Employee Survival Guide®
The Employee Survival Guide® is the no-nonsense employment law podcast made exclusively for employees. After 200+ episodes, we deliver the straight talk your employer and HR don’t want you to hear — covering every work and career issue that actually matters.
Hosted and produced by Mark Carey, a veteran employment lawyer with 29 years of experience who has litigated hundreds of cases — including class actions — in state and federal courts nationwide. Mark cuts through the BS with blunt, practical advice, always presenting both sides so you can make informed decisions. This podcast is also about your employment story and other courageous employees who have spoken out about their employers. If you work for a living, this is your podcast.
BRAND NEW: Employee Survival Guide AI (https://markx4umtq.customgpt-agents.com)
Now you can use our newly created AI agent to ask questions about your job and legal claims and receive answers based on our entire catalogue of podcast episodes and the full content from our extensive website.
Subscribe to our employee podcast show in your favorite podcast app including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
You can also subscribe to our feed via RSS or XML.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide ® please like us on Facebook, X and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this employee podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Thank you!
For more information, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, or email at info@capclaw.com.
Also go to our website EmployeeSurvival.com for more helpful information about work and working.
Employee Survival Guide®
Religion, Harassment, And The Workplace Line: Brown v. Alaska Airlines
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
A single comment on a company intranet can feel like a private thought. In reality, it’s a broadcast to thousands, permanently logged, and interpreted through strict workplace harassment policies. We dig into Brown v Alaska Airlines, Inc., a Ninth Circuit case that asks what happens when an employer invites employees to “bring their authentic selves” into a debate about the Equality Act, then responds with swift terminations when the discussion turns religious, political, and personal.
We walk through the timeline: the Equality Act announcement, the contrasting posts from two flight attendants, and the immediate HR reaction grounded in a zero-tolerance anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy. Then we zoom in on a part of the story that surprised us the most, the union’s role. Title VII doesn’t just regulate employers; it also restricts unions from discriminating based on religion or nudging management toward discriminatory outcomes. The texts and private messages described in the record raise hard questions about what fair representation looks like when a member’s beliefs collide with the union’s broader social platform.
From there, we translate the legal engine driving the appellate decision, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, and why “pretext” can keep a case alive even when an employer points to a facially neutral policy. We also tackle the debate over whether the word “morality” can act as coded religious language in workplace disputes around LGBTQ rights. Finally, we explain the federal preemption fight and why state anti-discrimination laws matter when employees sue a union under the Railway Labor Act structure.
If you care about workplace rights, religious discrimination, harassment policy, union liability, or the risks of internal communication platforms like Slack and Teams, this one is for you. Subscribe, share this episode with a coworker, and leave a review telling us where you think the line should be drawn.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, X and LinkedIn.
We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will help other employees find the Employee Survival Guide.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Where Beliefs Become Workplace Risk
SPEAKER_02Welcome to another episode of the Employee Survival Guide, produced by Employment Attorney Mark Carey. You know, we spend a massive portion of our waking hours at work, right?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah, we really do. And a huge chunk of our lives.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Ross Powell And while navigating those social dynamics of the workplace has always been a little tricky, but I want to pose a question directly to you, the listener. Like, when does expressing your personal or religious beliefs at work actually cross the line into harassment?
SPEAKER_00Right. And on the flip side of that exact same coin, when does a company's strict anti-harassment policy become, you know, just a legally prohibited cover for religious discrimination?
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Exactly. And that is our mission today as we explore the source material. We are going to unpack a really fascinating 2026 case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Brown versus Alaska Airlines, Inc.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It is such a complex case.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell It really is. And we are going to focus heavily on the facts of the employees' claims and the court's ultimate decision. Because this case is, I mean, it's essentially a perfect storm of modern workplace tangents.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah, it has all the elements colliding all at once.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell But before we go any further, I need to make a very clear impartiality disclaimer. The source material we are looking at involves some highly politically charged topics.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yes, very charged.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell And we are talking about the Equality Act, LGBTQ plus rights, and the Black Lives Matter movement.
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_02And neither of us here is endorsing any political, social, or religious viewpoints today. We are not taking any sides at all. Our goal is purely and impartially to convey the facts and the legal ideas contained in the core documents.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell, which is a crucial foundation for our discussion, I think. We are here to analyze the legal architecture of the dispute, not to debate the underlying social issues. The law requires us to look objectively at like the mechanisms of discrimination and policy enforcement.
The Intranet As A Digital Water Cooler
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Right, exactly. So to really grasp what happened here, I want you to think of a modern corporate intranet as like digital water cooler.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Okay. Yeah, that makes sense.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Because we all remember the old break room where a conversation just sort of evaporated into the air. Maybe someone overheard you, maybe they didn't. But on this digital water cooler, whether it's Teams or Slack or an internal forum, every single word is permanently recorded.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell And it is visible to 26,000 people instantly.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Exactly. And it is governed by incredibly strict corporate policies. That environment is exactly where this legal firestorm started. So let's move from the theoretical workplace to the specific facts of what actually happened on Alaska Airlines' internal intranet, which they uh affectionately call Alaska's World.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. So the timeline begins in February 2021. Alaska Airlines posts an announcement on Alaska's World stating the company's support for the Equality Act.
SPEAKER_02And for context, the Equality Act is proposed federal legislation, right, to extend non-discrimination requirements to cover sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
SPEAKER_00Yes, exactly. Now, what's vital to note here is that Alaska explicitly invited open dialogue on this post. Their employee guidance literally stated, our differences make us better when we support and respect each other, allowing each of us to be who we are.
SPEAKER_02Wow.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. They asked employees to comment, to share ideas, and to bring their authentic selves to the discussion.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Which, I mean, that sounds fantastic in a corporate mission statement. But you are asking human beings to engage with controversial federal legislation that intersects heavily with their deeply held personal and religious beliefs.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell It's a recipe for conflict, honestly. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Totally. And predictably, human beings actually start commenting. So shortly after the post goes up, an employee named Lacey Smith, who had been a flight attendant for six years, posts a one-sentence question. Aaron Powell Yeah.
SPEAKER_00She writes As a company, do you think it's possible to regulate morality?
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Just that one sentence.
SPEAKER_00Just that one sentence. But the background context here is absolutely essential for understanding how the company reacts later, because six months prior to this exact post, Smith was disciplined and put on an 18-month probation.
SPEAKER_02Wait, really?
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_02For what?
SPEAKER_00For circulating a petition titled Depoliticizing Alaska Airlines, which opposed the company's public support of the Black Lives Matter movement.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Oh, wow. Okay. So she's already on a very short leash with HR.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell Exactly. Any misstep could be grounds for immediate termination.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell So she is definitely under a microscope. And then later that same day, another flight attendant, Marley Brown, who had an eight-year, completely unblemished record, sees the post. Trevor Burrus, Right. And Brown does some research on the Equality Act, feels religiously compelled to respond, and poses a much longer, explicitly religious objection.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yeah. She asks if Alaska supports endangering the church and claims the act would eliminate conscience protections.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell She goes pretty far, right?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell, she does. She even goes as far as claiming that the act enables sexual predators to gain access to victims in private spaces like locker rooms.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Wow. So now we have two very distinct reactions on a public company forum. Aaron Powell. One is a vague question about morality from someone already on probation. And the other is a pointed, overtly religious and highly provocative statement about the church and sexual predators from a veteran employee with a clean record.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Exactly. That's the setup.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Ross Powell But I mean, I have to push back on the company's initial setup here, though. Aaron Powell How so if a company explicitly invites employees to bring their differences to an open forum and asks them to openly discuss controversial federal legislation, aren't they essentially setting a trap? Well like how can you invite opposing views and then punish the employees who actually voiced them? It feels like inviting someone into your house just to arrest them for trespassing.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell I get that. And this raises
Two Comments That Triggered Termination
SPEAKER_00one of the central dilemmas the court grapples with. Alaska knew this was a highly sensitive topic. Internal documents showed the company understood the Equality Act touched on religious freedom concerns for some of their employees. Right. But the company also maintains a very strict zero tolerance policy for harassment and discrimination. Their argument is that these posts didn't just express differences of opinion.
SPEAKER_02They went further.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. They crossed the line into violating that zero tolerance policy by creating a hostile environment for other employees, specifically LGBTQ plus employees.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell And in the old days, you know, a break room comment might take weeks to reach HR, but on Alaska's world, the fallout was immediate.
SPEAKER_00Oh yeah. Instantaneous.
SPEAKER_02Instantaneous. Employees started complaining saying they felt unsafe flowing with Smith. By that night, both comments were scrubbed from the internet and a formal investigation was launched. How does this digital velocity change the legal landscape for employers?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell The digital velocity completely removes the buffer zone. There is no time for tempers to cool down. Right. The employer has a written record, instant visibility across the entire company, and immediate employee outcry. They are forced to act decisively to protect their workplace culture and frankly to mitigate their own liability.
SPEAKER_02Because if they ignore it.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. If they don't act on complaints of harassment, they face lawsuits from the employees who feel targeted.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell But it wasn't just corporate HR scrambling to respond here. The flight attendants union got deeply involved, and not in the way you might expect.
SPEAKER_00No, this is where it gets really strange.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Both Brown and Smith were members of the Association of Flight Attendants, or AFA. Normally a union's job is to fiercely defend its members in disciplinary hearings, right?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell That is their primary role, yes.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Yet here, Jeffrey Peterson, the AFA master executive counsel president, actually texted company executives directly to flag Brown's posts. He texted management saying, I wish fewer people would struggle so much with unifying their faith with inclusivity.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell That level of involvement is highly unusual. The union president is circumventing the usual grievance defense process to express like a shared frustration with management over a union member's religious expression.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell And privately it went even further. Peterson sent emails calling Smith a bigot.
SPEAKER_00Wow.
SPEAKER_02And another union representative, Terry Taylor, who was actually assigned to represent Brown in her disciplinary hearing, posted in a private union chat saying about Brown and Smith put Marley and Lacey in a burlap bag and drop them in a well.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell That is That is extreme.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell And Taylor also texted another union rep during Brown's actual investigatory interview saying I may hurl.
SPEAKER_00Trevor Burrus This is where the case moves from a standard HR dispute into a really profound question about union duty. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the law doesn't just prohibit employers from discriminating. Right. It strictly prohibits labor organizations from discriminating against their members or causing an employer to discriminate against them based on protected characteristics.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Including religion.
SPEAKER_00Including religion, yes.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell I am trying to think of an analogy for this because the betrayal is just wild. It's like hiring a defense attorney who secretly texts the prosecutor that they hope you go to jail.
SPEAKER_00That is a very accurate analogy.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell So under Title VII, what is a union's legal obligation when they fundamentally despise their own members' beliefs?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Well, a union has an affirmative obligation to oppose employment discrimination against its members. They can't just knowingly acquiesce or join in.
SPEAKER_02But why would they do it here?
SPEAKER_00We're seeing this play out across the modern political climate. Unions are increasingly adopting strong social and political platforms. So when a member's individual religious beliefs directly contradict the union's political platform, the union leadership faces a massive conflict of interest.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Ross Powell Right, but legally.
SPEAKER_00Legally, Title VII is blind to that political platform. A union cannot sacrifice a member's civil rights just because they find the member's religious beliefs personally abhorrent.
SPEAKER_02And despite having union representation, or, you know, perhaps because of the nature of that representation, both of these flight attendants were fired. Yeah. On March 19th, 2021, both Brown and Smith were terminated. Alaska's notices of discharge stated that the comments violated the company's zero tolerance, anti-discrimination, and anti-harassment policy.
unknownTrevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. The swiftness of the corporate response, paired with the union's tacit approval, meant these employees were out of a job almost immediately.
SPEAKER_02So the firings pushed this dispute out of the corporate HR realm and directly into the federal court system. The plaintiff sued both Alaska Airlines and the AFA union.
SPEAKER_00And how did the lower court handle it?
SPEAKER_02Initially, the federal district court threw the case out entirely. They granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the airline fired the women for the content of their comments, not for their religion.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Right. That was the initial read. The district court looked at the situation and essentially agreed with the company. They said the anti-harassment
The Union’s Shocking Role
SPEAKER_00policy was violated, the firing was justified, case closed.
SPEAKER_02But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals looked at that exact same evidence and completely reversed the lower court.
SPEAKER_00Yes, they did. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02And to understand how they reached that conclusion, we need to dive into the legal test used in Title VII claims, which is known as the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework.
SPEAKER_00The reason the Supreme Court created this three-step dance back in the 1970s is because employers rarely leave a smoking gun. A boss will almost never put in writing, I am firing you because of your religion or your race or your gender.
SPEAKER_02Right. They're smarter than that.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. So this framework exists to help employees prove discrimination using circumstantial evidence and a process of elimination.
SPEAKER_02So how does the three-step dance actually work in practice?
SPEAKER_00Step one requires the employee to show a prima fascia case of discrimination.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Which means what exactly?
SPEAKER_00That just means they have to show minimal evidence that they are in a protected class, they were qualified for their job, they suffered an adverse action, like getting fired, and the circumstances suggest discrimination.
SPEAKER_02So it's just enough to get their foot in the door of the courtroom.
SPEAKER_00Exactly. Just to get started.
SPEAKER_02And step two is where the ball goes back to the employer, right?
SPEAKER_00Yes. The employer has to provide a neutral, non-discriminatory reason for firing them. In this case, Alaska played their card perfectly. They said, we didn't fire them for their religion. We fired them for violating our zero-tolerance anti-harassment policy.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell, which forces the burden back to the employee for the final step.
SPEAKER_00Correct. Step three requires the employee to argue that the employer's neutral reason is actually just a pretext. In other words, a cover-up for actual discrimination. Aaron Powell Okay.
SPEAKER_02Pretext. Pretext in the corporate world is like firing an employee you secretly dislike for being two minutes late to a Zoom meeting.
SPEAKER_00Right.
SPEAKER_02Technically, being late violates company policy. That is your neutral reason. But no one else gets fired for being two minutes late to a Zoom call. The Zoom tardiness is just a convenient pretext to get rid of someone you don't like.
SPEAKER_00That's a great way to look at it.
SPEAKER_02So applying this framework to Marley Brown, what did the Ninth Circuit actually decide?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell The Ninth Circuit found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding pretext in Brown's case. Her post was facially religious. She specifically mentioned the church and conscience protections. Right. The company in the union clearly understood it as religious. And crucially, those union representatives made negative, disparaging comments specifically about her faith, like that text about struggling to unify faith with inclusivity.
SPEAKER_01So the court is saying you can't just point to a handbook policy and avoid a trial if there's a text message trail suggesting the real motivation was anti-religious bias.
SPEAKER_00Precisely. A jury has to look at all that evidence and decide what the actual motivation was. Summary judgment just isn't appropriate when the motives are distangled.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell This begs a huge question for you, the listener.
SPEAKER_02Does this ruling mean employees can use their religion as like a magic shield to freely harass their co-workers on company time without getting fired?
SPEAKER_00No. And the court was very careful to clarify this. Employers absolutely have the right and the legal obligation to punish religiously inspired harassment.
SPEAKER_02So the shield isn't absolute.
SPEAKER_00Not at all. If you are directly harassing a coworker, calling them names, or creating a hostile work environment, you cannot
The Ninth Circuit Reverses Course
SPEAKER_00hide behind your religion.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell But the distinction here is that Brown wasn't directly targeting a specific coworker at their desk. She was responding to a broad prompt on a company forum about federal legislation.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_02The court question for the jury isn't whether Alaska has a right to enforce its anti-harassment policies. The question is whether Alaska actually fired Brown for harassment, or if they just used that policy as a convenient excuse to fire her for holding conservative Christian beliefs. She just asked one question. As a company, do you think it's possible to regulate morality? Right. She never mentioned religion. And during her HR investigation, she never claimed religious motives. She literally told the investigators she was just asking a philosophical question.
SPEAKER_00So how is it religious discrimination if she never even brings up religion?
SPEAKER_02Exactly.
SPEAKER_00Well, the Ninth Circuit majority kept her case alive alongside Brown's. They argued that morality is very often tied to religious beliefs. They also noted that Alaska investigated and fired Smith and Brown on the exact same day, treating their cases as a package deal.
SPEAKER_01Okay.
SPEAKER_00Because the company knew the Equality Act sparked religious concerns, the majority felt a jury should also hear Smith's case to see if she was caught up in the same alleged anti-religious bias.
SPEAKER_02But Judge Kristen wrote a powerful partial dissent, strongly disagreeing with the majority on Smith. She did. She argued that an employer would have to be clairvoyant to know that a post about morality was secretly a religious statement, especially when the employee explicitly called it a philosophical question during the investigation.
SPEAKER_00It is a really profound disagreement on how we interpret workplace language.
SPEAKER_02I mean, I am totally pushing back on the majority's logic here.
SPEAKER_00Okay, let's hear it.
SPEAKER_02If an employee intentionally hides their religious motivation during a formal HR investigation and only claims it was about religion a full month after they are fired, which is what Smith did, how can the employer possibly be guilty of intentional religious discrimination at the exact moment they fired her?
SPEAKER_00It's a tough argument.
SPEAKER_02You can't discriminate against something you don't know is there. Plus, she was already on a final warning probation for that BLM petition.
SPEAKER_00I understand why you're siding with the dissent, but let me push back on that perspective. We have to consider the environment of 2021.
SPEAKER_01Okay.
SPEAKER_00In the context of LGBTQ legislation and the Equality Act, the
Pretext And The McDonnell Douglas Test
SPEAKER_00term morality wasn't just a neutral philosophical concept. It was widely recognized as a religious dog whistle.
SPEAKER_02A dog whistle.
SPEAKER_00Yeah. The company didn't necessarily need to be clairvoyant. Management and HR professionals are highly attuned to these cultural flashpoints. They are trained to look for coded language.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell That's true. They are.
SPEAKER_00So the majority is saying it's highly plausible the company knew exactly what kind of morality she was talking about, regardless of the words she used in her HR interview.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell But she explicitly told HR it was just philosophical. She had the chance to claim religious protection and she didn't take it.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Yes, but employees under investigation for their jobs often minimize their statements or use softer language to avoid termination. And the fact that she was on probation for the BLM petition actually cuts both ways.
SPEAKER_01Aaron Powell How so?
SPEAKER_00Well, the dissent says, look, she was on probation, any misstep is a firable offense. But the majority says she was already a known conservative troublemaker in the eyes of management, which might have made them even more eager to bundle her with Brown and purge them both under the guise of an anti-harassment policy.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I see. Aaron Powell It really is a deep philosophical debate about what an employer is expected to know versus what they actually know in the moment.
SPEAKER_00Exactly.
SPEAKER_02But because the majority rule the way they did, Smith's case also goes to a jury. So if a jury is going to look at Title VI, you'd think that's where the story ends. But the employees didn't stop there. They also weaponized state laws against the union, which triggered a massive jurisdictional turf war between state and federal courts.
SPEAKER_00Yes. This brings us to federal preemption. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_02Right. Let's talk about federal preemption.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Ross Powell So the plaintiffs didn't just sue under federal Title VII. They also sued the Union under state anti-discrimination laws in Washington and Oregon. The lower court had thrown those state claims out. They reasoned that because the union is governed by the Federal Railway Labor Act, or RLA, which regulates airline and railway unions, that federal law preempts or completely overrules the state anti-discrimination laws.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell Now, for the listener wondering why an airline is governed by a railway act, that dates back to the 1930s when airlines were added to the existing railway labor framework to prevent strikes in essential transportation.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell A little historical
Morality, Dog Whistles, And Dissent
SPEAKER_00quirk. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Aaron Powell But essentially the union was basically saying federal rules apply here, so you can't use state laws against us. They argued that their federal duty of fair representation gave them total immunity for being sued under state statutes.
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell But the Ninth Circuit reversed this, aligning themselves with previous rulings from the Second and Eighth Circuits. The court ruled that the federal duty to fairly represent employees does not conflict with state anti-discrimination laws.
SPEAKER_02So translating this legal turf war for the listener, if federal Title VII already covers unions and prohibits discrimination, why do employees even care so much about being able to sue their union under state laws too? Why fight this preemption battle all the way to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?
SPEAKER_00Aaron Powell Employees care deeply because state laws often offer much broader protections. They have different statutes of limitations, they might cover smaller employers, and crucially, they sometimes offer different avenues for damages compared to federal law.
SPEAKER_02Oh, that makes sense.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it gives the plaintiff more leverage and more options in court. The Ninth Circuit clarified that a union cannot use its status as a federal collective bargaining agent as an impenetrable shield to ignore a state's human rights laws. They operate in tandem.
SPEAKER_02Wow. So unions can be held accountable at both the state and federal level for how they treat their members' protected beliefs. It's a massive clarification for union liability across the entire Ninth Circuit. And listen to this Mark examined the Federal District Court docket and discovered the case has not settled after the Ninth Circuit's decision to allow the case to proceed to trial, and a two-week trial has been scheduled for May 2027.
SPEAKER_00It is going to be genuinely fascinating to see what a jury decides when they have to weigh all these internal text messages, the union's actions, the company's zero tolerance policies, and you know the complex motivations of the employees in open court.
SPEAKER_02It really will. And it leaves us with something pretty heavy to ponder. Think about this. In the modern digital workplace, if corporate diversity initiatives and deeply held employee religious beliefs are destined to collide on these company internet
State Law Claims And Federal Preemption
SPEAKER_02forums, creating these massive expensive legal liabilities, will companies simply eliminate internal platforms for employee connection altogether?
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_00Will the ultimate quest for open dialogue at work just result in absolute corporate silence?
SPEAKER_02Exactly. It's a big question. Thank you so much for exploring this complex issue with us today. Stay curious, and we'll catch you next time.