The Office: Weekly Analysis & Contest
In my humble opinion, NBC’s The Office is the world’s #1 employment law training aid. All you have to do is (1) watch it and (2) do the exact opposite of everything you see.
To help enhance your viewing experience, each week I provide a critique of the action from an employment lawyer’s perspective.
Last Night’s Episode: “Koi Pond.”
The Plot: The office turns the warehouse into a haunted house for kids from the neighborhood. Michael falls into a fish pond while visiting a client.
My Analysis:
- Issue: Theft of Company Time
Description: Once again, no employees performed any discernible work (other than Pam’s and Andy’s comically horrific attempts at sales). The employees spent the bulk of their time traumatizing children via the haunted house and thinking up creative ways to make fun of Michael for falling into the pond.
Risk: $$ - Issue: Children in the Office = Bad Idea
Description: Exposing children to Michael and anyone else from the office is a recipe for disaster. Carting the kids around on a forklift through the not-exactly-OSHA-compliant warehouse exposed the kids to serious risk. The company should expect an emotional distress class action from the kids’ parents as a result of the obvious trauma inflicted by Michael’s fake suicide (as well as the kids being forced to interact with various other inappropriately costumed employees).
Risk: $$$$$ - Issue: “Ageist” Comments
Description: Several employees made “ageist” comments regarding Creed (the oldest employee in the office) and others. Age discrimination claims were recently ranked by employers as the #1 source of employment law risk. Allowing age-related jokes and comments in the workplace can lead to big-ticket lawsuits in a hurry.
Risk: $$$$ - Issue: Workers’ Comp
Description: Andy may attempt to make a WC claim based on headaches induced by Pam when she interrupted his singing, thereby triggering his sensitivity to “unresolved melodies.”
Risk: $ - Issue: Workplace Violence
Description: Kevin threatened to kill Erin for revealing that he was the source of a joke about Michael’s fish pond incident. As with path threats (and actual violence), the company took no action.
Risk: $$ - Issue: Insubordination and Emotional Distress
Description: The rampant jokes about Michael falling into the pond bordered on insubordination and caused a near-breakdown by Michael. The employees disobeyed Jim’s repeated orders not to play the video footage of the incident. As always, the company did nothing to address the insubordination.
Risk: $$ - Issue: Bad Training
Description: Michael conducted “sensitivity training” that was anything but sensitive. Several inappropriate sexual and other comments were made as a result. Michael should be ordered to cease and desist from conducting future training sessions of any kind.
Risk: $$$ - Issue: Misrepresentation
Description: Michael and Jim both lied about Michael falling into the pond. Lying to employees and attempted cover-ups are never a good idea. If managers create a culture of “untruthiness,” the risk of ethics violations and corruption increases dramatically.
Risk: $$$$ - Issue: Fish Homicide
Description: Michael inadvertently killed a fish by stepping on its head when he fell into the pond, thereby subjecting the company to a claim for damages from one of its biggest clients.
Risk: $$$ - Issue: Failure to Act
Description: The video of the pond incident clearly showed Jim failing to take any action to save Michael. The incident clearly traumatized Michael and could open Jim (and/or the company) to a “failure to act” claim.
Risk: $$ - Issue: Sexual/Pregnancy Harassment
Description: Andy engaged in extremely creepy actions toward Pam on a sales call, touching her pregnant belly and making highly inappropriate comments. The fact that Andy continues to be employed despite his clear performance and behavior deficiencies is a huge source of risk.
Risk: $$$$ - Issue: Various Other Inappropriate Comments/Actions
Description: Once again, virtually every employee said or did something inappropriate. The main culprit this week was — as always — Michael (inappropriate references to prostitution, Daryl being a “gangsta” and various “ageist” comments noted above). At this point, virtually every employee could sue the company for something and win.
Risk: $$$$$
OFFICIAL “ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A LAWYER?” CONTEST: Anyone who leaves a comment below identifying an employment law issue that I missed will win a valuable prize. If you didn’t get a chance to see the episode, you can view it on NBC’s official web site here.
As always, thanks for your participation!
