Delaware Employment Law Blog

You may recall our previous post about a young lawyer who sued his former employer. The lawyer, Gregory Berry, had sent an email to the firm's partners, in which he stated, "it has become clear that I have as much experience and ability as an associate many years my senior, as much skill writing, and a superior legal mind to most I have met." Not surprisingly, Mr. Berry's arrogance was not well received, and he lost his job. He then sued his former employer, seeking over $75 million in damages.

Mr. Berry must have been stunned, then, when his lawsuit was dismissed earlier this week. The court dismissed the suit on the grounds that Mr. Berry had executed a valid release of his claims in exchange for a $27,000 severance payment. Consequently, his claims were barred. The court rejected Mr. Berry's argument that he signed the "unconscionable" agreement under economic duress.

But this story isn't over! In keeping with the self-aggrandizing attitude evident in Mr. Berry's email, he left the Courtroom before the Judge had finished issuing her ruling. She has now ordered the parties to attend a hearing on January 24, for purposes of considering a contempt ruling against Mr. Berry, reports Above the Law.

So what is the lesson to be learned for employers? Well, I suppose there's the idea that there's no way to guarantee you won't get sued. Despite the existence of a valid severance agreement and a substantial cash payent, the law firm still got hit with a lawsuit--and the aggravation and expense that goes with it. If there is a lesson here, it may be that you can never be too selective in your hiring decisions.

Most supervisors have dealt with an employee who believes his work performance is better than what it actually is. It's a minority of employees who believe they are less than a "four-star" performer. But an employee who is so convinced of his personal value that he sues his employer for $75 million is a rarity, indeed. Yet, rare or not, that is precisely the case in Berry v. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP.

According to Berry, he had a “distinguished” and “remarkable” career in the technology sector. Having "conquer[ed] Silicon Valley," he decided to turn his talents to the legal profession, abandoning his technology endeavors to attend the prestigous University of Pennsylvania Law School. Upon graduation, he accepted a position with an equally prestigous law firm, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman. Ready to conquer the world of private practice, according to Berry, he “immediately began doing superlative work,” and “repeatedly found ways to improve the efficiency of work, or even the outcome of cases.” Unfortunately, though, he feels his genius went unappreciated.

Berry claims that he was terminated after he sent an email to the firm’s partners requesting additional work. In the email, Berry stated that it had "become clear that I have as much experience and ability as an associate many years my senior, as much skill writing, and a superior legal mind to most I have met.” Interestingly, prior to sending the email, Berry had been expressly warned not to “be so arrogant.” Apparently, he did not heed that advice.

Upon termination, Berry was presented with an “unconscionable” Separation Agreement, which he signed only under “economic duress.” Under the agreement, Berry received two months’ salary in exchange for a complete waiver of claims. Notwithstanding having executed the waiver and release, Berry sued filed suit, alleging 14 causes of action.

The lesson for employers? Beware the employee who is, perhaps, a bit to aware of his own "superlative" work.

In a post titled, Create a Bully-Free Workplace, Nathanael Fast writes about the findings of a study he and Serena Chen conducted on workplace bullying. He reports some interesting findings from the study.  For example, he links bullying to significant costs to organizations.  Specifically, he says that bullying causes reduced creativity, low morale, and increased turnover, “all factors that weigh heavily on the bottom line.”

But what I found most interesting were his conclusions on the reasons for bullying—why bullies act like such, well, bullies. He concludes that the “simultaneous pairing of power with feelings of inadequacy” is what led bosses to become bullies.

In our studies, the power holders who felt personally incompetent became aggressive, not because they were power hungry or had domineering personalities but because they were trying to overcome ego threat. Put simply, bullying is a cheap way to nurse a wounded ego.

In other words, big babies who don’t like themselves take it out on others. 

The eBoss Watch Worst Bosses of 2009 award is one that you probably don't want framed above your desk. There are 25 "winners" selected by a panel of experts on workplace behavior, bullying, and civility. 

Here's the description of one of the 25 worst bosses of the year:

Water distribution superintendent, City of Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana
Benton’s employees recorded a four hour meeting that took place late last year where Benton used hundreds of obscenities and ordered one of the supervisors to physically attack an equipment operator.

For more on Jerks at Work, see these related posts:

Abusive Bosses Should Watch Their Backs

Everything You Needed to Know About Your Toxic Boss

Could an Ombudsman Help You Squelch Bullies in the Workplace

5 Costs of Coworker Bullying

Work-life balance, toxic bosses, and generation gaps, this week in BusinessWeek

Inside the Mind of a Super Jerk

Disrespectful Workplace Costs State $314k

How Crazy Is Your Boss? No, really, how crazy?

"My Boss Is Killing Me": Why this just may be true

It's Friday and Your Boss Is a Total Tool

The Truth About Workplace Revenge

Women Bullies In the Workplace

Jerks at Work and on the Web

Now's a Great Time for Workplace-Civility Initiatives

Follow me on Twitter at @MollyDiBi

Jerks at work are a problem. This proposition is not debatable. Just how pervasive the problem is may be subject to some debate. Some say that jerks are everywhere. Others say the jerk population has been reduced (or maybe just quieted) by the economy. Either way, there has been a lot of press about jerk. There's also been an increasing acceptance of the proposition that jerks at work are bad for business.

So I was taken by surprise last night while watching The Next Iron Chef on Food Network. I'm not a major fan of Iron Chef, necessarily, but my husband, a professional chef and restaurateur, likes any show involving chefs, cooking, and competition, so we tuned in. In The Next Iron Chef, contestants battle for the title of Iron Chef. (If you're unfamiliar with the show, it started in Japan, where it became a cult favorite. It was followed by Iron Chef America, which is filmed in the U.S. with Iron Chefs Mario Batali, Morimoto, Cat Cora, Bobby Flay, and the most recent addition, Michael Symon.)

During last night's episode, the first in the newest competition, 10 contestants had to prepare two dishes using an "exotic" ingredient that they'd been assigned. (By "exotic," I mean unlaid eggs, fallopian tube still intact, rooster cockscombs, and similarly appetizing fare.) Of course, this was done under outrageous time restraints in a kitchen in which they'd never worked, with equipment that seemed to fail more often than it worked, etc. Suffice it to say, the conditions were more than difficult.

When the buzzer rang and the host announced, "Knives down!" I nearly clapped I was so proud of the chefs! That pride quickly faded when the chefs were required to critique each others' dishes.

What a terrible way to start the show. For the contestants and for viewers. We could have been riding high, celebrating their first big victory but, instead, had to watch several contests be petty and spiteful, ridiculing other chefs' dishes without regard to professionalism or reciprocity.

But it got worse during the next phase, when the contestants were judged one by one by the show's judges. The panel included two women and one man. Both women gave feedback that was insightful, intelligent, and knowledgeable. The man, on the other hand, just dished out a bunch of garbage. The jerky judge in question, Jeffrey Steingarten, was snarky, contrary, and negative to the point of disgust. It was just unbearable to watch.

I finally asked my husband, "Why do they even have this guy on the show?" To which my husband replied, "Because he's a famous food writer?" Oh, really? Who cares?

I'll never tune in to another program that has Mr. Steingarten as a judge. He's apparently a world-class writer with a pedigree that outshines those of even the most prestigious and acclaimed in the industry.  But maybe he should consider sticking to what he does so well--writing--and leave the TV stuff to the pros. Every comment was more angry and hostile than the last, leaving me with a taste so bitter that it ruined the entire experience. He takes the title of food critic a bit too literally, in my opinion. 

Lighten up, Mr. Steingarten!  Celebrate food once in a while!  Didn't you get into the food world to celebrate the magic and glory that such wondrous cookery can produce? Certainly you don't eat for a living because you hate the sight of food!  Try to remember the beauty and majesty of it the next time you're given such a unique opportunity to taste the creations of 10 of the country's greatest chefs.  It can't really be as bad as you make it--even if you did think the cockscomb (prepared by Philly hometown favorite, Jose Garces), was too rubbery.

Next time, I hope the producers can find someone to serve as judge who falls more on the sweet side, rather than the tart, as Mr. Steingarten is so apt to do.

In short, I hope Food Network wises up and tosses the jerk from their workplace. Jerks have a way for ruining one's appetite.

There have been recently been several displays of incivility in the workplace worth a moment of reflection. Three incidents in particular come to mind.

The Conduct

First, there was the outburst by S.C. GOP Rep. Joe Wilson during President Obama's congressional address last week. On Good Morning America the next day, George Stephanolopous was asked whether he had ever witnessed similar conduct. Stephanolopous immediately responded that no, he had not.

Then, during the women's finals at the U.S. Open, tennis great Serena Williams threw her racket and, in the same match, cursed and pointed at the line official who penalized Williams for a foot fault. Williams' opponent, Kim Clijsters, was awarded an extra point when Williams walked away only to turn around and come back at the official, finger pointing and profanities flying. In a press conference, she was positively unapologetic, even trying to justify her behavior, responding to a reporter's inquiry by saying that everybody treats line people that way.

Then there was Kanye West's "performance" at the MTV Video Music Awards when he bombarded 19-year-old Taylor Swift, snatching the microphone out of her hand during an ill-fated acceptance speech. The look on Swift's face was heart wrenching. She looked like a child who couldn't process how terrible people could be.

The Apologies

Each of the three offenders issued an apology. Wilson called his apology into the White House the day after his disrespectful display. Williams, after booed off the court and being smacked with a $10,000 fine, has apologized several times via the press. And West was first redeemed by Beyoncé, who won for best video of the year but kindly turned over her time at the microphone to the slighted Swift, giving Swift the chance to finish her acceptance speech. Then West made an appearance Monday night on the premier episode of the new Jay Leno Show. Before performing with Jay-Z and Rihanna, West sat down with Leno and seemed deeply troubled by his behavior.

Each incident occurred in the respective person's workplace. Yet, despite having some familiarity with their surroundings, each of the three conducted themselves in a manner far too horrible to be described as inconsiderate. The displays were inappropriate and downright mean. They were embarrassing, even shameful, really. But what do they say about our society?

When managers were asked about the strangest employee complaints they'd ever received, they had a lot to say.  Careerbuilder.com asked this question and got some very strange results. Some of the answers made me laugh outside.  And not just because the complaints were so weird, which they are, but also because some of the weirdest ones I'd actually encountered in my practice. Here are a few of employee complaints that I found the most entertaining with my commentary following:

• Employee has big hair . . . umm, did this person spend the '80s locked in an office-supply cabinet?
• Employee eats all the good cookies . . . Unforgiveable!
• Employee is so polite, it's infuriating. . . there's nothing worse, is there?
• Employee suspected co-worker is a pimp. . . . and? what's the complaint part?
• Employee is trying to poison me . . . a legitimate complaint, certainly (or just delusional)
• Employee's body is magnetic and keeps de-activating my magnetic access card.
• Employee is personally responsible for a federally-mandated tax increase. . . .I bet she's really, really unpopular
• Employee only wears slippers or socks at work. . . ok, I can't deny it, this would bother me
• Employee breathes too loudly. . . .wow! talk about unworkable conditions!
• Employee has bells on her shoes and it's not the holidays. . . .scary, scary, scary
• Employee spends too much time caring for stray cats around the building. . . seen it, never want to see it again

See these related posts for a little more office humor:

10 Best Excuses for Being Late to Work

Obnoxious Employee or Co-Worker? Just Tape His Mouth Shut

10 Worst Employees

Last night, the Philadelphia Eagles announced that they had signed quarterback Michael Vick to a two-year contract. Vick, of course, is returning to football after serving time for running a dog-fighting ring. The move by the Eagles, of course, is fraught with risk. Vick’s inhumane treatment of animals has made him one of the most controversial and hated figures in all of sports. This could lead to deteriorating team morale and loss of fan support. The addition of Vick also has the potential for great reward. He is an exceptional talent and his addition to the roster could be enough bring the Super Bowl victory that the City of Philadelphia craves.

The signing of Vick, however, stands in stark contrast to the image that Coach Andy Reed and the Eagles have always tried to portray. They have always proclaimed “character” as the most important attribute in a player. This move makes their public pronouncements seem hollow. Is “character” less important when a special talent is involved? It seems so. This move, and the earlier signing of Terrell Owens, seems to signal that the team will relax it’s rules and it’s team culture for special athletes. In the words of Bill Murray, as Dr. Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters: “Actually, it’s more of a guideline than a rule…”

The Eagles would not be the first employer to abandon its culture for short-term gain. The case law is full of situations where workplace rules were ignored because the violator had too much power or made the company too much money. Think of the top selling salesman or rainmaking partner who is allowed to sexually harass. The money rolls in, but later roll out in the form of a large judgment or settlement.

The Eagles are a good football team, with or without Vick. And, I suppose a Super Bowl win will make the fans of Philadelphia forgive the Eagle’s willingness to sacrifice its team culture for the ultimate prize. In a championship-starved city, that’s understandable. Forgive, maybe. Forget, never.

Delaware has lots of lawyers. In fact, the lawyer-to-citizen ratio is the third highest state in the country.  But, at the same time, we have a very small bar compared to other states.  It's a privilege to practice law in Delaware, as any Delaware lawyer will surely tell you.  The limited number of lawyers in our community precludes anonymity for any substantial length of time.  And, when you work with the same people regularly, it is in your best interest to conduct yourself with professionalism and civility at all times. You will be remembered, so it's better to be remembered for your good manners than for your abrasive style.

August, if you didn't know, is Win With Civility month.  So it's as good a time as ever to do a bit of self-analysis.  How would your colleagues and peers describe you if asked?  If the answer to that question is not totally positive, work to make a change starting today. 

If you're interested, the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation has a detailed article on "The Delaware Way" of practicing law, specifically focusing on our esteemed jurists.  It's a lengthy but worthwhile read. See Delaware's Art of Judging.

Workplace civility is a value that all organizations should strive to achieve. For those employers who may need a bit more motivation to implement a workplace-civility initiative, now is the time! August is "Win With Civility" month.  Chase’s Calendar of Events includes a list of causes to which August has been dedicated as a “special month.”

Noting that it is a national dedication, I thought the dedication must warrant certain recognitions, so I did a Google search for ways employers celebrate, observe, or at least acknowledge the special dedication. Surprisingly, a Google search uncovered little more than other websites noting the dedications of August and companies selling promotional materials. Although I was disappointed at the search results, I assume the results reflect a lack of interest in the special dedication rather than a lack of interest in “winning with civility” as a general principle. To help readers who want to “win with civility” in August I have included a reminder of what civility means and some suggestions on how a person can behave to “win with civility.” 

Civility is one of those words that is often tossed around but rarely defined. Everyone knows it means something like “be nice.” This is not out of line with the Free Dictionary Online definition of civility as “polite or courteous behavior” or “the act of showing regard for others.” The general definition provides some guidance for behavior, but other websites have provided more specific ways a person can “show regard for others.” Although the specific suggestions were not necessarily written to provide guidance for workplace behavior, many are particularly appropriate for workplace civility.

One website,Because It Matters, lists 10 Keys to Civility. Although the keys are not specific to the workplace, they provide guiding principles that apply to all circumstances. The 10 keys are:

1. Respect others

2. Think positively

3. Pay attention

4. Make a difference

5. Speak kindly

6. Say thank you

7. Accept others

8. Rediscover silence

9. Listen

10. Keep your cool

Another source of guidance can be found on the National Public Radio (NPR) website. In 2003, NPR reproduced George Washington’s 110 Rules of Civility, editing them for readability. Although some of the rules are inapplicable to most modern workplaces, others are perfectly applicable and well worth noting during a special month dedicated to civility. I have included below 10 of the rules that struck me as particularly applicable to all workplaces.

1. Show not yourself glad at the misfortune of another though he were your enemy. (Rule 22)

2. Let your discourse with men of business be short and comprehensive. (Rule 35)

3. Strive not with your superior in argument, but always submit your judgment to others with modesty. (Rule 40)

4. Undertake not to teach your equal in the art himself professes; it savors of arrogancy. (Rule 41)

5. When a man does all he can, though it succeed not well, blame not him that did it. (Rule 44)

6. Being to advise or reprehend any one, consider whether it ought to be in public or in private, and presently or at some other time; in what terms to do it; and in reproving show no signs of cholor but do it with all sweetness and mildness. (Rule 45)

7. Take all admonitions thankfully in what time or place soever given, but afterwards not being culpable take a time and place convenient to let him know it that gave them. (Rule 46)

8. While you are talking, point not with your finger at him of whom you discourse, nor approach too near him to whom you talk, especially to his face. (Rule 76)

9. Undertake not what you cannot perform but be careful to keep your promise. (Rule 82)

10. When your superiors talk to anybody hearken not, neither speak nor laugh. (Rule 84)

In the spirit of civility, thank you for taking the time to read this post. Happy “Win with Civility” month!

Related Posts:

Courtesy and Respect Get Tossed to the Side by Political Staffer

Rude Employees Are Bad for Business

Disrespectful Workplace Costs State $314k

15 Things that Jerks at Work Usually Do

Bosses Aren't the Only Workplace Toxins: What to do with toxic employees?

Jerks-At-Work Expert Confirms Fridge Raiding Is #1 Worst Workplace Incivility

Employee Handbook Policy #502: Respectful Workplace

*This post was written by guest blogger, Elisabeth Bradley, who is wrapping up her second summer as a summer associate at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP. Thanks, Elisabeth--great post!!

President Obama has made an "almost apology" to the police officer he offended with his "acted stupidly" comment.  The President made the comment when discussing the arrest of Black Harvard scholar, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., by Cambridge, Mass. police. The police were called to Gates' home to investigate a possible break-in but ended up arresting Gates for disorderly conduct.  From most accounts, it seemed that both sides probably overreacted. No charges were pressed.  When later asked to comment on the incident, which was perceived as having racial undertones, President Obama said the arrest was a "stupid" thing to do.

Oh my.  Cambridge police, as you may imagine, didn't appreciate the accusation that they, as a collective whole, tending to act stupidly. 

Responding to the escalating pushback, Obama called Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, to "clear the air."  At a subsequent press gathering, the President told reporters that he had called both men and invited them for a beer at the White House.  The President did not say whether his calls included an apology, nor did he apologize publicly about his comment.  

Many are now asking whether a true apology is necessary or appropriate, or whether it's enough to simply "clear the air" and put the whole issue to rest.

My answer to this question is a practical one.  If "clearing the air" without a full-blown apology actually does the trick, then no apology is needed. But, more often than not, if you want to be sure that the matter is resolved, an apology is the way to go.  Remember, you don't have to apologize for something you didn't do. So, if your intentions were good but the words came out wrong, then apologize for your word choice. 

Is a public apology needed?  Again, I vote "no."  If those persons who were offended by the comment, they were offended only on behalf of the individuals involved.  No slight was done to members of the public directly.  So, it makes sense that, if the individuals involved are satisfied with the President's almost-apology, then the public should be satisfied, as well. 

In the workplace, conflict arises constantly.  Employees who understand the value of a sincere and immediate apology (or even an almost-apology), will avoid more senseless arguments, hurt feelings, and have less stress overall.  Plus, when you are the one apologizing, you feel as if you've conquered a big part of the conflict just by stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for your actions. Then, even if the conflict does not resolve, you can take away the satisfaction of knowing that you tried and then let go of the results over which you have no control.

With that in mind, be extra kind to your co-workers today.  It's Monday, after all.

Rude people--who needs 'em!?!  Not me.  My husband is a chef and restaurant-owner and regularly gets comments and complaints that, in my opinion, are totally insane.  (For example, "This venison tastes . . . . dead.").  Some customers will overreact to the most trivial issue--I've had a grown man scream (and I mean scream) at me because he didn't like his table.  I told him that I'd be glad to move his group to a different table but he continued to scream hysterically--totally undeterred.  The open demonstration of rage was shocking.  I'll probably never forget it. 

Politico has a remarkable story of unjustifiable rage.  It's a great story to start the week, putting things in perspective and reminding us to treat others with respect and courtesy.  The story is about a political staffer who lost control when she received an e-mail addressing her as "Liz" instead of "Elizabeth."  Despite the offending party's repeated apology, the offended staffer was relentless in her attack.  The exchange went on for 19 e-mails.  It's very . . . insightful. 

When you read the story, think of how terrible the exchange must have been for the "offender" and try extra hard to be extra nice even to those who try to push you to the brink.

Other posts about jerks at work:

Jerks at Work and on the Web

Rude Employees Are Bad for Business

Women Bullies In the Workplace

New Conclusions on the Potential Costs of Workplace Bullying

Women Who Bully Women at Work

"My Boss Is Killing Me": Why this just may be true

Jerks at Work.  They don't seem to be going anywhere quick.  But there does seem to be a steady stream of news and resources circulating the world wide web about the topic.  Here are a few recent items.

There is a fascinating article in American Lawyer, titled The End of Sisterhood by Vivia Chen.  Chen proposes that women lawyers are their own worst enemy.  We've posted about this recurring theme before.  See Women Bullies In the Workplace and Women Who Bully Women at Work. 

Slow Leadership points us to an insightful article on the line between bullying and intense management and concludes (rightfully so, in my opinion), that no good can come of bullying--either to the bullies themselves or to the poor souls who suffer at their hands.  For some more anti-bully posts, see New Conclusions on the Potential Costs of Workplace Bullying, "My Boss Is Killing Me": Why this just may be true, and Top 5 Lessons to Be Learned from the Jerk at Work.

The Workplace Bullying Institute is the online home to Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie, the turn-to experts on workplace bullying.  The website has been recently revamped and lots of new features have been added.  If you don't have it bookmarked already, now is the time.

Rude people are bad for business.  Employees who are mean, spiteful, or downright rude are actually harmful to their employer's bottom line. Although it may seem like an obvious conclusion, recent research now proves that this is true. The study, "Overlooked but not untouched:  How rudeness reduces onlookers’ performance on routine and creative tasks," was reported in the May issue of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.  The researches concluded that "[s]eeing one person be rude to another can stunt a person's creativity, impair their mental performance and make them less likely to be civil themselves. "

[via Deliberations] Just one more reason to eradicate jerks at work.  To learn    more about the dangers of jerks at work, check out these earlier posts:

Women Bullies In the Workplace

New Conclusions on the Potential Costs of Workplace Bullying

Women Who Bully Women at Work

"My Boss Is Killing Me": Why this just may be true

Top 5 Lessons to Be Learned from the Jerk at Work

Workplace bullying

It's Friday and Your Boss Is a Total Tool

The Truth About Workplace Revenge

Women who bully women at work is not a new topic on this blog.  A segment on Good Morning America today addressed the topic of female bullies from a different point of view.  The piece looked at the female target and how women tend to differ from men when subject to workplace bullying.  Some of the more interesting gender-specific perspective notes made in the piece included:

• Women are taught to be non-confrontational and this tendency to not fight back makes them especially vulnerable targets.
• Women, more so than men, tend to take negative interactions personally, concluding that the attack was directed to them specifically, as opposed to directed towards the individual standing closest to the bully at that moment.
• Women do not complain about an existing problem and, when they do, they aren't as persistent as maybe they should be. 

So, do women make better targets?  Or, are they just more vicious bullies? 

It's an interesting idea.  Women are better than men at bullying others and at being bullied by others.  Well, I suppose that there's something to be said for being better at something.  Ok, not really.  So why do women fall into both roles with ease?  Are we genetically predisposed to these opposable positions? 

Gary Namie, Ph.D, founder of the Workplace Bullying Institute, offered the following tips to those being targeted by workplace bullies:

• Get support from family and friends. Talking about the problem eases the burden and lowers the chances of stress-related illness.
• See a doctor or a therapist, especially if you're having stress symptoms, such as sleeplessness and appetite loss.
• Get witnesses to help you build a record of the bully's actions for a future complaint.
• Confront the bully with the same toughness he or she showed you. This should be done with a single witness or as a group.

It's interesting to note some of the ways in which these suggestions would be particularly effective for female targets.  The first suggestion, for example, is a very gender-specific technique.  Research proves that women are biologically programmed to talk about their problems, whereas the male brain actually reacts to stress by reducing his desire, even restricting his ability, to "talk about it." 

Similarly, the tendency to garner group consensus prior to acting is a female-specific trait.  Males, on the other hand, tend not to seek group consensus before executing a decision.  This idea of "power in numbers" also is seen in the final suggestion, which encourages a victim to stand up to the bully--but to be supported by either a single witness or by a group. 

To read more about Jerks at Work, you may want to read these earlier posts:

New Conclusions on the Potential Costs of Workplace Bullying

Women Who Bully Women at Work

"My Boss Is Killing Me": Why this just may be true

Top 5 Lessons to Be Learned from the Jerk at Work

Workplace bullying

It's Friday and Your Boss Is a Total Tool

The Truth About Workplace Revenge