Though there is so much to write about — interoffice romance, sexual harassment, what Kevin might be regarded as, pranks involving animals, and fraud — tonight, in honor of Toby’s departure, I want to focus on monsters.  It is no secret that Michael thinks Toby is one of the worst out there.  Not known for his subtlety, Michael referred to Toby as “His Horribleness,” called him an “idiot” several times, and compared him to Satan — all in between beeps on his watch alarm.  Over the last 12 years, Michael has mocked (and blocked) Toby’s HR efforts every step of the way.  The “Suck This” rock best sums up Michael’s feelings toward Toby.

Unfortunately, we sometimes see that companies in the real world have similar (though rarely as impassioned) views of HR.  Some on the business side see HR as an obstacle rather than a tool — and want us “Tobys” to all go off to South America.  Now, we know that this mindset is very dangerous and can create significant liability.  When employees see that management doesn’t take HR seriously, they don’t either.  This causes even more violations of policy — usually left unreported (because why bother).  And it really opens the company up to more claims and being blind-sided because HR can’t possibly have a pulse on an organization in this type of environment.

Like all finales are supposed to do, this one left us with a lot of unanswered questions.   What’s going to happen with Angela and Andy/Dwight?  Where is Mose’s raccoon?  Is the force with Holly?  Might she turn out to be E.T.?  Might Kevin have special needs, as that would explain a lot?  And the list goes on.

But two things remain certain.  First, Dunder Mifflin will have plenty of problems for us to write about next season.  And HR folks are not monsters at all.  Ask your management:  “Have you hugged your Toby today?”  Okay, don’t — it might violate your harassment policy!

Now don’t miss That’s What She Said over the summer.  I’ll look at the repeats each week and examine more juicy issues that we haven’t yet looked at.  So, keep on blogging!

NEGLIGENCE/PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS: $50,000 - $75,000.

WATCHING ANDY EAT IT IN THE SAND PIT: Priceless.

It is truly my honor to take over this blog for my good friend, Julie Elgar. She has provided us all with great practical and legal tips over the past year, and we will miss her. Though big shoes to fill, I promise to do the same, and I guarantee that we’ll all have fun. As a former HR professional myself, I understand the importance of humor in the face of our daily challenges.

Well, this week’s episode gives me the opportunity to talk about HR Rule #1: Never offer up your employee’s body for bidding. Michael’s attempt to lure Justin to Dunder Mifflin by letting him know that Pam is the “office hottie” and that she will “do” him given her reputation for dating her co-workers is just not good manners. That aside, it is obviously really bad evidence. A less obvious complication is that Oscar (who Michael referred to as “Oscar Mayer Weiner Lover” in last week’s show) was visibly offended. Though not the target of Michael’s comments at the job fair, Oscar could also bring a harassment claim because he took offense to these sexually-charged comments about Pam. And, Michael’s comment when witnessing Pam and Jim making out in the office is generally not the type of reprimand that we advise employers to give employees for such inappropriate conduct. Instead, “kiss her real good” is more probably another sexually-charged comment that is simply the cherry on top of Pam’s (and possibly others’) harassment claim.

After litigating the dead loser harassment claim or claims, Dunder Mifflin should probably settle all other potential claims for the out-of-office “experiences” that we watched. It is not generally a good idea to let folks like Andy drive a golf cart or let Michael near a ball in a crowd (or anywhere for that matter). Seriously, Dunder Mifflin is probably on the hook for Andy’s fall into the sand pit and the injuries suffered by any unfortunate student that didn’t get out of the way of Michael’s booted ball. And the beers after the last hole (though delicately downed by a straw for some) only add fuel to the fire and money to those claims. Even though they were out of the office, all of these employees were working – whether recruiting at the fair or attempting to develop business. As a result, the company is on the hook.

The only thing offsetting this bad HR day out of The Office is the likely recovery of the money Kevin took from petty cash. But, as you can tell a few hundred bucks is not going to cover this bill.

At least the writers made my last post an easy one: tonight’s episode was full of Dunder Mifflin management missteps. Had Stanley really been fired (or if he had just quit in disgust after the “faux firing”), he would have found it substantially easier to make those alimony payments to the former Mrs. Stanley Hudson (not to mention his future ex-wives). His claims for race discrimination, age discrimination, wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress would have been pretty solid. You just don’t get to “faux fire” the only over-40 black employee after asking him for suggestions on how to “pep up” and “energize” the workplace by recording an “urban” message in a staff meeting. Plus, juries are rarely impressed by managers who publicly humiliate their employees. That being said, Michael’s blunders don’t excuse Stanley’s conduct. As much as we all have wanted to blow up at our boss during some point in our careers, the cold hard truth is that you just don’t get to do so without adverse consequences.

On an unrelated note, just think how much Stanley could have added to his litigation windfall if he had accidentally fallen in the face imprint Michael made in the sidewalk on his way out the door?

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.   

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.

I can’t help but wonder if we should expect to see a new sculpture on Michael’s desk next week?  Maybe next to his “World’s Best Boss” mug? 

We all know that subjecting employees to ridicule and disappointment is not a great motivational technique.  But, as the employer learned in this case, conducting business this way can also lead to protracted, and ultimately, expensive litigation.  While cases usually aren’t this egregious, the lesson is the same:  “I was only kidding” is never going to be your strongest defense.    

Remind you of anyone in Scranton? 

The ouster raises an interesting point: Can/should an employer check out employees or prospective employees on the Internet? After all, there is wealth of information on the world wide web. On the other hand, there is a lot of information the employer just doesn’t want to know. After all, just what should human resources do after discovering photographs of a job candidate doing keg stands on the employee’s MySpace page? Does it bring forth any issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act? What if a current employee’s page shows her doing bong hits or the page contains racially or sexually offensive content?

While some states have laws saying that an employee can’t be fired for off-duty conduct, most don’t. It looks like this is going to be something that the courts will have to sort out over time. In the meantime, I’m hoping that I don’t have to see any other elected officials in their underwear…..

Here’s a shocker: the network terminated her contract. Presumably, she had a “morals clause” in her employment agreement. A “morals clause” is standard in celebrity contracts (or so I’m told in the attached article). Essentially, these clauses provide that an employee can be terminated for engaging in behavior that will cause scandal, public contempt, or disrepute. One can only imagine what type of trouble Michael would get into if he had a contract with a “morals clause.” Certainly food for thought….