In Ereño’s case, he told Fortune’s Oriana Rosa Royle he wants to see candidates who order wine at a lunch interview. Royle writes:

“I tend not to like people that don’t have any initiative,” Ereño tells Fortune. “Imagine if my drink is a glass of water. I’m very happy with someone who says, ‘Do you mind if I have a glass of wine?’”

In fact, the Fortune 500 Europe boss says he’d prefer that to a candidate walking into the lunch interview, seeing his glass of water and ordering the same.

Showing initiative is great. But what he’s doing can be illegal discrimination in the U.K. and the U.S.

Don’t set yourself up for a discrimination claim

Ereño’s decision to classify what drink someone orders at dinner with their ability to take initiative eliminates candidates of multiple religions, as well as pregnant women and some people with protected disabilities.

To keep reading, click here: This CEO’s Unusual Wine Test Could Land His Company in Hot Water

 Let’s break it down. He writes:

“I just had a deeply alarming 45 minute sync with our Talent Acquisition team regarding their new AI-driven resume screening tool.

“They reported that the software’s reduced our time-to-hire by 60 percent over the last month.”

Now, this starts out great! Reducing time-to-hire makes a huge difference. But it also suggests the problem isn’t just sourcing; it’s the selection process. Let’s continue:

To keep reading, click here: Why Saying ‘The AI Did It’ Won’t Stop an Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Bryan Creely, a former recruiter and current Cofounder/CEO of Soor, shared a time when he applied for a job he was highly qualified for. The recruiter explained that he was an excellent fit and had everything the company was looking for. The recruiter said,

“You’ve got great recruiting experience, led and mentored teams, and worked directly with executives. We need someone who can develop our inexperienced recruiters.”

But he didn’t end up getting the job. Normally, that’s not surprising–there are often multiple candidates who could do a great job. But Creely asked for and received feedback. Here’s what happened:

[The recruiter] explained, “I was surprised too, but she said you didn’t have recent experience with our Applicant Tracking System software.” 

I clarified my experience and reminded him that learning the user interface would only take a few weeks at best. 

But he insisted, “I know, but unfortunately, she’s made up her mind.”

To keep reading, click here: A Manager Rejected a Top Candidate Over One Tool. It Backfired Immediately

This second filing added multiple complaints, bringing the total to 21 against his former employer. If the complaints are true, it’s a completely shocking story, indicating horrible behavior among senior leaders at JPMorgan.

Employees file lawsuits all the time, and we often don’t know the outcome because they settle quietly, and without a trial we don’t get to hear the defendant’s point of view. That’s normally how most claims of racism and sexual harassment end. But this case is different for several reasons.

To keep reading, click here: The First Rule of Litigation PR Is Silence. Here’s Why JPMorgan Just Broke It

The New York Post reports Netflix terminated vice president and head of creative at Eyeline (owned by Netflix), Kevin Baillie, in part because he confessed to receiving ketamine at a clinic as part of treatment for depression.

The Post writes:

During what’s called a “Vulnerability-Trust exercise” at a January 2026 retreat at the exclusive Sendero Ranch, a Northern California property owned by Netflix, Baillie shared with his colleagues that he had undergone the [ketamine] treatment, the suit says.

Stop playing doctor

Baillie should not have shared his medication history with his colleagues, but once he did, no boss or HR person should have questioned what that means.

To keep reading, click here: A Netflix Exec Confessed His Depression Treatment at a Retreat. He Was Fired for It

1. A findings memo without any reasoning shown

You may know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what happened. It may be 100 percent clear to you, but without documentation, your court case won’t go well. Coombe writes:

“A conclusion without documented reasoning isn’t a finding—it’s an assertion. Plaintiff’s attorneys never just challenge what you concluded. They challenge how you got there and why. If the file doesn’t show the work, the work might as well not have happened.”

It’s starting with the law schools, which makes sense, because if you want someone who can think through a problem, it’s a lawyer. AI is never going to give you a unique legal strategy, as it will just pull in what others have done.

Inside Higher Ed reports that law schools such as the University of California, Berkeley, which said students are prohibited from using AI in “conceptualizing, outlining, drafting, revising, translating, or editing any work submitted for credit,” and the University of Chicago Law school which takes it a step further and said it “will ban laptops, tablets and phones in the classroom for first-year law students beginning this fall as part of its broader strategy of adapting legal education for the AI era.”

I’m 100 percent on board and wish schools would expand this to other areas.

To keep reading, click here: These Law Schools Just Banned AI in the Classroom. Smart Employers Should Take Note

Normally, I’m a big supporter of enforcing the small rules—after all, if you don’t enforce a rule, then the rule doesn’t exist. So, if you catch someone, on camera, stealing a cookie, you can go ahead and terminate.

Except when you can’t. And that is when you don’t conduct a proper investigation.

In this particular case, however, the employee was diabetic, his blood sugar was dropping, and he needed to eat something. Add to that, he did, in reality, pay.

When you have a video of something, you may think you don’t need to talk to the people involved. There is video. It’s like you were a live witness.

In this case, the video came from a self-checkout surveillance camera at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant in Louisville, so you would think it would be trustworthy, but it didn’t tell the whole story.

To keep reading, click here: Ford Fired an 11-Year Employee for Stealing a $1.95 Cookie. The Problem? He Paid

“Went there early, dressed properly for the job which was about helping with making burgers in a fast food. They knew it’s my first experience in this field. The place is really dead so I just get expained the ropes and stand around for a hour or so doing nothing but looking around. When customers finally started coming in I do what I’m told, putting the ingredients on the table and preparing the burger while the cook was cooking the meat. I’m slow at learning how to package the burgers properly. The owner warns me that I need to get faster. I told him it’s a matter of getting used to it.

Come the fourth customer or so, after completing the order he pulls me aside and tells me that this job isn’t for me because I lack basic knowledge and this is a job where you’re “supposed to learn on instinct”, calls out several minor mistakes I made and says he doesn’t believe that by Saturday when they’ll have plenty of customers I’ll be ready to help. He apologizes for wasting my time, gives me money for the hours I worked for and I get sent home.

Back to the endless job hunting I guess you’re not allowed to make mistakes or be slow on your first day ever at a new job.”

Now, first I do feel sorry for the original poster. While they write it was the “first experience in this field,” I suspect it was probably their first job, ever. It does sound like the owner wasn’t interested in spending a long time training. Regardless, there are some really good lessons for business owners in this story.

To keep reading, click here: Fired After 3 Hours: What a Fast-Food Owner’s Viral Move Teaches Us About Training New Hires

Chick-fil-A famously closes on Sundays, a nod back to founder S. Truett Cathy’s devout Christianity and his desire to ensure everyone had a day of rest. The company still sticks to that even though Cathy died in 2014, and people even jokingly refer to the restaurant as “the Lord’s chicken.”

According to a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a particular franchisee, Hatch Trick, Inc, denied a religious accommodation to an employee.

According to the EEOC’s press release, the employee told Hatch Trick in her employment interview that due to her religious faith as a member of the United Church of God, which observes the Sabbath on Saturday, she would be unable to work on Saturday.

To keep reading, click here: Chick-fil-A Franchise Sued by the EEOC Over a Religious Accommodation. Here Are 5 Lessons for Employers