A rookie workplace anti-bullying activist scores a win in Oregon

Oregon legislation adopted in 2023

Recently I heard from Misty Orlando, a workplace anti-bullying activist in Oregon, who shared with me her story of advocacy before her state legislature. Ultimately, thanks to her efforts and those of her fellow activists, last year the State of Oregon enacted a directive to the state’s labor department to develop a “model respectful workplace policy” that can be adopted voluntarily by employers (link here).

Their goal was much more ambitious. They wanted to see the enactment of more full-fledged protections against workplace bullying for all of Oregon’s workers. Instead, Oregon adopted language directing the state’s Bureau of Labor and Industries to:

• “prepare a model respectful workplace policy that employers may adopt,” taking “into consideration existing respectful workplace policies”; and,
• “create informational materials that identify the harms to employees and employers caused by workplace bullying and make the materials available to employers.”

I greatly enjoyed my conversation with Misty and salute her and fellow activists for their work. This was their first go-round in advocating for workplace anti-bullying laws. Their efforts reinforce what we’ve seen in other states, namely, greater legislative receptivity to proposals concerning employer education and optional policies about workplace bullying, rather than favorably regarding new laws making workplace bullying an unlawful employment practice.

Nevertheless, this represents a step forward, and serves as a testament to effective citizen advocacy.

Let’s safeguard free speech, while learning how to engage in more constructive conversations about difficult topics

Video screenshot: Program speaker Prof. Nadine Strossen is seated immediately to the right of the podium, with DY on the left. Suffolk U. Law Review editor-in-chief Sara Levien is at the podium, opening the program. We are joined by a panel of Suffolk law students.

Earlier this month, I had the distinct pleasure of moderating a program on freedom of speech and expression, featuring Professor Nadine Strossen (Emerita, New York Law School), former President of the American Civil Liberties Union. The program was part of the Donahue Lecture Series sponsored by the Suffolk University Law Review. As a faculty co-advisor to the Law Review, I was delighted to be a part of this event.

In planning the program, Professor Strossen, an internationally recognized authority on free speech, suggested that we cast aside the typical lecture format and create a more interactive conversation. So we started with an interview that I conducted, followed by questions from a panel of Suffolk law students, and concluding with questions and comments from our audience.

The event was a tremendous success. Before an overflow room of attendees, and sparked by Prof. Strossen’s thoughtful, insightful, and engaged remarks and responses, as well as great questions from our student panelists, the program made for a lively 75-minute exchange. You can watch the full event by clicking here.

Prof. Strossen offered passionate defenses of free speech, while carefully dissecting the legal implications of speech and expression in various public sector and private sector settings. You can read a brief summary of some of her major points here. And if you’d like a very informative and accessible primer on speech protections in the U.S., then I happily recommend her 2023 book, Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford U. Press).

But wait, there’s another big thing to consider!

I have long been in general agreement with Nadine Strossen’s embrace of freedom of speech. And especially during times like this, safeguarding free speech — subject to reasonable restrictions such as prohibiting defamation, fraud, or targeted harassment and abuse — is of paramount importance toward maintaining an open, democratic society.

In addition to protecting the sanctity of free speech, we all should learn and practice how to converse and listen more constructively. Whether one regards speech as a right or privilege, we have an obligation to exercise it responsibly.

By this, I’m not suggesting the adoption of intrusive speech codes. Nor should we jump all over something that isn’t said in just the right way, in just the right tone. Furthermore, there are instances where righteous anger may be a proper, or at least very understandable, response to deeply offensive or hurtful speech.

Rather, I mean coaching ourselves, and encouraging others, to engage in conversations on sensitive and difficult topics with as much respect and empathy as we can muster.

In addition, exercising self-restraint (which I do not necessarily equate with self-censorship) may be appropriate at times. After all, just because we’re allowed to say something a certain way doesn’t mean we should always do so.

Equally important, we should actively listen to what others have to say, and at least try to understand points of view that may seem opposite of our own. With that kind of listening, we see possibilities for genuine exchange, discovery of unexpected common ground, and perhaps even changing one’s understanding of, or position on, an important issue.

By the way, I fully confess that I have not always followed the precepts I am preaching. Everything I’m suggesting here is easier said than done.

Back to our Donahue Lecture

I was so pleased that the Donahue Lecture was an exemplar of engaging and respectful conversation about difficult and important topics. The event also meant a lot to me personally, as many moons ago, Prof. Strossen was my supervising professor in the Civil Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law, her first academic appointment before moving on to become a constitutional law professor at the New York Law School. Her warmth, intelligence, and student-centered focus were evident then and now, and I was proud to be able to show off our wonderful students at Suffolk Law.

Prior to the event, several student editors of the Law Review shared with me their understandable concern that someone might try to use this occasion to stage a protest in support of their views on some controversial public issue. After all, we’ve seen news accounts of such disruptions at other universities, at times requiring an event to be discontinued in midstream. But I assured them I was confident that, between the professionalism of our guest speaker, our students, and other attendees, I was not concerned about such a possibility.

This was no statement of false bravado. As I planned how to moderate the event, I did consider potential responses should a situation threaten to get out of hand. But I wasn’t girding myself for anything uncomfortable to arise. I had faith that our event would be an example of healthy and informed dialogue. I was so happy that it more than met my expectations.

Origin story: How serving on a non-profit foundation board opened doors to new opportunities

Pages from the PILF fundraising dinner journal

When I discuss career planning with my students, I often urge them to pursue interesting pro bono and volunteer activities not only for the contributions they can make, but also because these activities may open doors to new opportunities.

That certainly was my experience of serving on the board of directors of a small charitable foundation based at New York University, my legal alma mater, as relatively recent graduate of the Law School.

Unlike many law professors whose aspirations to enter academe were present during their law school days, my path to this world was not nearly as intentional. I entered law school wanting to become a public interest lawyer and eventually pursue a career in politics and public policy. During the years immediately following graduation, I was squarely headed in those directions, starting my legal career as Legal Aid lawyer in New York City and becoming active in a local reform Democratic club in central Brooklyn. Eventually, however, the bloody world of academe would draw me away from the bloodsport of litigation and politics.

NYU PILF

Four years after graduating from law school, I accepted an invitation to join the board of directors of the NYU Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF), a small foundation that gave seed-money grants to fledgling public interest and community law projects. The PILF board of directors was comprised of law students (who served dual roles as officers), NYU law faculty, and various lawyers and legal activists. PILF raised most of its money from NYU alums who pledged a share of their income and from New York City law firms that co-sponsored an annual fundraising banquet, which typically drew several hundred people.

I served for four years on the PILF board, the latter three as its chairperson. It was enormously satisfying to be part of an organization whose main purpose was to support new, creative initiatives for providing legal services to underserved groups and for engaging in law reform work. Overall, we had an energetic, high-morale cohort of board members, and our work earned two awards from the National Association for Public Interest Law (now Equal Justice Works) for overall program growth.

In the process, I so enjoyed working with the student officers to organize our events. And I learned a ton about how non-profit organizations work, while building skills and insights that I’ve drawn upon throughout my career.

Unanticipated door opener

One of the PILF board members happened to be a co-coordinator of the Lawyering Program at NYU Law School, an innovative, full-year course that introduces first-year law students to essential legal skills, such as legal writing, research, client interviewing and counseling, negotiation, and advocacy. After one of our board meetings, I casually asked my board colleague if the Lawyering Program might be hiring new instructors any time soon. She said yes and invited me to send her a resume.

I’m not sure what prompted me to make that inquiry. At the time, I was serving as an assistant attorney general in the Labor Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s office. Although I enjoyed many aspects of the job and worked with excellent attorneys, I knew that I didn’t want to be a litigator for the rest of my legal career. However, I didn’t have a clear idea of where I wanted to go. At that juncture, I certainly did not have an academic career in mind. Teaching in the Lawyering Program simply sounded like an interesting opportunity.

Long story short, I went through a series of interviews and received an offer to join the Program as an entry-level instructor, which I enthusiastically accepted.

I loved teaching in the Lawyering Program. It was very hard, teaching-intensive work, quite a grind for an academic position. I stayed for three years (the maximum permitted for instructors), serving as a co-coordinator of the Program during my third year. During that time, I gained experience and credentials that would make me competitive for tenure-track and other long-term law teaching jobs. I put myself “on the market,” as they say, and came out of it with a tenure-track appointment at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, where I’ve been ever since.

Imagining alternatives

Let’s reverse engineer this path and imagine that I had turned down that invitation to join the PILF board of directors. It’s quite possible that my career sojourn wouldn’t have been nearly as rich and rewarding as it has turned out to be.

Of course, frequent pondering on the “what ifs” in one’s life is a recipe for crazy-making speculation based on a known reality vs. an open-ended, anything-goes alternative. It’s probably wiser to dwell on decisions made and evaluate them accordingly.

In my case, I see two decisions here that led to very good things: (1) joining the PILF board of directors; (2) returning to NYU to teach in its Lawyering Program. I firmly recall making both decisions without reservation, based largely on my belief that I would enjoy these associations immensely. And I did. The bonus was that both led to unforeseen opportunities.

On occasion, I encounter those who make career moves based only on perceived sure bets. Their career moves are carefully plotted, and their trajectories are carefully planned. They avoid even minor risks and pass on commitments of time and energy that potentially divert them from their plan.

Honestly, that may be the best bet toward success. But it also can lead to disappointment, either because one fails to reach certain goals despite their disciplined efforts or finds that what they thought they wanted turned out to be lacking in material ways.

My career approach has been a little different, trying to split the difference between an inflexible path and a series of random choices. The lesson from the story shared here, as I see it, is that I trusted my strong instincts about two opportunities, despite that neither came with any guarantees beyond their own shelf lives.

I’m hardly the only person who has enjoyed some successes by making decisions in such a manner. But at a time when FOMO (fear of missing out) and ROI (return on investment) seem to control too much decision making about vocational choice, I’m happy to put in a good word for taking smart chances now and then.

***

On origin stories: During the ongoing process of culling the mounds of printed material in my possession, I’m often finding stuff that brings back very meaningful memories. Some recall certain origin stories, i.e., those moments that led to significant, defining things in my life. This is the second of three that I’ll be sharing on this blog, including lessons learned from them. My first recollection, “Origin story: Stumbling upon an interview about workplace bullying,” can be found here.

When dealing with workplace bullying, don’t overlook good nutrition

Last week, I received an email from Torii Bottomley, a veteran educator who experienced workplace bullying in the Boston Public School system and spent years in an ultimately successful, yet exhausting legal battle to recover workers’ compensation benefits. Her core message was simple: When dealing with bullying at work and other forms of traumatic mistreatment, don’t overlook the vital importance of good nutrition to support your health.

With Torii’s permission:

I used to say the First Response to a bullying situation would be: get a lawyer, get a notebook, and to that I would add get Meals on Wheels.

So much of the damage I am trying to heal from is the result of years of poor nutrition because I could not take care of myself.  The poor nutrition exacerbated the mental and physical toll that the PTSD took on me. IF I had thought about and availed myself to meal deliveries which I could have “afforded” at the time because Meals on Wheels is free or a contribution, my recovery would have been easier and I would not have lost so much.

(For readers not familiar, Meals on Wheels is a non-profit organization that works with local networks to provide daily, in-person delivery of hot, prepared meals to seniors and other eligible individuals.)

Trauma, nutrition, and mental health

Although healthier eating is often a casualty of psychological trauma and other severe stress generally, my exchange with Torii’s prompted me to realize that we don’t highlight this important aspect of self-care nearly enough in discussing how to cope with abusive work environments and the road to recovery.

In a blog piece for Psychology Today titled “How Trauma, Nutrition, and Mental Health Fit Together” (link here) connecting trauma, nutrition, and mental health, Dr. Gia Marson explains that “(w)hen it comes to our basic need for nourishment, trauma can interfere with healthy eating. Traumatic experiences can have impacts on food-related experiences and behaviors including”:

• Eating without routine
• Stocking up on food.
• Losing control with food.
• Restricting or controlling food.
• Consuming high-fat, sugar, and/or salt diets.
• Body shaming experiences.
• Relying on easy-to-access foods.
• Experiencing food scarcity.
• Basing decisions about food on short-term needs.
• Feeling shame utilizing food assistance.
• Difficulty planning and budgeting for food.

More from Torii Bottomley

In a follow-up email, Torii revised her suggested “First Response” kit for targets of workplace bullying to include:

• lawyer
• therapist
• doctor
• Notebook
• Meals on Wheels
• therapy animal

For those not eligible for Meals on Wheels or a similar service, I recommend searching “advice on trauma and nutrition” for ideas and guidance.

Family and friends can play an important role here, too, by providing encouragement and support to maintain a good diet, as well as cooking healthy meals or helping out with the grocery bill. In addition to asking “how are you doing?,” one might add, “how are you eating?”

In sum, maintaining a healthy diet is an integral part of one’s toolkit for dealing with and recovering from workplace bullying and other traumatic experiences. Thank you to Torii Bottomley for providing this very important reminder.