through?
All of your clients andemployees come through your door
who are disgruntled.
Are they all disgruntled?
Steven (51:37):
Almost.
Yes, people are never happytalking to me.
I would say at the beginningit's such a good question, I
think.
I agree that I'm not sure ifthere's a great solution.
One idea is employee owned orpartially employee owned
businesses.
I think people who haveownership stakes in their own
(51:58):
work are going to do a betterjob and act ethically, and if
they're not, their fellowemployees can terminate them
more easily, because they allhave an ownership in the company
too.
So I think there's some workaround.
Gina (52:13):
It is a good.
More employee owned businesses,or at least partially owned.
I hope that's very common,though these days I feel like
that was something that happenedyears ago.
Like many years ago, I don'tthink that's something that
Americans even think of anymore.
Steven (52:31):
Yeah, on the small scale , I feel you know there's a
pizza shop here in Oakland thatis about to become employee
owned and I was thinking I waseating my pizza there a couple
of weeks ago, thinking you knowhow's this going to change the
employees?
I think I'm assuming therewould be less instances of
discrimination, harassment,retaliation, also less
(52:53):
experiences of poor performerssticking around way longer than
they should, and it seems likeit could really work.
I think for bigger.
If it was pizza, I'm not sureit would work.
I think once it gets too big itgets harder to manage when so
many people have input and Ithink it's an interesting idea,
(53:14):
at least for experimentationpurposes.
Gina (53:18):
Yeah, yeah, I don't think many people even think about
that.
I mean, I think years and yearsago, at my first job out of
college, I think, technically,we had employee stock options,
but it was like so minimal thatit didn't even make a difference
in the whole grand scheme ofthings, because the people you
(53:39):
know, the higher ups, had themost share.
So even if we voted onsomething, it didn't even really
make a difference.
Whatever they decided was goingto be what ended up happening.
So in theory it's a good idea,but I think you're right, when
it gets to be too big, it getsso watered down that you're
really not your say doesn'treally make a difference anyway.
Steven (54:01):
Right and you're not waking up thinking you know, how
can that contribute to mycompany today?
It's just, there's myemployer's company I work for.
Gina (54:09):
Right yeah.
Nicola (54:11):
That's so true.
What do you think is importantin toxic workplaces to cover off
when gathering up evidence?
Steven (54:24):
This isn't that, but have you talked about diversity,
inclusion, equity initiativeson your podcast before?
Gina (54:31):
We were just talking to someone who has autism, who's
very you wouldn't really know ituntil he mentioned it, but who
might need, you know, specialaccommodations.
But yeah, if like, then I'mlike well, I'm special needs too
, because I have a period it'slike huh Right.
Steven (54:47):
Right, and people have been doing that with working
from home, accommodations, butpeople have been trying to come
up with any possible disability.
Gina (54:55):
Have they really?
Oh yeah, because it's a bigdeal to work from home.
Do tell I'm curious.
Steven (55:02):
And as people have, as employers have required people
to come back into the office,people want to stay working at
home and one of the only ways todo that is say it's a
reasonable accommodation for mymedical condition or disability.
And so there's a lot of peoplewho have legitimate, real
disabilities and medicalconditions where working from
(55:22):
home is necessary, or at least afew days a week, and it's a
reasonable accommodation, it'snot going to hurt the company,
it's not an undue burden.
Then there are other people whojust want to work from home and
can get one doctor's notesaying that they have trouble
driving from due to a medicalcondition.
It would be best if they onlywork from home, if they only
work in office three days a week, and I think that devalues the
(55:47):
people who have real, genuineconditions Absolutely, and so
it's always a little bit toughto sess out of what's going on?
Nicola (55:56):
Why are we pushing people to go back into the
office?
I just don't understand.
Steven (56:02):
Are you asking me?
I don't know the answer to that, I'm just asking in general.
Nicola (56:05):
I'm like it's wild in my mind.
Gina (56:09):
I have been working from home since pre-pandemic, because
my company's office is in NewYork and when I was six months
pregnant with my daughter, Imoved to Florida.
So I've been working remotelyand then the pandemic hit and
then eventually our company gaveup its office space because it
(56:30):
was like we can do our work fromliterally anywhere.
So there's no reason to berenting a space on Amsterdam
Avenue, on the Upper West Side,like in Manhattan.
That sounds fancy.
It wasn't.
It was just a small office, butit was nice to have that sort
of storefront, so to speak.
But I hate working from home.
I feel like there are ben.
(56:52):
Yeah, I hate it.
I feel so isolated.
I feel like it does most otheremployees a disservice.
Because you and you and I havetalked about this before, nicola
Because then you're relying onI am, I'm dating myself or
texting instant messenger interms of whatever it's I message
on your phone or Slack or anyof those or Teams, and it's like
(57:15):
if you've never seen me inperson and you don't understand
my personality, my mannerismsand I've used this example
before in our podcast if I say,oh my God, nicola, you're
killing me In a text, you don'tknow what that means.
But if you saw me in person andI'm like, oh my God, this whole
project is getting like makingme go crazy and, nicola, right
now you are killing me you wouldunderstand.
(57:37):
It was like set in a joking,non-offensive way.
So I feel like it does a lot ofemployees a disservice, right?
Because you don't really trulyunderstand who people are.
Maybe you'll have Zoom meetingsa couple of times a week, but
it's usually for problem solvingor you don't really get to know
(57:59):
someone.
Nicola (58:01):
But maybe that's one of the things that we need to start
looking at is that we'relooking more at a more hybrid
community, rather than justfully in the office or fully
work from home, right, wherewe've got that more flexibility,
where you're like two days inthe office, three days at home.
The other thing is.
Gina (58:22):
I also feel like when you go into the office on the flip
side there's so many moredistractions you get less work
done.
When I'm working from home, Icould do what would normally
take me in an office like allday, in maybe two and a half
hours, like I'm done, like thisI'm not being interrupted, I'm
not doing office chit chat, I'mnot getting up every two seconds
(58:45):
to get water or I'm justplowing through my work.
So I don't know, I don't knowwhat is your opinion, steven?
Yeah, what's your opinion?
Steven (58:57):
I'm pretty mixed.
I think a lot of people, a lotof employers, want to send
people back to work for thewrong reasons and they want Wait
, what are those reasons?
Those reasons are supervisors,mid-level managers, want control
, really direct control, overtheir workers.
They want to be able to seethem there.
Gina (59:16):
There I say micromanagement.
Steven (59:18):
There you go.
You say I think that's reallyunhealthy.
I think it's nice for people,for extroverted people who want
to go into the office, to beable to build that community, to
be able to really understandone another.
I think is important.
I like the hybrid approach.
I just think that some of thesecompanies that are now we're
checking your bad swipe entriesto see how many times you come
(59:42):
to the office.
For me it feels a little bitlike a helicopter employer and I
don't like that.
But I agree with you, gina,that I think it's helpful for
building out community actuallyunderstanding what people are
saying.
You can't really do that.
Gina (59:59):
I think for morale too.
Right, because just using meand Nicola, we didn't realize
that we both felt a certain typeof way about our former
employer because we were notphysically together.
Maybe if I had seen her everyday and we started chatting, we
would have been like maybe weshould come up with an exit plan
, because this place fuckingsucks.
(01:00:21):
This is draining the life outof me.
I just want to go stab myselfwith a blunt object in the eye.
So we didn't have thatopportunity.
So I think maybe hybrid is theway to go, because you can do
your social stuff, build moraleand then go home and bang out
your work and get it done inrecord time.
Sounds like a good plan Withoutthe commute on certain days.
Nicola (01:00:44):
Yeah, exactly.
But then you've got that flipside right.
We've got our micromanagers,who aren't going to like the
fact that you're creatingcommunities of work at work,
because you should be at work todo your work right.
So now they're going to stymieor stifle your opportunities to
create connections because theyjust want you to come into the
(01:01:06):
office and sit at your desk andpound out work.
So what the fuck is the point?
Gina (01:01:11):
I think that would lead us into a whole different
conversation about how do stupidpeople get in places of
leadership.
Steven (01:01:18):
I don't know, but I hate stupid people, and that's the
root of a lot of different roles.
I think why are?
Gina (01:01:22):
people who want to micromanage being leaders, like
it doesn't make any sense.
How has this happened?
And, steven, why are we comingto you thinking you have the
answers?
Well, we know you don't, but Idon't, but one.
Steven (01:01:39):
I think there's one problem, I think and this is the
hot button issue I was going tomention earlier with diversity,
equity inclusion.
I think if there were moresupervisors and managers that
looked like employees racially,with religion, sexual
orientation, whatever it is Ithink it would lead to a more
(01:02:00):
healthy workplace.
And so the fact that now, eversince affirmative action has
been overturned in schools inthe US last spring or early
summer in June, the nextfrontier, I think, for a lot of
people on that side is how canwe end diversity equity
inclusion initiatives in theworkplace?
(01:02:21):
And so that worries me, becauseI think it's going to become a
lot less healthier of workplacesif there are less people that
look like their employees on themanagement level.
Gina (01:02:32):
I can understand why it's an issue.
Right, I can understand foradmissions, but I don't
understand how that, why thatwould then translate to a
workplace.
Steven (01:02:47):
Yeah, it's a good question.
So Edward Blum is one of themain attorneys who's who
represented, he took.
He represented mostly, I think,asian students against Harvard
and he was largely responsiblefor overturning affirmative
action with Supreme Court when Isided with him.
(01:03:08):
And then that happened thisspring and he immediately sort
of declared war on companies'diversity equity inclusion
initiatives.
So he sued two big law firmssaying you have for law students
, you have fellowships for thesummers for people who are
historically underrepresented,so they give out some money and
(01:03:31):
you do sort of an internship andit's sort of known as it's only
for people who areunderrepresented through that
major law firms.
And so he sued these big lawfirms saying that that is
discrimination, that'sdiscrimination against people
who aren't of those historicallyrepresented groups, and so
it'll be interesting to see howthat ends up getting handled
(01:03:53):
through the courts.
I think personally thatdiversity equity inclusion is
super important to a healthyworkplace and so I'm all for
them.
Gina (01:04:02):
But the way that this affirmative action battle is
gone, I think it's going to beinteresting how OK, steven, tell
us where we can find you forany of our listeners, and I'm
sure there's quite a few whomight feel like they have a good
case.
Nicola (01:04:18):
Especially all of those in California.
Steven (01:04:20):
Yes, only California.
You can find me on my websitethat's probably the best place
wwwchisenlawcom my last name'sChisen, so chisenlawcom, that's
probably the best place to findme or on LinkedIn.
Those are my main avenues.
No social media for now.
Nicola (01:04:40):
Other than.
Steven (01:04:41):
LinkedIn.
Nicola (01:04:42):
Yeah, so you're on LinkedIn.
Ok, we'll get people to stalkyou on LinkedIn.
Steven (01:04:46):
LinkedIn's good.
I'm not on the TikTok Instagramworld for now.
Nicola (01:04:51):
Please don't be on TikTok, nobody knows.
Steven (01:04:54):
There's some very popular lawyers on TikTok.
Gina (01:04:56):
I was going to say what do lawyers post on TikTok?
Nicola (01:05:01):
Oh no, there's employee like employment lawyer Ryan.
No, but he's Instagram which Ithink is quite he's on.
Gina (01:05:07):
TikTok too, is he.
I don't even I don't fuck withTikTok, I'm too old.
Nicola (01:05:12):
Fun fact top cities Wellington, new Zealand, new
York, gina and Los Angeles,California.
Listen to the podcast, yeah.
Gina (01:05:23):
OK, so if you guys need an employment lawyer, we know
where to find.
You know where to find one andwe'll put all of your info in
the show notes so anyone canjust click it if they want to
reach out to you.
Steven (01:05:36):
Yeah, great.
Gina (01:05:38):
It was such a pleasure.
Steven (01:05:39):
Chania with you both.
Gina (01:05:41):
You too, and to everyone out there.
Document evidence Is that yourmajor takeaway Document
everything and don't deleteanything.
Document documents, yeah, anddon't delete.
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!