This public-sourced case is based on a series of decisions Microsoft and other US-based technology companies made between 2021 and 2022 related to hybrid and return-to-office work policies coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The case focuses on the balance that must be struck between policies that enable employee flexibility in terms of choosing a work modality (based on factors such as productivity, physical health considerations, professional growth, and home care requirements, among others), while not disproportionately harming career prospects for historically marginalized groups who might prefer to work remotely (out of preference or necessity). Discussion could focus on topics such as distribution of care work, professional double standards for women, intersectionality, and other ethical considerations. At the Darden School of Business, this case is taught in first-year and second-year ethics electives. It would also be suitable in a module covering diversity, equity, and inclusion.

After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, companies around the world built and refined models of working in both fully remote and hybrid environments. While many of these policies and programs focused on maintaining operational productivity, few intentionally considered equity in their structures or outlined guidelines to ensure all employees felt they were treated fairly, regardless of chosen work modality or other external factors. While many organizations looked at factors such as pay, promotion rate, and attrition across different demographics as key measurements of equity, the onset of remote work appeared to require an expansion of these variables to include work modality so that companies can more clearly understand how physical presence in the office might impact these measures of advancement in the workplace. This technical note offers an overview of equity and remote work, including benefits of remote work for marginalized groups and challenges presented by remote work, including career-limiting factors. At the Darden School of Business, it is taught in first-year and second-year ethics electives. It would also be suitable in a module covering diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In late 2021, Netflix leadership had to deal with some fierce employee and public blowback after airing The Closer, a comedy special by comedian Dave Chappelle. In the special-the last of six that Chappelle was contracted to make for Netflix-his targets included the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus others (LGBTQ+) community, particularly the transgender and nonbinary segments of that population. Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Reed Hastings were caught by surprise by the reaction, particularly from Netflix employees, to the special. While supportive of Chappelle despite his often-incendiary remarks over the years, Sarandos and Hastings knew they had to do major damage control. Had they made the wrong decision in allowing this particularly strident special to air? Should they take it off the platform? What was the future of Netflix's relationship with Chappelle? And-very importantly for a company that prized its workforce and had tried to create a culture of inclusion and diversity-how would they deal with Netflix's many disaffected employees?

In late 2021, Netflix leadership had to deal with some fierce employee and public blowback after airing The Closer, a comedy special by comedian Dave Chappelle. In the special-the last of six that Chappelle was contracted to make for Netflix-his targets included the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus others (LGBTQ+) community, particularly the transgender and nonbinary segments of that population. Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Reed Hastings were caught by surprise by the reaction, particularly from Netflix employees, to the special. While supportive of Chappelle despite his often-incendiary remarks over the years, Sarandos and Hastings knew they had to do major damage control. Had they made the wrong decision in allowing this particularly strident special to air? Should they take it off the platform? What was the future of Netflix's relationship with Chappelle? And-very importantly for a company that prized its workforce and had tried to create a culture of inclusion and diversity-how would they deal with Netflix's many disaffected employees?

In late 2021, Netflix leadership had to deal with some fierce employee and public blowback after airing The Closer, a comedy special by comedian Dave Chappelle. In the special-the last of six that Chappelle was contracted to make for Netflix-his targets included the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus others (LGBTQ+) community, particularly the transgender and nonbinary segments of that population. Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Reed Hastings were caught by surprise by the reaction, particularly from Netflix employees, to the special. While supportive of Chappelle despite his often-incendiary remarks over the years, Sarandos and Hastings knew they had to do major damage control. Had they made the wrong decision in allowing this particularly strident special to air? Should they take it off the platform? What was the future of Netflix's relationship with Chappelle? And-very importantly for a company that prized its workforce and had tried to create a culture of inclusion and diversity-how would they deal with Netflix's many disaffected employees?