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: “Double Date.”
The Plot: Jim and Pam are forced to go on an uncomfortable double date with Michael and Pam’s mother.
My Analysis:
- Issue: Attempted Bribery
Description: Dwight brought bagels in to the office in an attempt to bribe his co-workers to side with him in his never-ending battle against Jim. He then spent the reminder of the episode annoyingly trying to “out-polite” Andy so that Andy would “owe him one.” It didn’t work.
Risk: $$ - Issue: Nepotism
Description: The fact that Pam works under her husband Jim, the co-manager of the office, is already causing multiple interpersonal conflicts. Michael is dating Pam’s mom. Claims of unfairness and discrimination could follow.
Risk: $$$ - Issue: Bad Firing
Description: Michael fired Kevin for “inappropriocity” without any sort of investigation or progressive discipline. Kevin shrugged it off and stuck around through the end of the episode. Neither Michael nor anyone else seemed to notice (or care).
Risk: $$ - Issue: “Ageism”
Description: Once again, Michael made several “ageist” comments. Added to his previous comments and actions (particularly those regarding Creed and Stanley), the risk of an age discrimination lawsuit continues to rise.
Risk: $$$$ - Issue: Workplace Violence
Description: Dwight threatened to harm his co-workers with poisonous mushrooms. Pam was allowed to hit Michael in the face in front of several witnesses, reducing him to tears, causing his face to swell and making him — inexplicably — limp. Once again, the company took no action. In fact, HR “professional” Toby gave Pam boxing tips in an effort to help her inflict more damage on Michael. Toby’s misguided suggestion that the fight would be OK as long as it occurred off company premises may be insufficient to shield it from liability, especially since it (1) took place in the company parking lot and (2) was attended by everyone including the two co-managers (one of whom was a direct participant).
Risk: $$$$ - Issue: Food Safety
Description: The fact that Dwight was allowed to have custody of and/or touch several food items (bagels and tacos) later ingested by his co-workers could expose the company to emotional distress and other potential health-related claims. To make matters worse, Dwight also put a raw (and quite possibly salmonella-infested) chicken on Michael’s face to reduce the post-Pam-punch swelling.
Risk: $$ - Issue: Meredith in the Men’s Room
Description: The company could potentially face an invasion of privacy claim for allowing Meredith to enter the men’s room without any repercussions.
Risk: $ - Issue: Insubordination
Description: As in previous weeks, Pam was allowed to engage in rampant verbal (and physical) insubordination of Michael, with no consequences.
Risk: $$ - Issue: Theft of Company Time
Description: For approximately the 87th consecutive week, no employees performed any discernible work. Among other things, employees were allowed to watch the Pam vs. Michael “fight” while on the clock.
Risk: $$ - 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 (multiple inappropriate references to sex). 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!
November 9th, 2009 at 4:44 am
hi.. i thing you made a great post in that article because no everyone knows about that, but now they know that value of that.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Didn’t Toby also implicitly endorse the fight as long as it was “held off of company property”? That seems like it wouold preclude a plausible deniability statement by the company later, exposing them to a lawsuit. Also, the fight was held in the parking lot of the office building- is this considered “off premises”?
Your analysis was admittedly pretty thorough, Mark. What a great job you have- watch The Office and transcribe HR policy violations!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Nice catch, Aaron. Should have included that. I’ll update the post and add that. For your efforts, we’ll send you a valuable prize. Thanks for your participation!
March 26th, 2010 at 1:50 am
Great post. Its very interesting article on weekly analysis & contest.