drunk boss was angry I couldn’t drive him, coworker who’s afraid of clowns, and more

by Alison Green on December 3, 2024

I’m on vacation. Here are some past letters that I’m making new again, rather than leaving them to wilt in the archives.

1. My boss got drunk and was angry that I couldn’t drive him back to the office

I have been working at my job (a Fortune 500 company) for nine months, after I graduated college last year.

My boss and I went to a business lunch and he drank a lot. He was upset that I couldn’t drive us back to the office because I don’t have a driver’s license. He assumed I did. He didn’t tell me to drive until we were in the parking lot. I have epilepsy that makes me have seizures in my sleep. I have never had one when I an awake, but because it’s still epilepsy, I am not allowed to drive by law. I live in a large city with buses, cabs, and a subway, so I get along just fine if none of my family or friends can drive me.

I refused even though he insisted, and we had to take a cab back to the office and my boss had to take a cab back to get his company car the next day. Instead of expensing it, my boss and his boss want me to pay both cab fares. My boss said I should have told him I can’t drive. I work a desk job with no driving component and it was not mentioned in the requirements for my job. The cab fares totaled over $100 and I don’t think I should have to pay because my boss decided to get falling down drunk while he was on the clock. And even if I did have a license I wouldn’t have driven a company car without permission from someone higher than my manager. Is it okay to go to HR with something like this or is it expected I would have to pay?

You should absolutely go to HR about this! Under no circumstances should you have to pay this.

What’s weirdest here is that your boss’s boss is on board with trying to get you to pay this. One loon is not terribly unusual, as I’ve learned from nearly 10 years of writing this site, but two who are loony in precisely the same bizarre way is pretty surprising.

Anyway, yes, please talk to HR and explain that your boss got drunk at a business lunch, tried to pressure you to drive illegally despite your medical condition, and now is trying to force you to pay his cab expenses. Ask, too, that they handle this in a way where you’re protected from retaliation by your boss.

Read updates to this letter here and here.

– 2017

2. My office keeps pranking my coworker who’s afraid of clowns

I have a coworker who is terrified of clowns. He is popular in the office, and once in a while one of my other coworkers thinks it’s funny to change his wallpaper on his laptop to a scary clown picture or something of that nature. He will react in what the others think is a funny manner by screaming or running out of the building. Well, this month due to Halloween, they have been pranking him daily and have even taken up a collection to buy a clown costume to wear later this month. I want to tell him about it because I think it is juvenile and pathetic, but I worry about repercussions from my boss because she is in on it and a driving force behind it. What should I do? I need help in a hurry.

Assuming he seems to be genuinely terrified and not in on the fun, you should tell him because it’s profoundly crappy to set out to terrify someone. If your boss confronts you about it, you can say, “I assumed it was all a joke, since I didn’t think you would really set out to intentionally terrify him while he’s trying to work.”

You could also tell your coworker that you’ll support him if he wants to lay down the law with your coworkers about never doing this again or if he wants to speak to your boss or HR about it.

– 2018

3. My clothes are too dressy for my new job

In the last year, I have started a different job where the general attire around the office is much more business casual than my previous position. I don’t have a lot of money, but I had built up a small professional wardrobe that I feel is too fancy for the culture of my new workplace.

My wardrobe has a combination of pencil skirts, suit pants, blazers, and silk tops. People in my office wear more dark denim and button downs, or black pants with put together tops, but less dressy than what I wear. Other clothing I own is much too casual (i.e., shorts, sweats, and tank tops) or has holes or wear in it. I can’t really afford to replace things at this point, but I am worried about being overdressed. I I feel like I am standing out in a way that makes me not fit in with the workplace culture, but since I can’t afford to replace it, I don’t know what to do.

I am assuming it is better to err on the side of too fancy than too casual, but I mostly just wish I had the ability to finance a wardrobe that was in between. Since I don’t at this time, what is your suggestion? Should I say anything about it? Or just keep being overdressed and hope it’s okay until I figure something out?

Well … if you were showing up every day in a three-piece suit while everyone else was in jeans and button-downs, that would be one thing. But a pencil skirt and a silk top isn’t as much of a disparity with what it sounds like others are wearing. It’s definitely a notch or two more formal, yes, but not weirdly so.

That said, can you buy a couple of inexpensive items to dress down the rest of your wardrobe? A couple of cotton tops and one or two pairs of non-suit pants could make it a lot easier to bring your outfits down in formality, and could be paired with the stuff you already have. Sometimes “can’t afford to replace it” means “I can’t afford to buy really nice stuff” but doesn’t preclude a trip to Old Navy or getting a few $7 shirts from thredUP, and if that’s the case I think that’s your best bet. But other times, it means “I literally cannot afford that $7 shirt,” in which case these suggestions won’t work for you and I’d just dress down your current stuff to whatever extent you can and don’t worry too much about it. It’s very likely that you just look like someone who likes dressing a bit more nicely.

And if anyone ever comments on you always being dressed up, it’s fine to say, “Yeah, my old job was much dressier so I’m used to it, but I’m looking forward to buying some new stuff at some point.”

– 2018

4. Should we say something about a rogue parker?

I work at a small office that has a small parking garage. Parking spots in the garage are assigned based on tenure with the company, so the people who have been here the longest get a spot regardless of their position. If someone leaves the organization, they assign the parking space to the next person in line. It’s kind of a fun thing and people in the office joke/talk about when they are going to get their parking spot.

A few times recently, an employee who is nowhere near the top of the list for a parking space has been parking in the CFO’s spot when they are gone. Some people in the office have noticed it and find it strange and annoying. There is no official rule about that kind of thing, but it seems like a boundary crossed. It also seems too petty to bring up to anyone, including the person doing the parking, so we feel resigned to grumbling. Is this something we should just ignore, or should it be addressed?

When I started to answer this, my initial instinct was “let it go — if the space is free, why not let it be used?” But then I realized that it’s just one person who’s doing this. It is unfair that this is a known system and one person is circumventing it for their own benefit.

The right move here isn’t to try to stop to it completely, but rather to get the rules clarified. If this is allowed — if temporarily vacant spaces can be used on a first-come, first-served basis — that should be announced to everyone, so everyone can benefit from it, rather than just this one person. The system shouldn’t be “everyone follows the same set of rules except for one person with the audacity to ignore them.”

– 2018

You may also like:
{ 220 comments }

{ 220 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. The driving range*

    LW1’s update was as follows:

    HR acknowledged I was right not to drive us back to the office, both because I don’t have a license and because I didn’t have permission to drive a company vehicle from someone who was authorized to give it. My boss and his boss were told they were wrong to expect me to have driven the car. However, they were not disciplined and nothing happened beyond the one sentence “you were wrong” speech. I was told off the record that my boss is needed for two different projects in the works and the company would lose money if he were let go or if he quit so HR wasn’t going to do anything further. My boss was also lauded for recognizing he was too drunk to drive and calling a cab. Nothing was said to him about getting so drunk at a business lunch that he was falling down. The company allowed him to expense the cab fares.

    I want to know: what is so awful about an outcome whereby LW1 (1) got an acknowledgement that the boss shouldn’t have asked an unlicensed driver to drive, (2) did not have to bear the cab fare expense herself? And HR was correct to say the boss properly opted not to drive himself, and that the company could bear the cab fare.

    Now, if she went to HR and demanded that her boss to be TERMINATED over these issues — which is what it sounds like, judging from the update — no wonder LW1 ultimately was shown the door. Winning the dispute does not relieve LW1 from maintaining a sense of proportion.

    You don’t fire someone over assuming (wrongly) that an employee holds a driver’s license, or over a disagreement over expenses. You sort it out, which HR did, and move on.

    Reply ↓
    1. Happy meal with extra happy*

      The boss, and his boss, were absolutely irrational in how they handled OP’s not having a driver’s license, and I find it worrying that you don’t see that. “Disagreement over expenses”? Geez.

      Reply ↓
      2. duinath*

        Yep.

        If I had been in that interview with the questions about loyalty to bosses, I wouldn’t have been able to keep from saying “are you talking about the guy who got falling down drunk at work and tried to push me to break the law?”

        Reply ↓
        1. Jaid*

          And would have been canned except he was still needed for a contract? Once that’s over, they could find a dozen more people like him except not as likely to get blotto.

          Reply ↓
        2. Falling Diphthong*

          Also driving–and especially city driving with a lot of lane changes and other cars’ movements to track, vs say along a long empty driveway in the countryside–is a skill that takes training and practice. It’s not like, having seen other people drive cars, anyone should be expected to just hop in there and the only thing of note in this situation was OP’s lack of gumption to say “How hard can city driving at midday be? Lots of people do it.”

          Reply ↓
          2. Justme, The OG*

            How did you read the same letter that I did and chalked it up to a “lack of gumption” rather than being barred from driving BY LAW due to her epilepsy?

            Reply ↓
    2. FunkyMunky*

      you seem to be lacking in reading comprehension, I’ve never seen anyone completely misread something and arrive at drastically different conclusions. She was effectively pushed out of the company because everybody else’s team leaders were buddies with the drinking boss and there was no effective options for her to stay. HR failed at their job, bosses failed their job and the LW had to leave

      Reply ↓
      2. MigraineMonth*

        1) LW’s boss became irrationally angry at her because of a medical condition and tried to pressure her to drive illegally. 2) LW’s boss *and his boss* tried to force LW to pay over $100 in cab fare *to cover up* the fact that LW’s boss got drunk at work. 3) When LW went to HR and asked for protection against retaliation, HR flat-out told her that even though she was in the right and her boss had behaved outrageously, they wouldn’t do anything to protect her if she stayed at the company.

        I’m so glad LW got out, but everyone at that company–LW’s boss, LW’s grandboss, the other managers, HR, and even that interviewer at a different company–proved that they cared more about protecting their missing stair than about doing the right thing. I’m amazed anyone could read her letters and not be outraged on LW’s behalf.

        Reply ↓
    3. Artemesia*

      The incident and then the updates were horrifying. This was unjust from top to bottom and left the OP unemployed without a generous severance and she was also slagged so that future interviewers actually told her she was a tattle tale they wouldn’t hire. I can’t imagine much worse an outcome. She was treated grotesquely unjustly and then essentially fired. I am so happy she found a job where she was appreciated, but it is hard to believe that so many people in an organization would allow this injustice. Awful. Awful.

      Reply ↓
      1. BellaStella*

        This, exactly. Your point tho, hard to believe …. I have seen this stuff happen in two orgs in the last 12 years where a jerk is promoted and/or protected and others who actually are good people and good workers get treated very poorly when dealing with an issue with the said jerk. So, I find this level of dysfunction to happen more often than not, to be honest. I too am glad for the OP she landed in a better place.

        Reply ↓
        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          I agree. It sounds like HR was very blunt with her about the culture at the company and what the realistic outcomes were going to be – which is the silver lining, if there is any. I would expect them to use more CYA language and let her find out the hard way. Not only is this not hard to believe, I’m surprised it wasn’t worse.

          Not all workplaces are like this, of course, but definitely be aware they exist so that you know what to do if you’re caught in one of them unexpectedly.

          Reply ↓
          1. NotBatman*

            Yep. While reading, I was like “does OP work for my dad’s old company? Because she sure sounds like that’s what she’s describing.” Statistically speaking probably not the same boss, but there are far too many of this boss’s type out there. And for every single childish binge-drinking jerk, there are 40 people propping up their crappy behavior by refusing to let the consequences land on the jerk in question.

            Reply ↓
      2. MsM*

        Yeah, I’m glad OP found a job somewhere that’s hopefully less full of bees, but boy am I infuriated at what it took to get there. And I bet boss is either still in their old job or terrorizing employees somewhere else thanks to their connections who value “loyalty” over passing a basic decency test.

        Reply ↓
      3. Annony*

        It’s probably not a bad thing that she wasn’t hired by the first place she interviewed. Sounds like they breed exactly the same toxicity and dysfunction as her former employer. I feel sorry for whoever they did hire.

        Reply ↓
    4. Dittany*

      It wasn’t just “a disagreement over expenses.” He got shellacked at a business meeting, tried to bully his subordinate into doing something that could have gotten them both killed, refused to cover cab fare even though it was his own damn fault, and continued to act like a petulant child long after the incident was over. If he was my employee, I’d be giving some thought as to whether I trusted him to water the office plants, never mind managing other employees.

      Reply ↓
      1. Jasmine*

        “ If he was my employee, I’d be giving some thought as to whether I trusted him to water the office plants, never mind managing other employees.”

        +1

        Reply ↓
      2. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        Yet, somehow this person with such spectacularly poor judgment was so needed for two projects that OP had to go rather than him.

        The fact HR said bluntly (this was in update 2) they won’t protect her from retaliation even thought that is literally covered by law says a lot about the company culture.

        The whole company was messed up, not just this boss and his boss.

        Reply ↓
    5. Daria grace*

      Assuming someone has a drivers licence is not a fireable offence. Misusing your position of authority to try to coerce someone into doing something you’ve been made aware is illegal and dangerous is grounds for some serious disciplinary action, potentially involving firing.

      Reply ↓
      1. Archi-detect*

        also a bad sign as a manager to not have the forthought to ask ‘you can drive us back right?’ when starting the first drink at least; you should be able to try and mitigate risk in a wide number of predictable and non-predictable situations, and that is pretty freaking predictable as far as problems go.

        that is a bit of extrapolation but only some

        Reply ↓
      2. Art Teacher*

        Yeah the appropriate response to finding out someone cannot drive is “Oh, ok, I’ll call a cab/someone else”.

        Also not getting falling-down drunk in the middle of a workday.

        Reply ↓
    7. PNW cat lady*

      Pressuring a new grad to spend $100 on cab fare, and the grandboss backing up said boss- both of which are outrageous on their own. And then to blacken her name to potential employers because he made such egregious choices. I cannot see the value in someone who would treat an employee the way he did. HR telling her she has no recourse at that company, losing her home, and being afraid she’ll never be able to work in her field. That’s a real threat to her entire life. As a reminder $100 is not pocket change, and it’s also a lot to come up with first, last and deposit. If she hadn’t been in a lease renewal period- what if her finances made it so she was evicted instead of being able to walk away? That would have hindered her rental ability for years. All because someone got drunk and decided to be a petulant child about the circumstances he created. I was so happy to learn she found employment after 6 weeks, but that could have gone so much worse. For having ethics and a voice.

      Reply ↓
      1. DJ Abbott*

        It’s old boys club protecting each other, no matter how egregious their actions. This is the patriarchy at work. They don’t care about consequences to anyone except themselves.

        Reply ↓
        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          The whole company, not just boss and his boss. The new teams had people related by marriage and they were all friends. HR made it clear retaliation was not just likely but probable.

          Then the boss bad mouths her to another company. All because he can’t behave like a professional and not get drunk at work.

          Reply ↓
      2. DJ Abbott*

        But I do like that HR was straight with her about consequences so she could make informed choices. They could have misled her by saying everything would be fine, etc. and that would have been an even worse outcome.

        Reply ↓
        1. So they all cheap ass rolled over and one fell out*

          I wonder if HR was deliberately
          giving op the info they needed to sue the company. Given how much of a risk the ex boss was, but also how valuable, maybe the HR person figured a lawsuit settlement was just a cost of doing business.

          Reply ↓
    8. bamcheeks*

      If you read the second update, this boss apparently bad-mouthed LW to an interviewer at an entirely different company who asked LW lots of questions about “insubordination” and then told them they wouldn’t hire them. The boss and grand boss were appalling. LW was right.

      Reply ↓
    9. Audrey Puffins*

      What are you hoping the achieve by sharing only the briefest selection of one update, without the additional context provided by the rest of the update and the subsequent one? Just because a stopped clock is right twice a day doesn’t mean it isn’t broken at all other times

      Reply ↓
    10. Nebula*

      ‘A disagreement over expenses’ would be a bit of back and forth with the finance team over whether you can get a more expensive flight because it will save you time. It is not coercing someone who works for you – and earns a lot less than you – into paying over $100 for a cab because you got too drunk to drive.

      Also where in the world did you get the idea that the LW demanded the boss be fired? HR said that they couldn’t risk him quitting or let him go because of x y z, but there’s no suggestion the LW asked for that. The fact that they mentioned this says to me that they knew that really, this ought to be a fireable offence (getting drunk on the job and trying to insist that someone who cannot drive should drive him back to the office), but he was too powerful to actually enact any consequences.

      Reply ↓
    11. Lokifan*

      The boss tried to push her to do something very illegal, blamed her for not doing it, his boss agreed. Then HR explicitly said it was best not to switch teams to work under the boss’ friend, cos they’d side with him over her! And then clearly messed with her reference, given the absolutely bizarre interview she had later, with questions about “rattling” and “loyalty to superiors”. LW has a perfect sense of proportion imo – in the first letter she’s just asking about going to HR, and after the HR convo is weird and terrible, she switches to ‘okay I need to leave.’

      Reply ↓
      1. Reactions*

        HR likely didn’t mess with the reference, it sounds like the other interviewer knew the original boss and was given the story from that skewed perspective.

        Going right to leaving without having a new job lined up was not in OP’s best interest. I hope they’ve learned how to cope with these types of idiots better because, sadly, they will encounter more (although maybe not quite this bananapants). I need to leave and searching for a new job is a rational decision. I need to leave, I’m quitting on the spot without plans is likely not an ongoing viable strategy. I’m glad it worked out this time.

        Reply ↓
        1. Cinn*

          But is it rational to stay when HR has said retaliation from the boss is likely and they won’t do anything to support the LW when it happens?

          Reply ↓
          1. Unsure about that*

            If I have financial obligations like paying for a roof over my head and food to eat and transportation expenses and I don’t have a large financial resources available to me to address those? The answer is “Yes, it is rational to stay when HR has said retaliation from the boss is likely and they won’t do anything to support the LW when it happens” until I can find something else.

            Rational is not the same as ideal.

            Reply ↓
            1. bamcheeks*

              Right, but the flipside is that if you don’t have financial obligations and moving back in with your parents is an option, it is rational to get away ASAP from someone who has very clearly demonstrated that their favourite suit is banana.

              Reply ↓
              1. Unsure about that*

                The first word in my comment is “If”

                This comment strikes me oddly and needlessly aggressive.

                Be well.

                Reply ↓
                1. A Teacher*

                  And this strikes me as passive aggressive. The letter writer stated in the update she had the option to move home. We are asked to take the LW at their word and as one that suffers from epilepsy, the stress from the situation can also trigger a seizure. She was risking her very physical health by staying.

        2. Insert Clever Name Here*

          Honestly, in this case it seems like it was the right decision. Hell, even HR said they wouldn’t be able to protect OP from retaliation by the boss’s buddies. I can deal with idiots, but I’m certainly not going to put myself in a situation where I’m going to be retaliated against, especially with the other context in OP’s personal life (lease renewal, having family they could stay with).

          Reply ↓
        3. bamcheeks*

          Actively being *told* the manager would retaliate against me would change the calculation there. If I was concerned about the possibility of retaliation, I would start looking for a new job. If I had been told by HR that retaliation was pretty much a certainty and I could afford to leave immediately, I would. The risks of staying in that situation are pretty damn high.

          Reply ↓
          1. new laptop who dis*

            What’s the risk, though? Getting fired and having no income and having to move in with your parents? That’s exactly the outcome OP had, but it was self-inflicted. I think OP should have stayed in the job until she found another one, worst case scenario wouldn’t have been any worse than the path she chose.

            Reply ↓
            1. Random Bystander*

              The other risks would be that either the OP would get so used to the retaliation that their sense of workplace-normal would be skewed or that the OP’s health could deteriorate (my mom has epilepsy, and being on call when she was working was one thing that may have contributed to the grand mal that she had due to sleep deprivation) or even the hits to self-confidence (knowing that you are less valued in the work place than someone who would get absolutely blotto in the middle of the work day and retaliate against you for everything that followed after) that could make getting the next job that much harder.

              Reply ↓
            2. Elitist Semicolon*

              Worst case scenario could have involved a lot of verbal and/or emotional abuse from leadership – anything from ignoring OP to being overtly nasty in public settings. Her boss was trash-talking her to other folks in the same industry; it’s not a stretch to think he would have made the day-to-day absolutely intolerable.

              Reply ↓
            3. bamcheeks*

              From someone who has already

              1, got drunk at work
              2. tried to pressure LW into driving illegally
              3. tried to force LW to accept a $100 cab expense as “punishment”
              4. knows they are still fully protected by the company
              5. will slag them off to other professionals in the same company?

              I mean, I’d say that verbal abuse and humiliation is more or less guaranteed, further pressure to commit illegal acts is probably baked in, and I wouldn’t rule out physical abuse or some kind of deliberately sadistic attempt to “break” them. Who’s going to stop them after all? Not HR!

              Reply ↓
              1. Annony*

                Physical abuse seems like a stretch. There is no indication that these idiots are violent and that type of escalation very well could get HR or the police involved.

                Reply ↓
                1. bamcheeks*

                  But there’s not indication they couldn’t. When someone has shown themselves to happy to operate so wildly outside of business norms, I think it is wishful thinking to think, “Ah, they might X, but surely they would draw the line at Y.” Maybe they would! But if they don’t draw the line where 99% of the business world says the line exists, I think it’s most rational to assume they don’t draw the line at this other point either.

                2. Lenora Rose*

                  Police, maybe, but with THIS HR?

                  A stretch, maybe, but the point was, there are plenty of possible bad consequences, and the upper bad-outcome range for staying was MUCH higher than the possible bad-outcome range for getting the hell out of there.

            4. commensally*

              Having the boss retaliate into a documented firing for “cause” with no chance of a good reference from the company would almost be a given if they stayed, and that’s definitely worse than a “layoff” with a guaranteed good reference (and one bad interview with someone she definitely didn’t want to work for anyway.) Not to mention that staying would likely have been hell on earth for as long as they did.

              Reply ↓
            6. iglwif*

              Actually there is a worse scenario, which is staying in a place like that long enough to start thinking it’s normal and fine, and/or staying long enough that the constant stress and toxicity start to make you physically ill. Either of these outcomes makes finding a new job harder.

              Reply ↓
        4. Learn ALL the things*

          But would you stay in a job where the conditions were 1) you boss will pressure you to break the law and face no consequences for doing so 2) HR essentially tells you they believe he and his friends will retaliate against you for choosing not to break the law, and HR will not enact any consequences to them when they do? Because I would not stay at that job. HR essentially told LW1 that they would not be protected from harassment and mistreatment in the workplace. You don’t stay in a job like that.

          Reply ↓
        5. HonorBox*

          HR didn’t mess with the reference, but even in protecting the company, the way to handle the references is to explicitly tell EVERYONE at the company that any reference to OP is either neutral/positive or handled only by HR. The boss going rogue on that too flies in the face of the protection HR offered, and that could open the company up to litigation.

          Reply ↓
        6. Annony*

          Leaving without having a new job lined up very well could have been the best move. HR outright said that OP would face retaliation and that HR would not help. They were able to get out of their lease and decrease expenses while job searching which only took 6 weeks. They also likely were eligible for unemployment. I would absolutely make that choice instead of trying to stick it out knowing my boss is out to get me and HR will do nothing.

          Reply ↓
        7. MigraineMonth*

          Except going right to leaving without a new job lined up *was* clearly in the OP’s best interest at that time, even if it isn’t in yours at this time. She had negotiated a good reference and “layoff” if she left immediately. She had the option of not renewing her lease and moving back in with her parents.

          I think it would have been far riskier for OP to stay and find out what the boss/boss’ friends were planning for retaliation, particularly since they might have fired her a month later when she was already locked into a new lease and given her a terrible reference. (Not to mention the amount of psychological damage caused by working for someone who personally hates you when everyone has made clear they can do whatever they want without consequence.)

          Reply ↓
      2. Turquoisecow*

        Illegal and dangerous! It’s not like OP gave up their license after diagnosis, they’ve literally never driven a car, it would have gone horrifically.

        Reply ↓
    12. Dr Thalia Spillane*

      Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming this is a genuine question:

      You seem to be under the impression that it was a slight disagreement cleared up HR with the LW absolved of blame and the LW decided in a fit of pique to quit. However, the situation was actually quite different.

      1: The boss tried to force the LW to do something that was not only very illegal but could quite possibly have gotten both of them killed. It may be understandable that he hadn’t anticipated the possibility that the LW couldn’t drive, but once he was informed he still tried to insist, using his power as her manager. This is a very serious issue that should have had some form of consequence and quite reasonably negatively affected LW feelings towards him.

      2: The boss proved that he would double down on this bad behavior and punish LW for not going along with it. Remember, the LW made it clear that the organization allowed employees to expense taxi fare, but the boss still tried to insist that LW reimburse him out of her own pocket instead. This proves that he now has a personal grudge against LW and given how unreasonable this whole mess is, LW is quite right to be uncomfortable being managed by him and assuming that this new grudge will affect his treatment of her.

      3: Boss’ boss sides with him. HR technically sides with LW but makes it clear that they will not do anything to protect LW from retaliation. Moving to a different team is no solution because the other team leaders will also be on boss’ side. Under the circumstances, what is LW supposed to do? Maybe they could have tried to bring a lawsuit for breaking an ADA accommodation, but I do not blame the LW for not thinking of that or for not being up the gargantuan struggle that would be. You seem to be suggesting that the problem was resolved and LW could have simply continued about her business as usual, but I hope I have sufficiently explained how that wasn’t feasible. Remember, the second update confirms that the boss has apparently spread his version of the story to his network and poisoned them against her. Do you still truly believe that if LW had stayed at that job things would have been just fine?

      Reply ↓
    13. boof*

      Boss 1) pressured LW to do something both illegal and in fact it sounded like LW actually never learned to drive at all (since they knew they would never be able to legally drive) so also extremely dangerous even ignoring the legality/seizure aspect. 2) retaliated against the LW for not doing the thing they could not do then 3) HR agreed it was wrong and managed to at least stop boss from demanding $100 back but also agreed boss was going to retaliate against LW and that there was no where LW could work in the company that they would be spared retaliation.

      All so boss could get drunk at lunch.

      That is… very, very messed up.

      Reply ↓
    15. Jennifer Strange*

      You don’t fire someone over assuming (wrongly) that an employee holds a driver’s license, or over a disagreement over expenses.

      Agreed, which is why it’s a good thing that’s not at all what was happening here. The boss (and his boss!) was trying to use his power over the LW to cover an expense that was entirely on him. Had he not tried to make the LW cover the cost this would be a (mostly) non-issue (“mostly” because getting drunk at a business lunch isn’t a good look, but at least it wasn’t affecting the LW)

      Reply ↓
    17. Observer*

      You sort it out, which HR did, and move on.

      HR did nothing of the sort. They explicitly told the LW that the boss was going to retaliate against them. Then they *also* confirmed that the Boss’ *friend* would also absolutely retaliate against them.

      if she went to HR and demanded that her boss to be TERMINATED over these issues — which is what it sounds like, judging from the update

      You’re making up stiff from whole cloth. The LW *explicitly* says that they needed a new position that is not under their boss or the boss’ friends, since HR *confirmed* that the LW *would* be subjected to retaliation. And they had the “audacity” to want a position that did not require moving to a new city.

      Why do you feel the need to make up stuff to discredit the LW?

      Reply ↓
    18. NoIWontFixYourComputer*

      Given that LW1’s inability to drive was due to a medical condition, I’m wondering if any anti-harrassment/retaliation provisions the ADA may have can apply here.

      Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer.

      Reply ↓
    19. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      there was a second update where the OP had an interview with someone who turned out to be a friend of the boss. They asked about loyalty and tattling and right out said they would never hire them. Based on what the OP has said it sounds like they were worried about retaliation.

      Reply ↓
    20. What_the_What*

      But you DO fire someone who shows such utter disregard for safety and behaves recklessly by getting BLASTED IN THE MIDDLE OF A WORK DAY, and trying to force a subordinate to BREAK THE LAW. I mean, the tone deafness of your response… Wow.

      Reply ↓
    21. Orora*

      You *do* fire someone for retaliating against an employee with a disability. This is more than “My boss behaved badly and is bananapants”. This is retaliation based on a disability.

      LW #1 was intimidated and coerced by their boss and boss’ boss solely because they couldn’t drive *due to their disability*. Driving is not an essential function of their job. HR compounded the error by suggesting that LW #1 should switch to another team, solely because of the retaliation from LW #1’s boss and boss’ boss. The person reporting illegal discrimination (LW #1, in this case) shouldn’t be penalized for the report. But LW #1 couldn’t be protected from retaliation in that case since those teams were headed by boss’ friends. Moving to another state is definitely an unfavorable outcome affecting LW #1’s employment. Ultimately LW #1 left because they couldn’t find a solution that didn’t punish them. That’s constructive discharge.

      This is textbook illegal retaliation for a good faith report of employment discrimination due to disability. LW #1 did what was right for them in this situation, but I want others to know that this is not just crazy, it’s illegal.

      Reply ↓
  2. Artemesia*

    I liked the parking advice — yes, it this is ok then it needs to be opened to everyone and then some day the exec will arrive late and find his spot has been taken and they will shut it all down.

    Reply ↓
  3. JR17*

    Re #4 – I wonder if the CFO is explicitly giving the rogue parker permission to park in that spot when the CFO is out of the office, given that the parker seems to know when that will be. Of course, it could also just be that the parker works with the CFO and knows their schedule. Ultimately, I don’t think that changes the advice – clarify the rules to find out if that’s allowed, so everyone can then act accordingly. But I do think it makes the rogue parker less annoying, if the thinking is that it’s the CFOs spot and the CFO gets to decide what to do with it.

    Reply ↓
    1. JR17*

      Ooooh, I just went to the comments on the original list and the OP stated that the rogue parker did not have the CFO’s permission.

      Reply ↓
    2. Falling Diphthong*

      The outcome I’m rooting for is that the rogue parker should not have access to the schedule, but does, and after considering the options a) Tell IT about this error; b) Use the information to invisibly improve their workday; has hit on c) Very visibly use the information, in a way guaranteed to draw a number of your coworkers up short.

      I want to say (c) is human, but it’s also the one that generates letters to an advice columnist. I think (a) and (b) are out there, passing unnoticed amongst us.

      Reply ↓
    3. Learn ALL the things*

      In a past job, only the top two people in my office had an assigned parking space, but if either of them was going to be out, they would raffle off their parking spot so that other people could use it.

      Reply ↓
    4. Lab Boss*

      At one point my team was in a building with a “seniority lot” very close to the door with passes (Not specific spaces) based on seniority, and all other staff having to park a short walk away. When I was going to be out for any length of time, I would let rotating members of my team have my seniority lot pass as a little perk. There was no rule forbidding or specifically allowing that beyond “you need the correct color pass for this lot.”

      It had to end because another, more senior manager complained. He didn’t like that I got a spot in the lot over one of his employees, even though the criteria were completely objective and tenure-based, so he raised a fuss about fairness and made sure that if I wasn’t there, the good lot just had one empty spot in it until I got back.

      Reply ↓
    5. What_the_What*

      I work on an AF Base. Certain ranks and roles have assigned parking. When a Branch Chief or Colonel or GS15 is OOO, quite often their administrative assistant will park in their space. Nobody cares, and presumably they’ve been told they can, but even if not, nobody would fuss. But sounds like this clown just feels entitled to do so, which I’d find annoying, too.

      Reply ↓
      1. All het up about it*

        Yeah – in my current role, many senior level positions have spots. We are also hybrid, so many of those spots are empty many days. I frequently take one of my co-workers spot, because 1) they know I do it and often try and let me know when they will be out for trips so I can use their spot all week and 2) it’s not uncommon for other people to park in their Boss’s spot, other co-workers spots etc. when they are out. Plus they know if I did ever park in their spot when they showed up at the office unexpectedly and there was not another spot for them, that all they would have to do was text me and I’d come running to move my car. That’s yet to happen.

        But also – there are a couple of C-Suite spots that no-one parks in ever, even if we know those people are out because it’s understood that we just don’t, OR that if anyone gets to, it’s that person’s assistant. Like, no one has the audacity to park in the CFO’s or CEO’s spots. That some random person does in this case, yeah, it’d bother me too.

        Reply ↓
  4. Bob*

    #1 Got shafted by a dickhead boss and terrible company.

    Got to admire the stand they took, did the right thing when everyone else was wrong.

    Reply ↓
    1. Despachito*

      The absurdity of the boss’s requirement was even more visible given that OP really WASN’T ABLE to drive him, did not know how to do it and would commit a serious breach of law if she tried.

      Given the updates said that she had no other option than leave the company (boss highly likely to retaliate, offer to move in another department managed by boss’s buddies), and, although the company gave her a glowing reference, the boss badmouthed her to the extent that one hiring manager told her they would never hire a tattletale, I wonder whether it would be too unprofessional/damaging to OP’s reputation if she was more open about what really happened.

      I know that it is generally frowned upon if you say negative things about your former boss, and I do think this should be done in careful doses because it is easy to come across as a whiner, but this behavior is so appalling that I wonder why should the ex-employee let themselves be labelled as a tattletale but basically protect the boss by not telling the world how atrocious his behavior wa.

      Reply ↓
  5. TheBunny*

    #1

    WOW. Just wow.

    Although I feel sorry for OP, I also feel for the HR person who seems like they were trying to do right by OP when their hands were otherwise tied. Frustratingly awful for all involved. But good for them for being honest and letting OP know what they were getting into.

    Hopefully they also managed to get a new position. HR is tough enough without working for a company leadership that refuses to do anything about the awful employees.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ellen Ripley*

      Did you read the second update?

      “The HR at my old job told me my boss would retaliate against me if I stayed in his department and said they were not going to do anything further about it. They also said I was right not to take a position working for one of his friends because they would side with him over me.”

      Look at that last sentence. This sounds less like HR’s hands were tied and more like they were actively enabling terrible bosses to retaliate against employees for valid concerns.

      Reply ↓
      1. UnusuallyForthcoming*

        No, I agree with the first commenter. It sounds like HR was told this person (boss) is untouchable and took the most OP-friendly route they could without resigning over it (which would not have helped OP). This is almost unbelievably honest and potentially could be putting HR’s job in jeopardy as they went against company interests in being so honest with the poster. They went out on a limb telling them the truth and potentially made it easier for the poster to sue the company were they so inclined.

        They did make the choice to continue working there, but we don’t know their situation. Regardless, they went out on a major limb by telling OP the truth about their dysfunctional environment.

        Reply ↓
        1. Richard Hershberger*

          This. The guy isn’t untouchable because of anything HR did or did not do. HR is just dealing with this reality.

          Reply ↓
        2. Falling Diphthong*

          Yeah. This is like your boss telling you there will be no raise, and that they will happily be a reference if you want to apply for other jobs.

          Reply ↓
        3. HonorBox*

          Yes. HR was actually doing OP a favor by telling them the reality of the situation. Now, is the reality of the situation absolute crap? Yes. But had HR not been forthright about the situation and let OP transfer, only to be subjected to retaliation, they’d have not been doing their jobs correctly. They were actually a resource. Again the situation sucks and a business allowing someone like that to continue to stay employed is not the outcome that is ideal. But OP was able to see all the cards on the table and played their hand accordingly.

          Reply ↓
          1. boof*

            I suppose you are correct, HR did the best they could given what sounds like an extremely stacked deck, but unless somehow this is the lone evil bee in an otherwise amazing company (I doubt it, that never seems to be the case) I have to question how anyone who isn’t terrible could stomach to work there long.

            Reply ↓
            1. HonorBox*

              Agree 100% with this. I was writing below and kept having the thought, “If I’m HR, I’m going to get the heck out of there too.” Because while HR is there to protect the company, I’d have a really hard time going to work knowing that I was protecting the company’s ability to ask people to do something illegal and their ability to openly retaliate against someone who reports being asked to do something illegal.

              Reply ↓
              1. Eldritch Office Worker*

                They could be trying to get out and know that no one will protect their references the way they are trying to protect OP’s. The thing about cultures like this is that the moral high ground can torpedo people’s careers and livelihoods, and it’s not always an easy task to just get out.

                Reply ↓
        4. Dek*

          I feel like a more OP-friendly route would’ve been to offer OP a severance or something instead of just a “glowing recommendation” that gets undercut because Boss knows people in the industry.

          Considering OP was initially being retaliated against for a MEDICAL CONDITION, I feel like they could’ve very easily made this a legal headache for HR. Maybe not successfully, but enough that I could see a Fortune 500 company just paying them a settlement or something to get rid of it.

          Reply ↓
          1. Eldritch Office Worker*

            They might! But considering OP already felt like they were being black-balled in their industry I’m not sure I would’ve suggested this.

            Reply ↓
      2. I'm just here for the cats!!*

        The thing is HR’s hands are tied unless they have support from above. HR is not in charge of the company and can only do so much. If the higher ups wont crack down on the retaliation then HR cannot force anything.

        Reply ↓
      3. Lenora Rose*

        I think the they in ” they would side with him over me” was the Boss’s friends, not HR, though I can see why you read it the other way. In which case, HR was warning them “Look, we can’t touch the C suite, but they’re a bunch of assholes.” Just in more diplomatic language.

        Reply ↓
    2. boof*

      I can envision the pile of “but maybe they have a family who will starve if they quit” comments but regardless, HR could choose to find another job. Everyone who isn’t actively terrible at this company needs to leave it post haste.
      HR knew darn well how bad boss was and has chosen to work with it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        Jobs aren’t abundant everywhere, and there can be a lot of reasons people need to choose having an income, health insurance, and job security while they try to figure out what comes next (or doesn’t). OP found a job in six weeks, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t take someone else six months or longer. They did what they could from the position they’re in but there are probably plenty of commenters here in bad job situations and it doesn’t make them actively terrible.

        Reply ↓
      2. Nebula*

        For all we know, that HR person did leave right afterwards. I don’t think there’s any point speculating on how virtuous someone mentioned in a story from six years ago may or may not be. In this specific circumstance, it sounds like the person tried to help out the LW as best they could, it just turned out to not be very much.

        And I’m so happy for you that apparently you’ve never had to stay in a bad job for longer than you’d like. Those of us who have been in that situation can only marvel at your ability to always do the perfect thing.

        Reply ↓
  6. Maz*

    LW1: I have no words. I can’t begin to express how genuinely appalling that entire situation was. The original company is completely messed up and toxic and I’m glad the LW managed to find a job despite being bad-mouthed by the original company to the extent other people would refuse to employ them. If affects future employment opportunities, it might be time to consult a lawyer.

    LW2: “Pranking” someone daily isn’t pranking, it’s bullying. Quite frankly, if the colleague is genuinely terrified, then even “pranking” occasionally could be regarded as bullying, but certainly doing it daily is.

    Reply ↓
    1. Jackalope*

      Pranking needs to be mutually agreed on and fun for everyone involved. I’ve had some fun pranks in my day (never at work, just with close friends), but it’s because everyone was okay with it and was enjoying themselves. Pranking by deliberately and repeatedly exposing someone to something that terrifies them is, as you said, bullying instead.

      Reply ↓
        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          Speaking of bosses with quesitonable judgment. Pretty sure phobias might be covered under the ADA. I mean not to the extent you have to line up at the bus stop boy, girl, or shoving someone so hard they fall and break their arm because the phobic person got scared, but reasonable accomodations. Like I don’t know not participating in *deliberately* putting the object of the phobia in front of the person. Far from participating in it, boss should be shutting it down.

          This is not a prank, this is cruelty. OP should have gone to HR.

          Reply ↓
      2. Dek*

        I think I’ve shared the phobia prank war an old coworker and I had (he was terrified of jellyfish, I’m terrified of spiders). But it was something we were mutually engaging in, and would both laugh when we got pranked. I’d hide books with jellyfish on the cover at the bottom of a stack he was checking in, he’d put halloween spider rings on my keyboard, that sort of thing. He eventually won when I went to work on a cart and found a massive halloween spider wrapped around it.

        But it was MUTUAL, and if either of us had been upset, the other would’ve backed off. Making someone feel *bad* isn’t fun.

        (Hell, my favorite prank was still when I cleaned out all of the old stuff from the family home we were renting while my roommate was on vacation. She came back and thought we’d been robbed. Nope. Just cleaned!)

        Reply ↓
        1. Venus*

          While improbable, it is possible that this coworker doesn’t mind the pranks, so it would be important to check with them first. Given their reaction it seems highly unlikely, yet we should never make decisions on behalf of our coworkers if we don’t know what they want.

          Reply ↓
    2. JMC*

      On the pranking….that is horrible to do to anyone. I don’t like pranks, and especially ones like this that prey on someone’s fears. It is bullying and it needs to stop. There is no reason to be doing that kind of childish behavior. On another note it immediately reminded me of the episode of Boston Legal where Alan Shore (James Spader) revealed he was terrified of clowns. I am not scared of them but personally hate them so I wouldn’t appreciate that either.

      Reply ↓
      1. H3llifIknow*

        My son, even at 35 is still extremely coulrophobic and if someone was doing this to him, he’d probably have a panic attack and I’d be LIVID if I heard about it. I’m entomophobic and a coworker once put a fake rubber roach on my desk and I jumped back tripped over my chair, screaming and sprained my ankle and wrench my back. It.Was.NOT.funny. He did feel bad and apologized (he’d put them on all of the desks in our cubicle area so he didn’t single me out and didn’t know of my phobia, so I forgave him).

        Reply ↓
  7. bamcheeks*

    Question inspired by LW3: is anyone still wearing pencil skirts, blazers, silk tops etc to work? I feel like even the corporate people I know have shifted down a few grades since 2020, partly driven by the pandemic and partly driven by fashion getting a lot softer and less structured (which are obviously closely related things!) My own sector seems to have gone from business casual to just casual, and the lawyers I follow on LinkedIn are more likely to post a pic of themselves in eg. a cream sweatshirt, tailored trousers and subtle jewellery than a suit. “Neutral colours but soft fabrics and shapes” seems to be as formal as it gets now.

    Reply ↓
    1. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

      I do (or did) because I have sensory issues and those kind of clothes not only make me look amazing but also don’t set off a whole body itch. I am, however, established enough to get away with being the right odd one who rocks up to work in IT in a suit.

      Wouldn’t recommend it for new starters though, no.

      Reply ↓
    2. Irish Teacher.*

      I wear pencil skirts to work, admittedly with jumpers (sweaters, for the US readers!), but then I wear them on my time off too and they certainly aren’t the norm in my workplace.

      Reply ↓
    3. Account*

      True! My husband is a lawyer and pre-2020, he was in a suit with cufflinks and all (and the women were in silk and high heels). But he now will wear jeans, even when it’s not a Friday. I mean, not to court or client meetings, but it is really remarkable how much the dress has shifted in five years.

      Reply ↓
    4. IndigoHippo*

      I’m an academic sitting right now in a research library in a (leopard print and therefore not especially corporate I guess!) JCrew pencil skirt with a jumper & heels. I’ve always been dressier than the norm for my field (which is a bit socks&sandals!!) because I’m just a dressy person. It’s never been an issue, though academia allows for a lot of individuality I guess so it’s not a big deal to be different from the norm in whatever way.

      Reply ↓
    5. Emmy Noether*

      I think the most formally dressed female presenting person I know is a lawyer in a conservative law firm. She’s mostly in flowy trousers, silky tops, sometimes blazer, kitten heels. A pencil skirt would fit in, but she doesn’t seem to be a skirt person.

      My workplace has been very informal for a while, so I didn’t observe any recent shift (there’s nowhere left to go less formal except sleepwear or beachwear).

      I occasionally see men in suit and tie out in public, and extremely rarely – almost never – women in a skirt suit.
      I definitely agree on clothes having become less structured as a general trend. Especially the trousers seem to be less taylored. Part of it is surely due to the pandemic, part of it is, I believe, driven by fast fashion and ordering clothes online (the less fitted a garment is, the less it needs to fit, the less seams it needs and the cheaper it can be produced).

      It’s kind of a shame for me personally, because pencil skirts and blazers really suit me (and the ones I own haven’t seen the light of day in years). But it is generally good for people’s comfort and budget, so I’m not objecting.

      Reply ↓
    6. Dr. Rebecca*

      My dean wears skirt suits. They look very nice, and more professional than I could ever imagine wearing. Like, if I were to wear something that was comparably formal, I’d probably have it tailored to look like a Peggy Carter/1940s skirt suit, not a modern day one.

      Reply ↓
      2. Chirpy*

        If I ever work somewhere formal enough to require suits/dresses, I would absolutely closet cosplay Peggy Carter daily (both because she’s fantastic and because it’s the only way I could deal with that kind of formality). I lowkey have been trying to find a pair of flats close enough to her blue heels for years (I absolutely cannot do heels.)

        Reply ↓
    8. Policy Wonk*

      I only have one pencil skirt and rarely wear it, but as for the rest, yes that is normal wear for us when meeting with outsiders. If my days has internal meetings only I can dress down, but even then generally wear something that can become more formal for unexpected pop-up meetings.

      Reply ↓
    9. Generic Name*

      I work for a construction company, and most people wear jeans. I do have one coworker who wears pencil skirts. She also wears a full face of makeup with eyelashes and nicely done hair (a lot of women in my industry go bare faced). So I think she’s just a dressy person. I’ve always been impressed with her ability to wear heels. :)

      Reply ↓
    10. Myrin*

      I do! (Although not pencil skirts because I don’t like the way my thighs look in them.)

      Blazers are pretty common among women at my workplace (not men, interestingly), but mostly the long, wide ones that seem to be trendy right at the moment. I wear tight/tailored ones because, again, I look so strange in the long ones.

      In general, I’m in the… I’d say top 3 regarding being dressed up but that’s because I like it, both the way stuff feels and looks, and I’ll also wear a single-colour jumper or flowy top with slacks (love slacks; I’m probably one of the only people ever who finds them much more comfortable than jeans).

      But the absolute majority at my place of work (local government) wear jeans and a nice shirt or jumper.

      Reply ↓
    11. HannahS*

      I live very close to a large financial district and yes, people still dress like that. I see a lot of suits on men and separates as you describe on women. I’m also related to a lawyer who is still expected to wear a suit in court.

      Outside of those very conservative industries, though, I see the same trend that you do.

      Reply ↓
    12. Three Cats in a Trenchcoat*

      I think pencil skirts / silk / structured garments are still worn in more conservative or formal fields. Medicine is frequently suits or scrubs so it is pretty common to wear pencil skirts or more formal dresses + blazer in clinic.

      Reply ↓
    13. JMC*

      Being neurodivergent, disabled and chronically ill I will always choose comfort over fashion. And as I have said before, it doesn’t matter what you wear in terms of getting the work done. Dress codes need to goooooooooo.

      Reply ↓
    14. Student*

      We have a “dress for your job” policy in a finance-adjacent field, and people meeting with external stakeholders are still expected to dress business professional. Our CFO is usually in a dress and blazer.

      I recently returned to the workforce and my expectation of business casual was a bit outdated, so I tend to be overdressed by comparison to how casual most people are now. But I’m not going to replace my wardrobe on a part-time student wage.

      Reply ↓
    15. BigBaDaBoom*

      I do dress up a lot at work but it’s not about the dress code (they’ve actually lowered the standard post-pandemic e.g. jeans allowed every day) it’s more about me having a shopping problem for pretty clothes and take any excuse to actually wear them. :) Nobody bats an eye at the overkill.

      Reply ↓
  8. CantDriveNowWhat*

    I too am medically unable to drive. I can’t imagine choosing to leave the position over this, and especially without even threatening to sue them or otherwise try to make them behave appropriately. Not until I got more proof over how bananapants the company actually was. Even in a major city and having the transportation options noted in the letter, being unable to drive is still limiting in a job search. Maybe OP was too young/early in career to realize what a horrible risk they were taking. It does sound like they have a very supportive family nearby which obviously helps, but even so I hope this person developed better coping mechanisms and ability to navigate dealing with idiots because this worked out a lot better than it normally would in my experience and, while these folks were particularly nuts, they are far from unique in the basic approach to disability and if the OP remains this rigid in their approach to dealing with stuff that crops up they’re likely to continue to have periodic major issues because the idiots are out there. I am not victim blaming here, but genuinely concerned that better strategy is needed to avoid paying the price for other people’s idiocy moving forward. Hopefully this exact brand of combined idiocy is fairly isolated, but I guarantee there will be other issues that crop up that are problematic/illegal/difficult and it’s not in the OP’s best interest to quit and move on each time they do.

    Reply ↓
    1. bamcheeks*

      I think this really underestimates the boss’s malignancy. There is having to deal with people’s ignorance about disability, and then there is being managed by someone who gets drunk at work events and tries to pressure you to break the law. That’s not just “a basic approach to disability”: it would be completely dysfunctional even if you took the disability aspect out of it, and I think everyone would still recommend to get away from that boss and that organisation. I think the idea that LW should have stayed at a deeply dysfunctional organisational because as a disabled person they wouldn’t be able to get better is a very maladaptive coping strategy.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dek*

        I’m glad they didn’t stay, but I wish they’d held out for more than just a “glowing reference.” Boss tried to do something illegal, and HR admitted Boss would keep doing illegal things. Sounds like a potential legal headache for HR. Nothing says “don’t sue us” like money (even if LW wasn’t in a position to sue, they could’ve still made things Difficult for the company).

        Reply ↓
        1. bamcheeks*

          I don’t know if they’d have got anywhere, to be honest. One new graduate vs. a Fortune 500 company is a VERY unequal fight, and HR would know that. They didn’t have a lot of leverage.

          Reply ↓
    2. Lokifan*

      I don’t think you’re being nasty but I don’t know if you’re fully taking the HR info into account. OP wasn’t planning to quit over this, wasn’t even sure they should go to HR – and then HR went “oh yeah we can move you since you’ve reported him, but you’ll be working for his friend. and yeah you’re right to be uncomfortable with that since we’ll side with him over you.” that’s explicitly in the update and SO weird and threatening. it’s not purely about ableism and way more intense than your standard bullshit – I tend to think OP wouldn’t quit over more normal stuff, especially since they clearly found this brief unemployment very scary (felt much longer than six weeks, thought I might never get a job again).

      Reply ↓
      1. MigraineMonth*

        Yeah, HR’s response was… holy shit. When the people you trust to inject a bit of common sense into a tense situation scream, “Save yourself! It’s too late for the rest of us, but RUN!” then I’m running.

        Reply ↓
    3. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

      I can easily imagine it. I’ve left a job that was utterly heartless about my disability and outright told me that I had no recourse.

      Sometimes you can’t fight. It’s easy to sit behind a keyboard and say ‘well you should have got legal representation and argued’ and it may even be true! But even I (a right battleaxe these days) can look back and see the times when I was just too hurt, too betrayed, too surrounded by people who didn’t believe me to even care to make the attempt.

      And in fact, leaving can take a lot more courage than staying sometimes. It’s not a weakness.

      Reply ↓
      1. Venus*

        I can easily imagine it too. Plus “just fight them, maybe even sue” completely neglects how time-consuming and expensive that could be with very little benefit.

        If I had a job in a field that had fairly good employment then I would quickly leave in this situation because it would be much healthier than staying.

        Reply ↓
    4. Nonsense*

      Well, that’s certainly an opinion. I’m very glad you weren’t around to give the OP advice originally. Did you just completely miss the fact that HR flat out said they wouldn’t protect her from retaliation or were you so determined to denigrate OP for sticking to the limits of her disability that you just ignored those updates?

      Reply ↓
    5. Bird names*

      I’m sorry, but no. Coping in a situation like this sometimes means accepting the sunk cost fallacy and moving on. Employing coping mechanisms is one thing, people having it out for you with the company’s backing is a whole other ballpark.
      I can only congratulate LW for seeing that so clearly right away and getting out.

      Reply ↓
    6. Learn ALL the things*

      The LW didn’t quit because the boss tried to convince them to drive without a license. They quit because HR told them the boss and his friends would likely retaliate and HR would do nothing to stop that from happening. It’s absolutely a valid reason to leave a job with nothing lined up.

      Bringing a lawsuit against the company you work for is difficult, expensive, and will likely take years. I don’t blame the LW for not being up to that.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dek*

        I will say that while bringing a lawsuit to a company (especially a big one with money) is a headache, having a lawyer Write A Letter isn’t as intensive, and will usually encourage HR to be a little more reasonable. It’s essentially a small threat: “I know how you’re behaving is illegal and I can make it a problem if I choose to.”

        OP was absolutely right to leave. They just shouldn’t have had to leave empty-handed.

        Reply ↓
    7. boof*

      As much as I wish that company could be sued for some level of comeuppance that makes them change their act, I know the reality is that would be a lot of hard work and stress for anyone taking that on and I totally understand LW1 just wanting to move on (ie, 6 weeks unemployment, in the end vs, what, years of litigation?)

      Reply ↓
      1. boof*

        I think maybe I replied to the wrong comment?
        LW was not overly rigid by what they wrote; they stood up for themselves and made the right choices in the face of an extremely unreasonable and bullying person in a position of authority. LW1 was correct not to drive, LW1 was correct not to pay for the cabs, and LW1 was correct in leaving the job when HR couldn’t help them – I wish there were more active consequences for the bad boss but LW1 did what they had to do to deal with an incredibly crappy situation – including moving in with their parents. I salute them for making the right choices even if they were not the easy choices.

        Reply ↓
    8. Eldritch Office Worker*

      “if the OP remains this rigid in their approach to dealing with stuff that crops up they’re likely to continue to have periodic major issues” – you are in fact victim blaming. I am also medically unable to drive, and it has never hindered my job search, I’m sorry you’ve had that experience. But I think we can trust that OP knows their position and how the risks they take will impact their lives. Expecting people with disabilities to put up with illegal behavior – let alone problematic or difficult behavior, but particularly illegal – is incredibly gross and you need to examine your internalized ableism.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dr. Rebecca*

        This. What on earth does “rigid in their approach” even mean here if not “they should have done something illegal, and that they never learned how to do, let alone do safely”??

        Reply ↓
        1. DawnShadow*

          Yes!! It’s not just that she refused to drive without a license. That assumes that she knew how to drive! She said she has had seizures since birth and never learned to drive. Have you ever been in the car with someone who has never learned to drive? Scarier than being in the car with someone who is very drunk (and I’ve done both, not bragging but I’m old.) She’s not just saying no to be difficult!

          Reply ↓
    9. Colette*

      What do you think happens to someone who sues their employer? The OP was already in a position where her boss and her boss’s boss were demanding money and threatening retaliation; threatening to sue wouldn’t make that better.

      Yes, not driving can limit your choices (in some areas and industries), but so can being stuck in a job working for people who hate you and will take any opportunity to sabotage you.

      Reply ↓
    10. Antilles*

      especially without even threatening to sue them or otherwise try to make them behave appropriately.
      To what purpose?

      For the lawsuit, what outcome would OP get? The most likely end result is the company offers either (a) transfer to another department or (b) a mutually agreed upon non-disparagement agreement and good reference. Which is what HR was already offering, but without OP needing to pay thousands of dollars upfront in legal fees, deal with the stress/aggravation of a lawsuit, getting an industry reputation as litigious, etc.

      As for “make them behave appropriately”, who exactly is going to make them? Grandboss is completely on the boss’ side. HR flat out said they won’t do anything. The company at large thinks boss is too valuable to discipline.

      Reply ↓
    11. Varthema*

      Just a quibble, in NYC at least, not having a driver’s license is not at all limiting, unless your field is specifically one heavy on travel, or transport. I know quite a few native New Yorkers who never got a driver’s license at all and never felt the need.

      Reply ↓
    12. CeeDoo*

      I’m curious about your use of the phrase “if the OP remains this rigid in their approach to dealing with stuff that crops up they’re likely to continue to have period ic major issues…” You refer to OP as being rigid. What do you mean by “rigid” and what would you recommend to do otherwise? It sounds like you’re denigrating the letter writer, but that would require a lack of ethics and empathy, so I don’t think that’s what you intended to sound like.

      Reply ↓
  9. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

    1. My husband doesn’t drive, never had a single lesson and states quite clearly that he would be dangerous to do so because it’s too many things to concentrate on at once. Ironically I do all the driving and I’m the one with disabilities (and thankfully controlled epilepsy). He’s had a LOT of hassle over the years for his refusal to learn and by golly do a lot of people assume the car is HIS.

    Sadly, some people cannot accept that driving is kind of like parenting – some people are willing to put in the work for a good outcome, some really love doing it as well and some have absolutely no interest in the whole shebang or are blocked from doing it for reasons fair or foul.

    Your boss is an absolute wally.

    Reply ↓
  10. ijustworkhere*

    re: Clown fear. Talk to your coworker right away. If he isn’t “in” on the prank–which seems unlikely given the continued response—-then your coworkers are jerks! This is harassment and bullying.

    Reply ↓
  11. Lilo*

    An employment attorney would have had a field day with LW1. Especially after evidence the company’s violated it’s agreement and was sabotaging future employment.

    Reply ↓
    1. Analyst*

      what evidence? I guarantee none of this was in writing and it’s all he said she said. There isn’t a winnable case here.

      Reply ↓
              1. Colette*

                I don’t think I said anything to support that. But there are a lot of people involved, and they all seem to agree on what happened. Maybe they could all choose to lie under oath, but that seems pretty unlikely.

                Reply ↓
          2. Lilo*

            You’re assuming people will continue to lie under the threat of discovery. Surprisingly, they often fold.

            To be clear, this isn’t legal advice, but if you’re in this situation you absolutely should consider speaking to a lawyer and telling LW’s stuff like this helps keep people away from legal help

            Reply ↓
    2. Jennifer Strange*

      HR is the one who promised a glowing review, not the manager. The manager sounds like he was the one bad-mouthing the LW. There’s no legal case to be found.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lilo*

        The boss and HR both work for the company. An agreement with HR isn’t just with them, they are making statements on behalf of the organization. The boss’s actions sabotaging the employee aren’t personal actions, they’re company actions.

        Reply ↓
          1. Lilo*

            It absolutely is? A boss going around sabotaging a former employee is absolutely something the company can be held responsible for. References don’t just come from HR?

            Reply ↓
            1. Jennifer Strange*

              If a friend calls the boss and says “Hey, someone who worked at your company applied for a job. Can you give me your thoughts on them?” and the boss says, “They were insubordinate and ran to HR whenever they disagreed with me*” there is nothing illegal there. A person is allowed to reach out to someone they know about someone who applied for a job, and the person they reached out to is allowed to give their perspective so long as it doesn’t veer into slander (which we have no indication happened). They don’t have to check with their HR first.

              *To be clear, I’m not saying this is actually what happened, just how the boss might frame it to someone else.

              Reply ↓
      2. Parenthesis Guy*

        If this person has a signed agreement with HR, then HR speaks for the company. The boss, speaking as part of the company, would have broken the agreement. That’s illegal. But it does require a signed agreement.

        It’s also potentially an employer defamation case. If an employer says something false about you when asked for a reference, and that causes you to lose a position, then that’s also illegal.

        Reply ↓
        1. Jennifer Strange*

          A) We don’t know they had a signed agreement with HR (they likely didn’t).
          B) Even if there is a signed agreement about what HR would say, if someone has a connection with the boss and asks how he likes the LW, unless HR has specifically made part of the agreement that the boss can’t talk to any friends/connections about the situation (which would be a stretch) the boss is allowed to say his opinion so long as it doesn’t veer into slander (and just being something the LW disagrees with isn’t slander).
          C) We don’t know that the boss said anything provably false (and defamation takes a LOT to prove)

          Reply ↓
    3. Parenthesis Guy*

      Agreed. The boss is telling others about what happened. That makes this likely an employer defamation case. Have the lawyer get someone offering a job to call up this boss asking for a reference. Try to get it recorded if possible but otherwise make sure there are a few witnesses. The boss would likely tell them this story and hopefully other lies about the candidate.

      At that point, you have enough for a lawsuit. You also have enough to go to a newspaper and tell them the story especially if the HR person will confirm. No employer is going to want that story on a webpage.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lilo*

        Yeah, look, employment lawyers are absolutely used to people lying and have tactics. You’d also be shocked at how much people put in writing or are willing to say.

        Can we please not discourage people from seeking legal help.

        Reply ↓
        1. Jennifer Strange*

          Can we please not discourage people from seeking legal help.

          Encouraging people to seek legal help when they don’t have a legal case isn’t really helping them, though, and is potentially setting them up for a costly (both in terms of money and emotional wherewithal) ordeal.

          Reply ↓
          1. Lilo*

            Lawyers will do initial consults for no cost, there are legal aid organizations. I pivoted but this literally used to be my job. I helped people just like LW with a couple phone calls or letters.

            Reply ↓
        2. Parenthesis Guy*

          I’m confused.

          Do you realize I’m agreeing with you that the OP should look into a lawsuit, and should also talk into talking to a reporter about what happened?

          Reply ↓
    4. Lenora Rose*

      I’m not sure the company as a whole violated the agreement. It sounds like the hiring manager in the other company was a friend of the drunken boss, and probably got his version of the story from something other than a formal reference. Which, still wrong but harder to fight.

      Reply ↓
  12. Cat Tree*

    For #2 with the clown pranks – my kid is 3 years old and I’m already teaching her that something is only fun if the other person is also laughing. It’s a shame that these coworkers missed such a basic lesson that they should have learned in preschool.

    Reply ↓
    1. WellRed*

      I don’t understand how an office of people all think this is hilarious they want to do it daily and even invest money for what, 2 minutes of “hilarity?” And that’s without the clown fear factored in. I’m bored just reading about it and questioning their human qualifications.

      Reply ↓
      1. XF1013*

        I suspect that the whole office very much did not find it funny — just the bullying boss and maybe one or two others, and the rest were too scared of pushing back. The OP was afraid of retaliation just for warning the coulrophobic co-worker that a prank was incoming. With such a juvenile and cruel boss, anyone not visibly laughing along at each “prank” might find themselves punished, such as being deemed “not a team player” in the next performance review or becoming the victim of bullying themselves.

        Reply ↓
  13. Falling Diphthong*

    “Everyone follows the same set of rules except for one person with the audacity to ignore them.”
    I feel like so many advice column letters are about this person.

    Reply ↓
    1. PropJoe*

      Like the one person who continually drives out through the enter-only gate, or the person who tips their shopping cart over on its side three steps away from the cart return.

      Reply ↓
  14. VP of Monitoring Employees’ LinkedIn and Indeed Profiles*

    LW1’s update confirms what I have long said: Even though HR is supposed to protect the company, it often protects rogue managers (personally), to the detriment of the company.

    Reply ↓
    1. Lab Boss*

      I’m really curious how the message was presented. I’m not overly impressed with HR regardless, but was it more “we value your manager more than you” or were they just explaining the bad but unfortunate facts, “the company values your manager more than you and our hands are tied, and you need to be aware of that.”

      Reply ↓
      1. HonorBox*

        That’s kind of how I read it. HR knew the boss was untouchable and painted the most realistic picture for the OP as they could.

        HR didn’t do well here. They could/should have fought for some sort of severance, made sure that the references were neutral or positive, etc. But they were honest with OP about how their tenure would go with the company and let the OP decide with those facts in hand.

        Reply ↓
        1. Vanamonde von Mekkhan*

          Maybe. But I bet it wasn’t the first time something like this happened with this particular Boss and his cronies. So HR’s only real option is to inform LW on the reality of the situation however much it might suck. A truly bad HR would just have said to suck it up and like that interviewer to “not tattle” in the future.

          Reply ↓
          1. HonorBox*

            I don’t disagree a bit. They were truthful and as helpful as they could have been. I was just saying that it would have been great if they’d have been able to fight for more, knowing that the company was really at fault here.

            Reply ↓
            1. Vanamonde von Mekkhan*

              Then we are in full agreement.

              A lot of times HR gets the bad rep when it is the higher ups that should get that bad rep. Likely quite intentional on the part of the higher ups. For HR to be able to do a good job they need to have the support of the higher ups. From the perspective of the one interacting with HR it doesn’t matter of course.

              Reply ↓
      2. Eldritch Office Worker*

        That’s how I read it too, and frankly HR was opening themselves up to litigation there in a way that shows the company was not their primary concern. They didn’t handle the situation well, but it sounds like they know they have no power except information.

        Reply ↓
  15. Lab Boss*

    I volunteer with a college student org, and regularly have to remind them “You can’t get mad at someone for not agreeing to do a crime, even though you don’t think it’s a big deal.” I take it as a given that young adults need to learn that lesson about the real world, so they don’t go on to become LW1’s boss and think that “come on, just go ahead and do it” is a compelling argument.

    Reply ↓
  16. VP of Monitoring Employees’ LinkedIn and Indeed Profiles*

    LW2:

    The First Rule of Targeted Jokes states that if the target isn’t laughing, then it WAS NOT meant as a joke.

    Reply ↓
      1. VP of Monitoring Employees’ LinkedIn and Indeed Profiles*

        Fun is in the eye of the beholder. There is no need for the target to “see the fun in it” (or pretend to) just to protect the bullies’ feelings.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lab Boss*

          I didn’t read HonorBox as saying “the target must see the fun in it whether they like it or not,” but rather “for a joke to be a well-placed joke the target needs to accept it as a joke, even if they aren’t actually laughing in the moment.”

          I’ve worked in a workplace where we lived on-site and petty pranks were common. I didn’t actually laugh when I found my living quarters had been TP’ed, but it was a fine joke because I knew it was done in good fun and that I’d have my chance to laugh later when I did a similar prank to someone else.

          Reply ↓
    2. Lenora Rose*

      And as an addendum, an awkward nervous laugh is not the same as the kind of laugh that means they took it in fun.

      Some people scream at a prank, then cackle gleefully (or their own flavour of sincere humourous noise) at being “got”, others scream, then titter nervously to keep people from tormenting them worse, or because they’re still shaking and it’s a reflex.

      Reply ↓
  17. They knew and they let it happen*

    I’m not anti-prank, but you’d think even one instance of the employee *screaming* and running away would be enough to stop it.

    Reply ↓
    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      And if you don’t have the social awareness to recognize that, you shouldn’t be pranking people.

      Reply ↓
  18. HonorBox*

    I remember reading the first letter and being appalled by it, and then being more appalled by the updates.

    The thing that really bothers me about all of it (and there’s a mountain of things that bother me, so that’s saying something) is that HR couldn’t figure out a way to get OP some sort of severance. They admitted that their hands were tied and the boss was a golden boy. They were honest and forthright. But they also should have pulled some strings to get some financial help for OP since none of this…not one bit of it…was of OP’s doing.

    Also I think if OP were a friend of mine, I might have advised them after the interview that included questions about loyalty and tattling to go back to HR. If the agreement was that there would be a positive reference, that shouldn’t just be from HR. They owed it to OP to make that well-known within the company. Boss torpedoing OP by talking badly about them goes against the agreement that was made as they parted ways.

    Reply ↓
    1. boof*

      That stuck out to me too, I didn’t quite realize I was hoping to read “and gave me 3 months severance to tide me over while I searched” at the least – until it didn’t happen :(

      Reply ↓
    2. DawnShadow*

      As far as the friend of Boss giving the bullying interview, there probably wasn’t a single thing HR could do about Boss talking to his own personal friends about what happened during his personal conversations with them, considering that HR couldn’t do a single thing about anything Boss did to LW on the job either. People are allowed to lie to their friends, or excuse me, “tell them about the time an ungrateful Gen Y slacker tattled on me” which I am sure is how he phrased it. It’s egregious but it’s not like HR gave them a bad reference. This was all on Boss who was already shown to be Teflon.

      Reply ↓
  19. Somehow I Manage*

    Pranking (LW2) – A prank doesn’t have to be funny per se for the person being pranked, but they at least need to be able to see some fun in it. It also can’t be harmful. And it can’t be something done repeatedly if it is obvious that the recipient isn’t interested in participating.

    Growing up, I learned from my uncle that scaring people could be fun and funny. He picked his spots. I learned to pick my spots. I scared a coworker once and she damn near punched me. She told me loudly that she hated being scared and that if I did it again, we’d have a real problem. I apologized immediately and told her I would never scare her again. And I didn’t. Because not only wasn’t it fun for her, knowing that she hated it made it something that wouldn’t be fun for me.

    If the person you’re pranking or joking about isn’t seeing the fun in it (like running from the building screaming or damn near throwing hands) then it isn’t a prank or a joke. It is cruel and you need to stop.

    Reply ↓
    1. VP of Monitoring Employees’ LinkedIn and Indeed Profiles*

      If the person you’re pranking or joking about isn’t seeing the fun in it (like running from the building screaming or damn near throwing hands) then it isn’t a prank or a joke. It is cruel and you need to stop.

      Bingo. The target of a prank is the sole arbiter of whether the prank is “fun” or not, and he or she DOES NOT need to “see the fun in it” (or even pretend to) just to protect the bullies’ feelings.

      Reply ↓
  20. Dek*

    Those updates to the first letter infuriate me. I mean, super glad LW got a new position after only a month and a half. But being forced out with no severance because HR knew that Boss and his friends would retaliate against LW FOR A MEDICAL CONDITION.

    And Boss DID retaliate, even though LW left, because he blacklisted her among his friends in the industry (ffs, if someone asked me how I felt about “tattling” on my superiors…like. You mean reporting illegal behavior to HR?)

    Seems like a Fortune 500 company could’ve at least offered more than a “glowing recommendation” (that was undermined by Boss. How tf did he even spin that story to look like anything but an awful, unreasonable person?). Like I said, glad LW got a new job, but kinda wish they’d gone to an employment lawyer or something.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bird names*

      To your second paragraph – the depressing thing is too that the conversation with HR was only necessary thanks to the appalling boss behaviour in the first place (pressuring to drive, demands for money). I truly detest people who completely outsorce all responsibility for their own behaviour and, as unfortunately in this case, get away with that nonsense.

      Reply ↓
  21. Lbkwrm*

    The situation with OP1 is awful all around but one part of the update struck me as awful. The OP felt the need to reiterate that they couldn’t legally or ethically learn to drive just in case because some commenters made that suggestion. As another non driver (vision issues), I wish the OP hadn’t needed to clarify. Non drivers exist for many reasons and don’t need to be told that knowing how to drive could make life easier at times.

    Reply ↓
    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      So true, but I also understand why they felt the need to write it. The amount of times I’ve had to have the “but what if there’s an emergency” conversation – if there’s an emergency me taking the time to get arrested isn’t going to be a productive solution.

      Reply ↓
      1. boof*

        I am agreeing with you!
        If there’s an emergency, someone who shouldn’t drive doing so anyway and crashing a car really won’t help D:
        Life isn’t a movie where a plucky maverick breaks the rules to save the day at the 11th hr!

        Reply ↓
      2. All het up about it*

        I feel like the only “emergency” where it would make sense for the OP or people like her to drive would be zombie apocalypse type emergencies. Like yep, it is better for me to risk driving to leave this city than to stay here and it’s no longer “illegal” for me to drive because there has been a complete break down of rule and law.

        And if a person refuses to live their life planning around a possible zombie apocalypse, I don’t think they should be judged.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lab Boss*

          We can go more realistic than that- my (theoretical) epileptic friend and I go on a camping trip and I fall and shatter both legs, and need to be driven to help immediately. Friend could probably manage to slowly and carefully drive me, whether he’d taken lessons or not, because that’s an actual emergency (unlike “I got too drunk and needed a cab”).

          Reply ↓
    2. Hlao-roo*

      I agree with you. I did a quick scan of the original comments section and it looks like there were two commenters who were saying “learn to drive just in case!” (MR and Mags if anyone wants to go back and look.) Plenty of other commenters pushed back at the time, which is good, but still it would have been better if the OP hadn’t felt the need to clarify at all.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lab Boss*

        I wonder if people just weren’t getting the idea of CAN’T drive. Like, I really shouldn’t drive without my glasses- but whenever I renew my license I take the vision test without them, to confirm that I can technically see well enough to legally drive without them just in case I ever need to. I never voluntarily would, but it’s useful to know I could. Of course there’s a huge difference between me and OP, and that’s what they weren’t getting.

        Reply ↓
    3. Matt*

      Probably watched too many movies in which a ten year old kid drives his daddy with a heart attack to the hospital and saves his life.

      Reply ↓
  22. Daisy-dog*

    Clicked through the comments on #3 in the original post. There were people arranging to send OP their business casual clothes! What a great community that exists here.

    I worked somewhere that updated the dress code to allow jeans daily…which basically meant that all the business casual standards went out the window. I was like OP – didn’t have the funds (and my weight was fluctuating) to swap to a casual wardrobe. I just stopped wearing jewelry and ~felt~ better. I wasn’t new at the job, so people would just recognize what I had always worn – it just didn’t feel right.

    Reply ↓
    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      I had a similar experience. It didn’t seem to bother anyone but I was clearly dressier than a lot of people until I could update my wardrobe a bit. I still wear nicer pieces I’ve just invested in a couple of t-shirts to wear under blazers, jeans, and more casual shoes – I like the mix and match style a lot.

      Reply ↓
  23. DriveToWork*

    On LW#4: Some workplaces do allocate parking spots based on year of service and the position. The CFO should eventually come to work realizing the parking spot is taken, call security and have the car ticketed/towed.

    Reply ↓
  24. Dust Bunny*

    Clown prank: I hope you told him! I would have! What a terrible thing to do to someone. Do you work with sixth-graders??

    Reply ↓
  25. Dust Bunny*

    Dressy: Wear what you want and what works for your workplace.

    I don’t do business casual because it seems to be so pants-based and pants and my body shape do not get along, so I wear a lot of soft dresses, elevated slightly by, yes, blazers. My supervisor doesn’t wear skirts but her pants and blouses sound like more or less the equivalent of what you describe. If it’s not getting in the way and isn’t a safety or hygiene hazard, don’t worry about it.

    Reply ↓
  26. tina turner*

    #3 — Consignment shops can be great for work clothes cause they often have bargains on good jeans as well as “office” type stuff. Mixing jeans w/a silk top & casual jacket can work. Look at jackets, pants, etc., as “separates” rather than “suits” and play around. Consignment prices are a third of retail or “sale” priced so some good deals.

    Reply ↓
  27. bertha*

    Idea for overdressed worker: You could sell a lot of your overly dressy stuff to a second hand store and take that money to buy less dressier pieces.

    Reply ↓
  28. Tesuji*

    LW#1:

    This is one of those situations where I wonder if Alison would give a more cynical level of advice today.

    Feels like when you’re in a situation where your boss *and* your boss’ boss are being so completely out-of-line, you should maybe take that as a sign that the entire company culture is toxic and escalating things isn’t going to end well. A Fortune 500 company valuing the guy who makes them money vs. doing what’s right kind of feels like an obvious outcome.

    I mean, obviously OP was completely in the right here, but did going to HR make his life better in any way?

    It’s entirely possible that 2017 me would have had faith in the system and thought that righteously standing up for himself was the right option, but 2024 me feels like saying “You should absolutely go to HR about this!” is kind of setting up a naive new graduate for failure, that the better option is to cut your losses and try to get out of this situation (and company) as cleanly as possible.

    Reply ↓
    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      “I mean, obviously OP was completely in the right here, but did going to HR make his life better in any way?”

      YES, I think HR gave OP very transparent advice that they otherwise might not have gotten and got them tf out there. Is that the best thing they could have done? In a different environment, no. But there was personal risk to HR involved in that and they gave OP the blunt information they needed to make a decision quickly.

      Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS