You do employment law, and this is right up your alley, huh?

Well, it is.

It's also up Mike's alley, too, because we're talking about jury duty.

Yeah.

So most states do not require employers to pay their employees to serve on juries.

The law protects them.

They can't be discriminated against or retaliated against.

No, I guess it's

First of all, can you just walk us through PTO and holiday requests? Are there any laws about what companies can or can't do in terms of how they determine who can get it and who can't around the holidays?

Yeah, there are, John.

So generally speaking, employers in Illinois can legally deny PTO and paid leave requests, but they got to follow specific state rules and they have to have written company policies about that.

So what are the reasons they can do it? So if employers have a legitimate business need, that's one of those, you know, legal phrases that folks argue about all the time.

They have a legitimate business need that has to do with staffing needs, particularly on peak seasons, such as holidays and high volume periods.

They can, based on policies that they have made available to employees, deny PTO requests for those legitimate business reasons.

So the caller's question on the John Williams show is a really good one.

Talk us through the legalities and any potential pitfalls as we get towards holiday bonus season.

But Patrick, you talk about all the problems we're, we're, we're gonna face here and why you don't think this is ever really gonna happen.

Oh, I don't think so.

I mean, I think you have so many different issues and so many different parties pushing and pulling in different directions.

The thing that I think may make a difference though, Mike, is if conferences are actually given the ability to make rules and enforce those rules, I think that's the start of something, and then you may see conferences like the Big Ten or whatever issue what we consider to be c- a cap.

You know-

Mm-hmm

... $50 million per team.

Here's the...

But Patrick, you talk about all the problems we're going to face here and why you don't think this is ever really going to happen.

Oh, I don't think so.

I mean, I think you have so many different issues and so many different parties pushing and pulling in different directions.

The thing that I think may make a difference, though, Mike, is if conferences are actually given the ability to make rules and enforce those rules, I think that's the start of something.

And then you may see conferences like the Big Ten or whatever...

Issue what we consider to be a cap, you know, 50 million dollars per team.

Here's I mean, it just there are so many loopholes.

i've never seen that's funny i've never seen that that approach where you had a piece of paper you wrote that out or a paper bag not a bad idea not a bad idea um i'm not sure if it's always necessary but i wouldn't i wouldn't uh fault it i would fault patrick for You know, me bringing him a sandwich and him not eating it, that to me is a bigger

What do you think?

Listen, I'm typically the cynical person, Mike, as a plaintiff's employment lawyer.

But I think because the decision is made by two physicians, health care practitioners, I think that's sufficient safeguards.

And here's the way I look at it.

I look at it a little bit differently as someone whose father died within the last couple of years who suffered.

And he did not have that option.

And I don't know if he would have taken that option.

I think what you're saying is it's also about the communication of the act.

I think that Mike and Patrick can, Patrick can in here, too, the idea of I think so many people have seen and gone through, maybe their parents or their grandparents or aunts and uncles suffer with some debilitating diseases, and I think that has been what has really changed people's hearts and minds, is as we live longer and sometimes live with diseases longer, the calculus on this has changed, Patrick.

Yeah, I think this is one of these examples where the law's catching up to where people are.

You know, Dr. Kevorkian, as Mike pointed out, all those issues were back in the '80s, and frankly I think for some people it really shocked the conscience.

What we didn't know at the time was he was ahead of his time, and frankly, what he was doing was, was, uh, in not, not new in a number of places in Europe, specifically Switzerland, which people always point to.

So I think there's been a lot of support for this, uh, generating, uh, generated over maybe the last couple of decades.

Um, and I think you're exactly right, John.

You know, it's absolutely heartbreaking and horribly difficult to see a loved one go through the end of their life suffering for months and months when everyone knows that their life is gonna end within, you know, six, nine, 12 months.

... what happens in this situation, Patrick, in terms of death and death benefits?

So the employee, the employer, excuse me, doesn't write the rules.

They do not.

They try to, and oftentimes they would prefer that someone be a consultant because then you don't have to provide benefits.

You don't have to provide workers' compensation insurance.

A lot of benefits, frankly most if not all benefits, don't go to consultants.

And so oftentimes employers try to slot folks into consultant or independent contractor positions when frankly they shouldn't be because they control what that person is doing.

when they're doing it, how they're doing it, whether they're getting paid for expenses, when they show up, where they work, all those sorts of things.

I mean, that's the reality is I think a lot of independent contractors just go along with the game because it's the way the game is played.

Patrick, let's get you in there.

Yes.

So right now, because your podcast is successful, you're going through a whole bunch of different possible stories to put on the air.

Is there a common thread that you looking back that you think, oh, this is what you know, why I've picked this case or going forward? Is there something that you sort of look to? Because I imagine a lot of folks who've been convicted and incarcerated say that they didn't do it.

So what fascinates you? Is there a thread?

And then the cop ended up slipping up on the stand during an evidentiary hearing and it was discovered that he'd lied the whole time and he also paid the informant as well, which he said he never did.

You know, you mentioned earlier something that you learned in that Michigan case, which I find interesting as someone who watches true crime podcasts and TV shows like a lot of people do.

Do you think there's a distinction between the fairness of the process in rural America versus urban America? You talked about the relationships.

Well, I just got one.

But I'm doing this a little bit different.

So my whole life is the American worker.

I focus on workplace issues.

And this is going to be something, John, you might nerd out about a little bit.

So I thought, what are the most consequential acts to support the American worker or impact the American workplace from each of the three branches of government? just one act one for each one one for each one so i've got one for the judiciary which is the supreme court in this case okay the congress and the president

okay

Jones & Laughlin was one of the nation's largest steel producers.

So the

company said, OK, for you, we will allow your religious exemption.

What does that mean more broadly? All right.

Now, remember, this isn't like people who have political problems or personal basis not to use.

This is all rooted in religious beliefs.

So it's not just, you know, her religion as a Unitarian.

It's a whole bunch of other religions.

Claude tell you? And again, Claude is telling you legitimate reasons.

What's going on in that area, and how are you hearing about that?

You know, well, that was, uh, one of the reasons why we engaged the Winterberry Group to do this study that I, I was telling you about.

Um, thanks to the sponsors for supporting that.

You know, there are retail media networks that are going into stores, right? So you've got thousands of screens, you know, as far as Walmart is concerned, and other retail media, um, companies that are out there.

And then, of course, you got your neo-retail surrounding the, uh, retail screens and the CTV and digital billboards and things like that.

And I- marketers see that as a huge opportunity to, again, go through the path to purchase and, you know, be able to create a message, you know, through that path.

The, I think the challenge right now, and what I think the opportunity is, is, like, how do you connect those two together? And doing that with, you know, programmatic capabilities just seems very logical to me.

Um, are you seeing similarities? Is this, is this just a phase, or is everything gonna change forever?

Okay.

So, um, w- uh, un- unless the information is being used by someone in your position to impeach, uh, someone who provides testimony to the grand jury, why should you get that information? It's not evidence.

What do you, why do you want it other than you just want to know what's gone back and forth? And if the judge has an oversight role, which they do, then why don't you just let them discern? In other words, why do you think you should get that information? I don't think you should.

Yeah, yeah.

That's exactly what they do.

So they'll give you 50 bucks, they'll give you 100 bucks, they'll give you whatever it is, but you never quite get that 500 bucks back.

Oh, here's what you do.

You take on more tasks and give us more money so you can exceed the 500, and that's so you can exceed the $3,000.

Uh, are you saying that there has to be a human in the loop? Is that like the, the, the phrase that law uses or is trying to use to make sure that, that the, the AI hiring process isn't as discriminatory as humans are?

I think that's a really good way to put it.

What the law is doing in Illinois and California and in c- other cal- a couple other places like New York is making sure that if company uses AI to hire folks, which just about every company does now and has for a while, but now it's really explicit, to kind of go through the applicant pool, weed them out, determine who should be interviewed, uh, determine who's qualified, et cetera, et cetera.

You know, companies just can't say, "Oh, it was a third-party vendor.

Oh, it's this, you know, software we use," or whatever it is.

Now they're saying, the law is saying HR folks must insert themselves into that process to ensure that it's not discriminatory, not just in terms of sort of what you put in to ensure what you get out, but look at the result.

If you're getting a bunch of candidates who are always under 40 or always white or none of them are disabled, uh, et cetera, in other words, all those categories that we think of that are protected by employment laws, if you're getting, uh, none of those folks, then there's gonna be something wrong with your hiring process in terms of who you're vetting out.

Patrick, any thoughts on that?