"Use Good Judgment" and "Follow the Golden Rule" just don't cut it in today's legal climate

Bruce Carton of Legal Blog Watch (via Overlawyered.com) notes the passing of Nordstrom's employee "handbook," which consisted of a single index card with the admonition to "use good judgment in all situations." Meanwhile, at Minding the Workplace and Jottings By An Employer's Lawyer, the authors note that many, if not all, of our workplace problems -- particularly harassment and "bullying" -- would go away if everyone simply followed The Golden Rule.

I don't disagree. I will go on record right now as being unequivocally "pro-Golden Rule." I think it would be great if we all knew what "good judgment" was and exercised it on a regular basis. Arguably, all the problems, not just of the workplace, but of the world, would go away if we always used good judgment and followed The Golden Rule.

But of course this isn't going to happen. That we have evil and stupid people in the world goes without saying. Even intelligent people who mean well sometimes act foolishly or do bad things.

And apart from the fact that we live in a fallen world, there is our counter-intuitive legal climate.  Let's face it -- from a legal standpoint, who even knows what "good judgment" is? One recurring theme of any management training I conduct is to emphasize that one cannot use one's common sense in dealing with workplace issues. Here are two recent examples showing why not:

To most of us, it shows good judgment not to bad-mouth your boss in a public forum, but the National Labor Relations Board says that you are engaged in "protected concerted activity" and can't be fired or disciplined for that. (The employer in this case says that it terminated the employee for other reasons.)

To most of us, it is "doing unto others as they would do unto you" when you tell your boss that your mother has cancer, when the boss follows up with some polite and concerned questions about your mother's condition. But, according to the final regulations interpreting the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, such follow-up questions would be a violation of the law because they would elicit your "genetic information," which includes family history.

And how about respecting your wishes when you are being harassed at work but ask your boss not to intervene just yet because you think you can handle it yourself? How about refusing to give credence to hearsay or gossip about whether you are being harassed? How about trying to soothe resentful co-workers by (tactfully and gently) telling them that you are getting special treatment on the job not because of favoritism but because you have a serious medical condition? What employer would dare do these things any more? All too often, the desire to "do the right thing" is not only frowned upon, but is also actively punished, by our legal system.

And so, Nordstrom has reportedly had to replace its index card with a real handbook full of rules and regulations. No employer serious about avoiding liability would dream of merely telling employees to "do unto others."

Doing the right thing isn't good enough any more. 

  

  • Smiling older woman with short gray hair and glasses, wearing a dark gray cardigan over a black top and a beaded necklace, with arms confidently crossed. She has a warm, approachable demeanor and a professional presence against a transparent background.
    Of Counsel & Chief Legal Editor

    Robin also conducts internal investigations and delivers training for HR professionals, managers, and employees on topics such as harassment prevention, disability accommodation, and leave management.

    Robin is editor in chief ...

This is Constangy’s flagship law blog, founded in 2010 by Robin Shea, who is chief legal editor and a regular contributor. This nationally recognized blog also features posts from other Constangy attorneys in the areas of immigration, labor relations, and sports law, keeping HR professionals and employers informed about the latest legal trends.

Search

Get Updates By Email

Subscribe

Archives

Legal Influencer Lexology Badge ABA Web 100 Badge
Jump to Page

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP Cookie Preference Center

Your Privacy

When using this website, Constangy and certain third parties may collect and use cookies or similar technologies to enhance your experience. These technologies may collect information about your device, activity on our website, and preferences. Some cookies are essential to site functionality, while others help us analyze performance and usage trends to improve our content and features.

Please note that if you return to this website from a different browser or device, you may need to reselect your cookie preferences.

For more information about our privacy practices, including your rights and choices, please see our Privacy Policy. 

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Always Active

Strictly Necessary Cookies are essential for the website to function, and cannot be turned off. We use this type of cookie for purposes such as security, network management, and accessibility. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but if you do so, some parts of the site will not work. 

Functionality Cookies

Always Active

Functionality Cookies are used to enhance the functionality and personalization of this website. These cookies support features like embedded content (such as video or audio), keyword search highlighting, and remembering your preferences across pages—for example, your cookie choices or form inputs during submission.

Some of these cookies are managed by third-party service providers whose features are embedded on our site. These cookies do not store personal information and are necessary for certain site features to work properly.

Performance Cookies

Performance cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.

Powered by Firmseek