This week’s episode raises some interesting issues for employers. The one that first comes to mind is whether an employer should host internal social networking websites for their employees. Frankly, I’ve got mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, social networking websites are great for recruiting, communicating information, answering employee questions, and allowing employees to get to know colleagues in far off places. A virtual water cooler if you will. But (and this is a large “but”) they also have some significant downsides if not maintained properly. Internal social networking websites must be monitored for inappropriate content (like, for example, the sexual predators who infiltrated the Dunder Mifflin website), disclosures of the company’s confidential information, and for those people who try and use the website as their own personal dating service. I shudder to think about what Michael will do with this feature once Dunder Mifflin 2.0 is up and running.

LITGATION VALUE:  $6,000 – $10,000

Despite what you might think, Michael’s demand that all employees provide him with candidates to serve as the mother of his children does not violate any major employment law.  After all, Michael made the demand of all employees and not, for example, only female employees or employees of a particular race.  Continuing to employ an incompetent manager isn’t illegal.  Yet.

That being said, allowing managers to require their subordinates to act as match-makers as a term and condition of their continued employment isn’t a good idea.  In fact, it is as far away from a good idea as you are likely to get.  Employment law cases don’t exist in a vacuum.  And while this incident, standing alone, is not per se illegal, it will surely come up in the inevitable sexual harassment or gender discrimination trial that arises from Michael’s prior conduct.  As a result, Dunder Mifflin is going to have to pay someone like me between $6,000 and $10,000 to draft a motion asking the Court to exclude testimony about this incident from trial, which they may or may not win.  Somehow, I just don’t think that Michael (or his boss) will think that the coffee date with Pam’s landlady was really worth it.

LITIGATION COST: Paying lawyer to review corporate ethics policy: $1,500; paying Michael severance: $5,000; avoiding corporate scandal: priceless.

Does any company really want its regional manager to hit up subordinates for money? Does it matter that he did it in his condo rather than his office? The answer to both of these questions is, quite simply, no. While Michael’s conduct may not technically violate the law, it surely violates Dunder Mifflin’s code of ethics. That is, if they have one.

An effective workplace ethics policy deters employee misconduct, avoids conflicts of interest, and provides guidelines for resolving sensitive issues. Tricking your subordinates into coming to your house for dinner to “work” on them for an “investment opportunity” in your girlfriend’s candle company just doesn’t cut it. And, in case you were wondering, making employees believe that they will be forced to work overtime on a fake project isn’t going to pass muster either. Unfortunately for Dunder Mifflin, a culture that gives only lip service to corporate ethics is not enough. Management must also “walk the walk.” Clearly, Dunder Mifflin (or at least the Scranton branch) hasn’t quite grasped that yet.

Well, apparently Michael Scott has moved to Boston and obtained a medical degree.  Last week, the Boston Globe reported that a neurosurgeon at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital was suing for gender discrimination.

Her evidence?  The antics of her boss, the chief of neurosurgery, who keeps an 8 inch sculpture of a penis and a box of bikini underwear on his desk; refers to female colleagues as “girls”; and who downloaded drawings from the Kama Sutra to the plaintiff’s PDA.  Somehow, I just can’t help but be reminded of Michael Scott’s Diwali seminar.

read more…