Latest news with #H.R.
Lebanese Army
06-05-2025
- Lebanese Army
Raid Operation and Arrest of 5 Individuals in Various Areas as Part of Security Measures
Monday, 05 May 2025 The LAF Command – Directorate of Orientation issued the following statement: As part of the security measures implemented by the military institution across various regions, army units—each supported by a patrol from the Directorate of Intelligence—arrested three individuals as follows: Raid on the residences of wanted individuals in Brital – Baalbek, leading to the arrest of citizens (AA.S.) and ( and the seizure of a military weapon, three stolen vehicles, and military gear. Citizen (H.R.) was arrested in the Masharih Al Qaa – Baalbek, for driving a vehicle loaded with 52 barrels of unidentified oil and 10 barrels containing a white powder used in the production of Captagon. A patrol from the Directorate of Intelligence also arrested citizen (R.K.) and citizen (J.F.) in Taanayel – Zahle for forming a robbery gang, trafficking weapons and drugs, and smuggling individuals into Lebanese territory. A quantity of narcotics was found in their possession. The seized items were handed over, and the investigation with the detainees was initiated under the supervision of the competent judicial authority.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
What It's Like to Be a Trans Federal Employee Under Trump
Dale began his accidental government career at the National Park Service about a decade ago, after signing up as a volunteer. 'I didn't know this was what I wanted to do until I was doing it,' he said. Today, he works for the Bureau of Land Management as an outdoor recreation planner, doing everything from cleaning toilets to working with high schoolers who've followed in his volunteer footsteps. He's stayed in the field because, he said, 'I really believe in public service.' For him, working for the American people 'is honorable work.' Dale (all names in this story are pseudonyms to protect the identities of people working for a government that is openly against trans rights) transitioned to male while working for the federal government back in 2015. It went smoothly, he said, with his supervisor almost overnight updating his name tags and interfacing with H.R. and his co-workers. 'I always felt like it was handled really well,' he said. Even during the first Trump administration, he didn't feel the need to change his name legally. Things are different this time around. The first administration was 'shocking and surprising,' he said. This time, it's 'Buckle down and hide.' After the election, his dad 'sat me down,' he said, and warned him that the incoming administration was going to be hostile to trans people. His passport had expired and was under his old name, so he rushed to get a new one with the right name and that says male. It wasn't until after the inauguration that he realized he could, and possibly should, have changed his gender with the Social Security Administration. Now it's too late, which means the health insurance that he gets through his job, which is tied to his Social Security account, says he's female. Now Dale is preparing for the worst. Before testosterone, he was in 'a horrible, irreversible depression spiral that I could not see any way out of,' he said. It felt like he had been treading water his entire life and he was running out of the energy necessary to keep himself alive. Within 72 hours of starting on the hormone, everything changed. 'Suddenly I'm standing on solid ground biochemically, emotionally. I can take a breath,' he said. But testosterone is classified as a controlled substance, so he can't get more beyond the limits of his prescription. Instead, he's taking a bit less than what he's prescribed to slowly build up a stockpile. He worries that, at some point, his federal insurance could stop covering it. Maybe someone will notice that his Social Security account says female and yet he's being prescribed testosterone. Maybe he'll get fired through a reduction in force and his monthly cost will shoot from $5 with insurance to $100 without. In any of those instances, 'I would like to have some time to figure that out before I start spiraling,' he said. Federal employees have all been on a roller-coaster ride since President Donald Trump was reelected, waiting for DOGE to come knocking on their agency's door or for mass layoffs to hit without warning. Trans federal employees have to deal with all of that chaos while working for a government that is openly antagonistic to their very being. On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order rolling back protections for trans people; a week later, he signed one barring them from the military (which has, so far, been blocked by the courts) and another threatening to revoke funding from hospitals that provide gender-affirming care. I spoke to five trans federal employees across different agencies and locations. They all have their unique worries and situations, but one thing is clear: It is taking a huge toll on trans people to work for a regime hell-bent on erasing their identities. Every trans federal employee I spoke to said things changed for them at the exact same moment: Election Day. They didn't have to wait until Trump started signing executive orders or their agencies told them to erase their pronouns from their emails. They knew what was coming right away. Election Day was when 'immense grief just broke down the door and flew through,' said Rian, who works for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 'Those who were truly targeted were the ones who needed to really pay attention to what he was saying.' Felix, who works on a high-profile program on Hill Air Force Base in Utah, thought to himself, 'I have no security anymore. I have zero. I'm not secure at all, and I'm not safe here.' Ann, who is intersex, and their wife, who is trans, sprang into action immediately after the election. At first, because their wife was working remotely, they looked into leaving the country, but then their wife was laid off, cutting that avenue off. So now they're trying to leave Texas, where they live, for a friendlier state. To make it happen, Ann took a job with the Department of Agriculture based in California, in December, ending what had been a break from federal employment. 'Getting out of Texas and getting my wife to a safer place was really priority number one,' they said. Transgender people were right to be afraid—they've been in the Trump administration's crosshairs from the start. On January 20, Trump signed an executive order against what it called 'gender extremism' and defending 'biological truth.' Then on January 29, the Office of Personnel Management sent a memo to all agencies telling them to, among other things, turn off pronoun features in email systems and disband all employee resource groups that 'promote gender ideology.' Agencies subsequently removed the app that had allowed everyone to document their preferred pronouns and ended internal affinity groups like Pride. Rian, who was a member of such a group at work, now feels 'newly defined as an enemy of the administration.' Ann said all email signatures that had pronouns in them, including theirs, were wiped. Soon after that, Ann was on a Zoom call in which they still had pronouns in their username. A colleague contacted them to point it out. 'I think it was probably good natured,' they said. Still, 'it was irritating that anyone noticed.' A similar thing happened to Felix: He had been out sick when the executive order was signed, so his pronouns were still in his signature when he came back. A co-worker responded to an email with a screenshot of his signature line, telling him he was directly defying the president. The trans workers I spoke to told me that prior to Trump's reelection, they had all felt valued and protected in federal employment. Within the first few weeks of their starting at the EEOC nearly a decade ago, someone in leadership asked Rian when they were going to dye their hair, having seen photos of them online with purple hair. 'I realized, 'Wait a minute, I actually can come to this agency and I can be myself,'' they said. That's why they decided to come out as transgender at work for the first time. 'I felt like I could be protected, and I could be myself,' they said. NJ's current position at the National Park Service, in technical support, is the first one in which they haven't had to endure discrimination and harassment for being queer and trans. Finally, they felt they could tell people to respect their pronouns and 'be fully out,' they said. Felix had worked for the federal government for five years before going into the private sector in 2020. He decided to return about a year ago, seeking stability after he lost his parents, as well as some protection as a trans person. 'In [private] industry, it ebbs and flows where you can find safety,' he said. At first, he found the stability and protection he had been seeking in federal employment. He planned to stay there until retirement. 'That was my endgame,' he said. 'I would 100 percent stay if all of this B.S. hadn't happened.' Now, everything is different. In late January, acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas issued her own statement about 'removing gender ideology,' in which she said that one of her priorities as chair is to 'defend the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights.' A few days later, she rescinded the agency's internal nondiscrimination policies for gay and trans EEOC employees, saying anything that had come before was null and void. 'That signals to LGBTQ employees like myself that our rights are no longer recognized and will no longer be enforced within the agency,' Rian noted. Rian has to go into the office five days a week, and it's become extremely difficult. Before the election, they were excited to go in on the two days a week they had to work in the office. Now they have to spend a few hours each morning emotionally preparing, repeating things to say if someone misgenders them and reassuring themselves that they're going to be OK. Every day, they pause in front of the revolving door outside of their building and take a series of deep breaths before entering. Their stomach 'feels like there's two squeezing rocks on either side,' they said. They go in very early each morning, hoping to get settled and out of the shared break rooms before everyone else shows up. They no longer feel like they can be themselves at work. They have a timeline in their office of their career at the EEOC, and the start of it had their former name from before their transition. When they came back to in-person work after the inauguration, they crossed that name out with a black Sharpie, 'even though it's a name that I cherish,' they said. They realized that a co-worker could use their former name as a way to hurt them. 'I am closing down parts of me that really matter to me,' they said, tears in their voice. Sometimes Rian has to rub their neck and forehead in an attempt to 'calm down,' they said. They take frequent breaks throughout the day, often coloring in a coloring book with pictures of gender-diverse people and trans-affirming statements. 'I try to hold onto that and continue to tell myself that's what's real,' they said. 'Not what other people are saying or what other people believe.' The workplace has changed for other people too. Although NJ has been misgendered in various ways in past positions with the Park Service, they're noticing far more of it now, and 'I know I'm also not speaking up as many times because I'm scared,' they said. Before January, Felix was able to work remotely when he needed a break from the 'banter' in his office, he said, but now he has to work in person five days a week. He has watched as the macho, anti-trans banter on the base has gotten louder and more frequent. 'I'm exhausted all the time just from the mental and emotional toll it takes on me,' he said. The workplace bathroom has become a particular site of intense anxiety for many trans federal employees. Rian isn't using the bathroom of their choice, instead the one that feels safer based on their physical presentation. Still, they 'get really nervous' going to the bathroom every day, fearing they have no recourse if a co-worker were to harass them. Things are even trickier for Felix. After Trump's first executive order, he spoke to someone in leadership who knows he's trans about how to handle the bathroom. That person suggested he leave the base and use a bathroom off site, an ordeal that, at the very least, would take him half an hour: going through multiple sets of secured doors, getting into his car, driving through the gates, going somewhere outside, and returning. He refused that plan and has been using the men's room, but 'it comes with a whole set of anxiety,' he said, wondering if today is going to be the day that someone 'clocks' him. There are days when his anxiety about it is so intense that he won't use the bathroom for hours at a time, resulting in a pounding headache from the effort of holding it in. Some days he'll go to in-person meetings off base that he doesn't strictly need to attend because he knows he can safely use a gender-neutral bathroom there. These ordeals come on top of the other changes wrought by DOGE's cuts and purges. Dale thought he was going to be fired in the initial firing of probationary hires. Although he was hired more than a year ago, he was on a different kind of probation. 'I had a week in there where I had my panic attack,' he said, moving things out of his office and polishing up his résumé. He faced putting over a decade into working for the federal government only to be fired 'for no reason, illegally.' In the end, his termination never came. NJ's work is meant to involve a lot of travel, but DOGE's spending freeze means there's a lot of work they can't do at all. 'That's difficult, because it's not that there is a lack of work, there is an overabundance of work,' they said. It's 'damaging the long-term future' of the parks. The freeze even meant that when a piece of technology they need to do their work broke and needed to be replaced, they couldn't pay for the mailing label needed to send it to tech support. NJ fears that they'll be reassigned from living in a community where they feel safe, and working for a supervisor who's supportive, to a more hostile location and manager to fill in for people let go in the mass firings. The uncertainty is so high that they didn't re-sign the lease on their housing in December out of fear that they were going to be fired and no longer able to afford it. If fired, they have three options for housing, they said: move in with family that doesn't respect their gender identity, live in their car, or 'take up the kindness of a stranger.' Then there will be the question of medical care. NJ is disabled and sees a half-dozen doctors every week. If fired, 'then all that medical care I need every week I cannot get,' they said. 'I would have to go without.' NJ knows other co-workers are similarly trying to sort out what their government employment future looks like. But it feels different for them. 'It is every part of my life that is getting attacked,' they said. Still, they want to keep doing the work. 'I want to stay because what I do matters,' they said. 'I want to outlast what's happening right now.' But they know that there may be a point where they can't keep it going. 'Right now, working for the federal government is equivalent to being in an abusive relationship,' they said. At some point, they will probably have to leave that relationship. 'I can't be a martyr.' For Ann, the current chaos in the federal government feels like 'psychological terror.' 'It takes up so much space in my brain,' they said. They never know if they're going to show up at work and a bunch of people will have been fired. Co-workers come to them asking if they should take the early retirement offers. Then there's the actual work of responding to data requests from the DOGE team. 'Eighty percent of my work now is responding to all of the chaos,' they said. It's made what should be a simple move a very complicated one. What if Ann gets laid off just as they and their unemployed wife move to an expensive California city? Their administrative job, they fear, is exactly the kind of position that DOGE wants to eliminate. 'My life feels very messy right now,' they said. 'I'm someone who kind of likes things buttoned up and not a lot of chaos, and I just feel like I've been thrown into a lot of chaos all outside of my control.' They feel like a 'double boogeyman,' they said: othered for being trans and demonized as a federal employee for supposedly being 'entitled and lazy.' Many fear the demonization of trans people could turn into a witch hunt to root them out of federal employment. NJ said they are 'well known as being out and trans,' which now makes them feel like 'a massive target.' They worry that it's only a matter of time until they're fired, despite having a track record of high performance at their work. Felix worries that 'McCarthyism,' as he put it, is going to happen again and he's going to be fired just for being trans. He isn't out at work, but he has been 'very honest and forthright' in official paperwork and processes to get clearance to work on the base, where he worked when he originally transitioned. 'They have all of my records,' he said. 'All of my information is out there.' Even though most of his co-workers don't know he's trans, 'I feel very exposed and vulnerable,' he said. At some point, there was a glitch in an internal records program that's connected to his Social Security number, and instead of populating his real name it populated his birth name and gender at birth. It took months to get I.T. to fix it, and in that time a higher-up happened to look at the records that revealed his birth name. He's working on how to best cope with what he's experiencing. He's been going to the gym more, but he's also isolating himself from friends and acquaintances, feeling safest in his own home. 'I cry a lot,' he said. Not many people at work know Dale is trans—he presents as male to those who don't know him personally. But if someone wanted to find out, there's a form in his personnel file from when he changed his name, and there's the Social Security file. 'Theoretically if anybody had a reason to look it would not be difficult to identify me as a trans person,' he said. 'I think that it is prudent to assume that the worst outcomes are possible.' If they don't get fired in mass layoffs or a trans witch hunt, the question of whether to stay in the government or flee to a different job is at the top of everyone's minds. Felix didn't even consider taking the 'fork in the road' offer, but a more recent deferred resignation offer has been tempting. 'I don't know how much more, mentally and emotionally, I can take this,' he said. Then again, he said, 'That's exactly what they want. They want to wear people down, and I don't want to be worn down like that.' Rian is determined to stay as long as they can. 'They want me to disappear, but I need to stay and hold the line,' they said. 'When somebody actively tries to erase you, the most powerful response to that is: I exist.' Dale was similarly defiant when he received the 'fork in the road' email. 'I was like, 'You are going to drag me out of this office, I'm not going to quit,'' he said. 'This is my job, but it's also my work, I believe in it deeply and I'm not walking away.' Nevertheless, he's thinking through contingency plans. It's hard to know exactly what he's planning for. Getting fired? Getting outed? Being disappeared? He thinks a lot about what it would take for him to leave the country. 'It is important to me that I took an oath to defend the Constitution. This is my country too, and I don't want to get pushed out of it,' he said. 'So what would it take? And I don't know. I have no idea.'
New York Times
19-04-2025
- Business
- New York Times
So, Why'd You Leave That Job?
A Frustrating NDA This is a complicated question with a relatively simple answer: Just tell people, if they ask, that your former job was not the right fit for you. People take breaks in between jobs all the time, often for personal reasons, and you won't raise eyebrows if you explain the pause in your employment that way. You may also want to use this as an opportunity to convey your excitement about your new job. This keeps things focused on the present, not the past, and helps explain why you took, as you put it, a 'step down' in terms of title. Talk up your new company; communicate how happy you are, and why you're grateful for your current gig. If pressed by people on the reasons for your departure from your previous job, you can repeat that the job was not the right fit for you and that as part of your departure package you agreed not to talk about your time there. But ultimately, you're just going to have to be OK with people wondering — if they wonder, that is — why you left your previous job. It's part of being in the work force. It is what it is. The Co-Worker I Can't Stand You're never going to know whether your colleague's attitude is about age or gender or something else. And you certainly can't ask him. So you need to let that part go. And you need to at least try to let go of the other part as well — the colleague's overall comportment. I mean, I get it. Obsequiousness can be cringe-inducing, coming across as cloying or smarmy and even, as you say, patronizing. It's challenging to be in the presence of, and makes some of us want to rip our hair out. But there's nothing you can do. You can't in good faith have your colleague moved off the project — his work is solid, you say — and, besides, a person's communication style, unless it's truly toxic or offensive, does not justify speaking with H.R. about it. (What I can't tell is whether or not this colleague is a peer or an employee over whom you wield power or influence. Though it doesn't matter. My advice would be the same.) The question that remains, I suppose, is whether you can say something directly to him. Or whether you should. I don't think you can, and I don't think you should. Though you may feel a temporary reprieve from your irritation, addressing him about his way of speaking will only make things more difficult for you in the long run. (I get the sense that this project is not ending anytime soon.) So I hate to say it, but you're just going to have to hold your nose. Try to tolerate the situation as much as you're able, and maybe try to come up with some strategies to better limit your direct interactions or mitigate your extreme irritation. For example: Might you be able to work with this individual over email or Slack instead of in person? Maybe you can make a list of this person's positive attributes, something you can refer to when the going gets really tough with him. Listen, work isn't always fun and easy, and neither are our co-workers. And some of work culture involves putting aside our feelings and annoyances about those co-workers as much as possible. This is what you're going to have to do here. It may not be fun, it may not be easy, but it's necessary. Not to sound patronizing, of course.
New York Times
05-04-2025
- General
- New York Times
Do Dogs Belong at Work?
Not a Dog Lover First of all, we need to address your discomfort with being one of the only Black employees in your small company. Been there, done that. (Most of my life, in fact.) My experience is one where I've felt both like I stand out among my (white) professional peers by being Black, while at the same time feeling invisible to them as a human. One of my experiences with this involved a smarmy white manager in a small private company who hired multiple women of color to serve in roles below him, a savvy sleight of hand that made him look politically progressive while at the same time providing cover for his lack of curiosity about the actual lives they led and his contemptuous manner toward them when they dared disagree with him about, well, anything. Why do I bring all this up? Because you say that you don't want to be ostracized 'even more,' a phrasing that suggests you already feel punished at work in some form or fashion. And, because your letter makes no mention of challenges that relate directly to your job performance or any negative professional feedback you've received, your choice of words suggests something sinister, namely that you're being (or feeling!) punished for being Black. I'd ask you to sit with this for a moment and ask yourself a few questions. Have you felt this way from the beginning? Have you noticed a difference in treatment toward your other Black colleagues? Would you feel comfortable approaching one or more of these colleagues for a discussion about how they've navigated this mostly white space? These are not questions you necessarily need to answer right now, but they might help you better understand your current work situation and feelings of alienation. On to the dog(s). I'll admit that it's a lot more difficult for me — a big animal lover — to put myself in your shoes, especially because the dog you describe doesn't sound threatening, just annoying. (Most dogs are very people-oriented and affectionate, so it's hard to expect them to adhere to human concepts of personal space.) It's also hard for me to tell whether your dislike is rooted in fear, which would change things, in my mind. Why? Because I don't think saying something about disliking the dog is going to go over well with your colleagues. (As a pet owner, I hate to say it, but it's true.) If, however, you're frightened of animals — or say that you are — I hope that there will be enough empathy on your co-workers' part that they might try to keep their dog away from you. Emphasis on 'try': Without tying the dog up, which I don't think the co-worker will or should do, the dog will go where he or she wants to go, and that will sometimes be in your direction. Barring some way of closing off your workspace so that the dog cannot get near you while you're working — A baby gate? Bear with me, I'm just spitballing here — I think you're going to have to either say something to your co-worker or an H.R. representative about being scared, or steel yourself and try to tolerate your extreme discomfort when you're in the office. I get that it's not fun. At all. (You use the word 'torture' to describe your inner turmoil.) You can try saying the dog is distracting — which it might very well be, even and especially for animal lovers. But though we dog people might be judgmental about others' uninterest in other creatures, we're much less likely to bristle against others' fears, which is why 'I'm scared' is your most compelling card to play. Let us know what happens! Lean on the Dress Code Wow. This week is full of tough questions with no easy answers. (Which is part of the reason I picked them.) I have some experience with this. A female co-worker at a long-ago gig used to wear very loose tank tops with no bra underneath, meaning that she often bared her breasts when she bent over. It was mortifying, distracting and unprofessional — but at the same time I was fascinated. The co-worker, whom I'll call Abby, had to know what she was doing, which suggested an exhibitionist side that, if I'm honest, I found a bit amusing. The thing is: I wasn't her supervisor. Beyond a few times when I whispered, 'Abby! I can see your breasts!' I didn't feel like I had the standing to say anything. You, on the other hand, do have standing — not to mention the go-ahead from H.R. So I think you have to own this one and act on your co-workers' complaints. (I differ from the previous Work Friend columnist on this.) I'm torn, however, as to whether you should communicate expectations around dress to the group as a whole. Doing so might embarrass the employee, since it's possible that she's the only offender in terms of inappropriate attire. So I'm leaning toward discussing it with her directly. As for how to do this? You can use some of the phrasing you used in your letter to me. For example: 'I understand that many workplaces nowadays have adopted a more 'business casual' dress code, but we work in a formal professional setting and I expect staffers to show up to work in formal, professional attire.' (It might be — or feel — harder to do this if you're a man, I want to acknowledge, but if you choose the right language, it should work.) Vanessa Friedman, The Times's chief fashion critic, suggests that you first find a neutral space where you can chat with your employee — not your office, which could feel disempowering for her. Start the conversation by acknowledging that, though she is within her rights to dress how she wishes, her colleagues are commenting on her attire, which is taking away from their perception or understanding of the quality of her work. 'It may be useful information, if delivered the right way,' says Friedman. I also consulted with Susan Scafidi, the founder of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Law School. She told me that the important thing when speaking to an employee about an unprofessional appearance at work is to avoid addressing any immutable characteristics, like hair or body type. 'You can say, 'You are absolutely entitled to have your own style, but for this office, we prefer to be a little more covered up, and that's true for all of our colleagues,'' says Scafidi. 'And that's about the best you can do.' Scafidi also wonders whether there's a workplace standard, or dress code, in place at your office; if so, she suggests that you review it and share it with your employee. Listen, there could be a whole host of things going on here, including differences in what is considered appropriate, clothingwise, among and between older and younger generations. ('It has been ever thus,' says Friedman.) Economic circumstances should also be taken into consideration. Professional attire can be expensive and difficult to access when you're an entry-level or younger employee. I had experience with this earlier in my career, when I regularly wore the 'nicest' things I had — strappy sundresses — to an internship in a wood-paneled office of a storied magazine. I still wince at the thought. But ultimately, there's only so much you can do. It's very possible that your employee is aware of her sartorial provocations but just doesn't care. (It sounds like this may be the case.) 'You can tell if someone is freaking out or having any sort of reaction at all to what you're wearing,' says Friedman. 'And I think the manager can say: 'Look, I support you. I support your right to wear what you want. But maybe consider putting a jacket on.'' (For another perspective on this question, check out this week's 'Social Q's' column.)
New York Times
17-03-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Accusations of Corporate Espionage Shake a Software Rivalry
Spy accusations inflame an H.R. rivalry One of the most bitter rivalries in the world of H.R. service providers just took a turn that wouldn't be out of place in a spy thriller. Rippling on Monday sued Deel, accusing its competitor of hiring a mole in its Dublin office to comb through Rippling's trade secrets, a scheme that reached its rival's highest ranks, DealBook's Michael de la Merced reports. Rippling said it had uncovered the defector through a 'honeypot' trap — a Slack channel set up specifically for the ruse that was mentioned in a letter to top Deel executives. 'We're all for healthy competition, but we won't tolerate when a competitor breaks the law,' Vanessa Wu, Rippling's general counsel, said in a statement. A Deel spokeswoman declined to comment. The back story: Both companies have turned the seemingly humdrum business of human resources into multibillion-dollar operations. Rippling was most recently valued at $13.5 billion, according to the data provider Pitchbook, while Deel was valued at more than $12 billion. Aggressiveness also runs in their DNA, especially at Rippling, whose co-founder and C.E.O., Parker Conrad, is known for an especially hard-charging managerial style. The two have clashed repeatedly in recent years, with Conrad barring former Rippling employees who decamped to Deel from participating in secondary stock sales. A Rippling investor is also tied to a lawsuit in Florida accusing Deel of violating Russia sanctions. Rippling is now accusing Deel of perpetrating a 'brazen act of corporate theft.' In the lawsuit, Rippling said that the employee it had accused of being a plant — referred to in the complaint as D.S. — started searching for mentions of Deel in its Slack messaging system at an elevated rate starting in November. The goal, Rippling asserted, was to find information relating to sales leads involving Deel customers, pitch decks and more. Rippling said it began to suspect a mole when Deel tried to hire at least 17 members of its global payroll operations team via WhatsApp — which requires knowing those people's phone numbers — and when a reporter for The Information asked for comment about internal Slack messages relating to payments into Russia in violation of sanctions. A security review showed that D.S. had searched for those messages. Rippling said it had also discovered correspondence between D.S. and Alex Bouaziz, Deel's C.E.O. and co-founder. How Rippling said the scheme was uncovered: Earlier this month, Wu sent a letter to three people, including Philippe Bouaziz, Deel's chairman and C.F.O. (and father of Alex Bouaziz). The letter referenced a Slack channel that Wu implied had embarrassing information about Deel — but was really set up as part of the trap. Within hours, D.S. started searching the channel, the company asserts. Rippling said it obtained a court order last week forcing D.S. to turn over his phone. But when a court-appointed lawyer showed up at Rippling's Dublin office and demanded that the employee hand over the device, D.S. locked himself in a bathroom. He later fled the scene, it said. Rippling is playing hardball. Its lead lawyer on the lawsuit is Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, known for representing Elon Musk, Jay-Z and Mayor Eric Adams of New York City. 'This was not an isolated act of misconduct — it was a deliberate attack, perpetrated for over four months, designed to steal and weaponize critical competitive data,' the complaint reads. Stocks continue to wobble. The S&P 500 looks set to open lower on Monday with tariff jitters pushing the benchmark index into a four-week losing streak. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent played down the market turmoil on NBC's 'Meet the Press' yon Sunday, saying the S&P 500's fall into correction territory last week was a 'healthy,' 'normal' occurrence. That said, the dollar is plummeting and investors are flocking to non-U.S. financial assets. And this just in: The O.E.C.D. sees 'trade restrictions' hitting global growth and leading to higher inflation. Another tech company looks set to test the I.P.O. market. Klarna filed late last week to go public, seeking to be valued at roughly $15 billion. That's still far below its 2021 valuation, at the height of the fintech boom. But a hot-performing I.P.O. — along with one by CoreWeave, an A.I. start-up — could help revive the moribund market for listings. Oracle reportedly ramps up talks with the White House on a TikTok deal. The software company has emerged as a front-runner to take over U.S. operations for the Chinese video app, with Vice President JD Vance and Mike Waltz, the national security adviser, playing a key advisory role in the talks, Politico reports. Still, Oracle faces significant obstacles, not least an April 5 deadline for TikTok to find a U.S. owner or be shut down. OpenAI and Elon Musk agree to a fast-track trial. What's emerged as the biggest feud in the tech industry — Musk suing to stop OpenAI's push to become a for-profit company — could go to trial in December. The presiding judge rejected Musk's demand for an injunction on OpenAI, but said a speedy trial was desirable, given 'the public interest at stake.' Still unresolved: Will the high-stakes dispute be heard by a jury? The week ahead It's an especially packed week, with central banks taking center stage. Here's what to watch: Monday: The release of February retail sales data will be in focus after some major retailers, including Dollar General, warned that consumers had begun to pull back on spending. Tuesday: Tech investors will be looking for a lift from Jensen Huang, the Nvidia C.E.O. He's set to deliver the keynote address at the chipmaker's marquee A.I. event. Wednesday: It's decision day. The Fed is expected to stand pat on interest rates, putting the spotlight on Jay Powell's news conference. Watch for what he says about the economy and inflation as trade-war jitters buffet global markets. Separately, the Bank of Japan is also likely to keep rates unchanged but signal that it's ready to raise them soon. Thursday: It's the Bank of England's turn; it too will probably keep its benchmark rate unchanged as President Trump's tariff uncertainty looms. Separately, Accenture, Nike, FedEx and the Olive Garden parent Darden Restaurants report quarterly results. Trump vs. Big Law For weeks, law firms across the country have wondered if they're going to be next on President Trump's list. He recently revoked security clearances for several top firms, limiting their ability to represent clients and undermining a basic premise of the legal system. Trump's latest attack took aim at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, one of the most important firms, whose clients include investment giants like Apollo Global Management, tech leaders like Google and big names like the New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. It raises key questions about how high-profile clients and white-shoe law firms are supposed to navigate the Trump era, DealBook's Lauren Hirsch reports. Do clients have any recourse? Many stay with a firm for decades, not only because of the trust built over time but also business arrangements are often complex and would be hard to unwind. Some clients might be Trump supporters. Could they step in and broker a deal? Will law firms band together? Representatives for Apollo, Kraft and Google did not respond to requests for comment on whether they planned to stay with Paul, Weiss. Catch up. In February, Trump issued an executive order that revoked the security clearance for the law firm Covington & Burling, which represented Jack Smith, the former special counsel who pursued two separate indictments of the president in 2023. And earlier this month, the president signed an executive order barring lawyers from Perkins Coie from entering federal buildings and stripping them of their security clearances. His order against Paul, Weiss was seen as retaliation against Mark Pomerantz, a former partner, who had tried to build a criminal case against Trump. (A Paul Weiss spokeswoman told The Times he left the firm in 2012.) Trump's attacks have been stifled for now. Perkins Coie sued Trump, and last week a federal judge temporarily barred his administration from carrying out punishments against the firm. Judge Beryl A. Howell of Federal District Court in Washington said the order sent 'little chills down my spine.' But his assault is already having a huge impact on business. Perkins Coie said in its suit against Trump that it had seen a 'significant' loss in revenue. Big firms are scrambling, DealBook hears. They're assessing their past work to see if they might be vulnerable to a Trump attack. Like many across corporate America, some have started to scrub any language about diversity, equity and inclusion on their websites to avoid attracting the spotlight. Firms fear speaking out. Some have debated whether they should express support for those in the cross hairs in a group statement, but worry that taking a public position would only draw Trump's anger and hurt their ability to represent clients. In a recent management meeting at a major corporate law firm, an argument broke out over whether to sign such a letter, one of its lawyers told DealBook. The partners ended the session without a resolution. 'Have some missteps been made? Yes, probably, because Kentucky bourbon has been included as if it were a trade threat.' — Prime Minister François Bayrou of France, arguing that the European Union's planned tariff on bourbon could backfire and hurt his country's cognac industry. The D.E.I. retreat, by the numbers Boardrooms appear to be fretting over the Trump administration's attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as the president directs agencies to investigate 'illegal D.E.I.' in the private sector. Companies found to be too woke might have trouble getting deals done. Executives are retreating from talking about it. The number of companies in the S&P 500 that used the language 'diversity, equity and inclusion' in their annual regulatory filings with the S.E.C. has fallen by nearly 60 percent from 2024, The Times's Emma Goldberg, Aaron Krolik and Lily Boyce report. After the killing of George Floyd killing sparked nationwide protests in 2020, the number of businesses using these terms spiked and started to drop just before Trump re-entered office. The real surprise: Despite the Oval Office backlash, 78 percent of those companies are still talking about their diversity-related initiatives. Deals Politics, policy and regulation Best of the rest
