A former professor at Dartmouth College has sent an email to students threatening to name some of them in a lawsuit accusing students of harassing her and discriminating against her in violation of federal law, according to several media reports.

In the email to students, the professor specifically cites Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.

The professor taught a writing class at Dartmouth College before leaving in March to teach at another university. She says that some of the students in her class at Dartmouth were so disrespectful and argumentative that their behavior amounted to harassment, the Concord Monitor (New Hampshire) reports. She alleges that the students harassed her because of her gender and ethnicity.

Apparently, the students challenged some of the philosophers and writers the professor was discussing in her Science, Technology, and Society class. The professor cited a specific incident in which some students applauded another student who disagreed with the professor over an ecofeminist theory about science and the marginalization of women, the newspaper reports.

What does qualify as illegal discirmination under federal and state law? Find the answer in BLR's What to Do About Personnel Problems in [Your State].

"They were attacking thinkers that, even with my degrees, I would think twice about attacking," the professor tells the newspaper. "I'm wondering why I was subjected to that behavior. . . . It was just a little disturbing that you'd get a student who'd come up to you after getting a reading assignment and say, 'So I underlined this. This is X, Y and Z why this statement is false.' . . . It consistently kept happening."

The school's general counsel released a statement, saying that the claims lack merit.

"It has come to our attention that a former faculty member has e-mailed some undergraduates and faculty members mentioning the possibility of legal action," says Robert Donin, the college's general counsel. "We have determined that there is no basis for such action, and we have advised the students and faculty members of this."

Sources: Concord Monitor and Dartmouth Review

Forty percent of employees admit that they think talking about TV shows at work is OK because it "increases office camaraderie," but only 17 percent admitted doing so on company time (yeah, sure), according to a survey released by the staffing firm Spherion.

The survey found that reality shows reign at the water cooler and over company intranets, with American Idol being the most talked about show.

Idol was named by 33% of respondents as the most talked about program in their workplace, with ratings rival Dancing with the Stars second at 17%. Surprising, The Office came in at fifth place with 6%.

Nine percent of respondents reported that these discussions caused debates, aka arguments, with colleagues over who should win.

If your employees have time to argue over Randy, Paula, and Simon, they may need BLR's Audio Click 'n Train: Time Management Skills for Employees to make them more productive.

The survey results were broken down by gender and age. Women rated Idol and DWTS as their most discussed programs, while men rated Lost in second place. Idol was a big winner with workers over age 50, but workers age 30 to 39 were the most talkative about TV.

Here are the standings of most talked about show:

• American Idol--33%
• Dancing with the Stars--17%
• CSI--10%
• Grey's Anatomy--7%
• The Office--6%
• Law and Order--6%
• Heroes--5%
• 24--4%
• Big Brother--4%
• America 's Next Top Model--2%

Source: Spherion

As the forthcoming election heats up, we thought we'd tell the story of rival public servants vying for the same elected position and how a politician tried to terminate her opponent, who was also her subordinate, for being "disgruntled." No, it's not HRC!

This story, from the Lone Star State and BLR's HR Manager's Legal Reporter, began when two Ector County employees campaigned for election as County Clerk. Upon winning, the victor demoted her rival but preserved her job for nearly 4 years.

As the next election loomed, however, the new County Clerk cited two alleged policy violations and fired her subordinate. The subordinate sued.

Apparently, the subordinate had "held" a signed order and erased its docket sheet entry without asking for permission from a judge and had also retrieved a file from the judge's locked office without permission.

The subordinate sued, alleging that she was fired for political reasons, and that her conduct was protected by the First Amendment. The district court awarded her damages of $64,000. The county appealed.

Want practical compliance advice, workable policies, and effective management ideas, all with a savvy slant? HR Manager's Legal Reporter delivers it all.

Appellate judges quickly concluded that running for office constituted protected conduct.

Furthermore, the County Clerk admitted that she thought running against a "disgruntled former employee" would be easier than running against a current subordinate--a bit of testimony that judges found damning!

Witnesses also confirmed that other clerks and deputies had "held" signed orders and had entered the judge's office without adverse consequences. The judges affirmed the award (Jordan v. Morgan and Ector County, 516 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 2008)).

And, as this case shows, you're going to be in trouble if there's a smoking gun (the
statement), and if the terminated person was treated more harshly than other employees (the firing).