In this particular case, Thomson was employed at North American Stainless along side his fiance. Thomson's fiance filed a charge with the EEOC alleging that she had been discriminated against by her superiors on the basis of her sex on February 13, 2003. A few weeks later on March 3, Thomson was terminated from North American Stainless.

The case was thrown out in District Court, with the decision stating that Thomson was not retaliated against directly in that he did not engage in the protected activity that the statute is meant to protect against, in this case reporting sexual discrimination to the EEOC. The Sixth Circuit Court upheld this decision.

However, the Obama administration has come out against the Sixth Circuit's determination, believing that decision to be made in error.

The Supreme Court has an excellent opportunity to correct a failing in current anti-retaliatory statutes designed to curb employment discrimination in the workplace. A Supreme Court decision against retaliating against relatives that are employed alongside the affected could strengthen the rights of employees and further ensure that illegal conduct is reported to the proper authorities.

Lets hope the Supreme Court acts in the best interest of workers and includes protections against retaliation for relatives.

The Plaintiff claims that she was interviewed to become an assistant to Mr. Lucas, carrying out duties on his sprawling estate in Northern California. Instead, when the individual learned she was pregnant, the job offer was rescinded. While the decision to not hire the individual was not made by Lucas, he was questioned as to the job duties and descriptions of his assistants at his ranch.

The testimony from other employees of Lucas revealed that they had sent numerous emails discussing the Plaintiff's pregnancy, and were ultimately concerned with how her pregnancy would affect her work at Lucas estate.

Lets see if the force is strong with this Plaintiff...

Considering a recent Pew Center report that claims that over 35 percent of users on social networking sites are aged 24 and older, and these individuals are increasingly present on networks like Facebook, the ability for sexual harassment in the workplace to spill over to these sites is increasing.

Sexual harassment is defined as any unwanted comments, gestures, statements, or actions directed at an individual based upon their sex. While sexual harassment in the workplace is generally understood, the shift to the online word and the possibilities for contact raise some questions, including what is considered harassment online? And
Aas this conduct occurs offline and not in the work place, who is liable for such conduct? Do employers need to take measures to reduce online communication for fear of harassment?

With more and more users on social networking sites like Facebook, coupled with lessened privacy controls over who can see your information, reports of sexual harassment online are growing. It is up to employers to adequately address any allegations of sexual harassment, if they happen in the office or in the virtual world of social networking sites.

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, individuals or groups have the burden of proving that there was a disparate impact on the group of older employees when evaluating employment decisions. The suit claims that the school intentionally fired elder employees and sought to lower the age of their demographics. Although age discrimination cases have become more difficult to prevail upon following the Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, which held that age must be the sole motivating factor for an employment action, cases where there a larger class of individuals may be able to suffciently meet this burden.

Rather than using the new id badge, Craig resigned and promptly sued the City for religious discrimination. Craig brought her suit pro-se against the City, meaning she wasn't represented by an attorney. Following the City's failure to explain why the City did not let her use her previously issued ID and move on, the Judge in the case ruled in Ms. Craig's favor.

All that was necessary was to hold hearings to determine what her actual damages would be. An attorney was appointed for her, but apparently the attorney was unable to work with Ms. Craig, refused to return his calls, ultimately resulting in the attorney asking to be removed from the case. During the hearing for damages, Craig again asked to be represented by counsel. The trial Judge, Judge Mauskopf, refused, and awarded her damages in the amount of one dollar.

This case is remarkable in a number of ways, in that the Plaintiff prevailed against the city for religious discrimination, and did so largely as a pro-se litigant, only to essentially throw her damages out the window on her own accord. Strange days, indeed.

As ridiculous as this may be, there are no laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of being unemployed, with the exception of the burden of proof showing that a policy barring the unemployed has a disparate impact on minority groups.

One employer with such a policy stated "It's our preference that they currently be employed," he said. "We typically go after people that are happy where they are and then tell them about the opportunities here." While it makes sense to ensure that applicants have the proper set of skills and are current with whatever field they are in, this approach seems to ignore the realities of the current economic climate, and that there are millions of talented individuals who are out of work for no reason other than a poor economy and bad luck. It wrongfully assumes that these individuals deserve to be or enjoy being unemployed.

Conversely, in bad economies, employers are likely to retain their best and most efficient talent, making currently employed individuals more desirable. But is this blanket ban a good business decision? These policies smack more of lazy employers than lazy employees.

Any type of prohibition for a certain group of employees is suspect, and to go target the unemployed seems like a highly questionable business decision. Do you know of any companies with these policies? Let us know.

The suit, filed in Kansas City, combines other lawsuits which have alleged that Bank Of America forced employees to work over 40 hours a week without proper overtime compensation. As well, employees were forced to work without meal breaks or rest periods, in violation of both state and federal statutes against it.

This suit could have potentially huge ramifications for the banking giant and its employees. We will continue to update this case as it progresses.

Read the Village Voice's full article here (complete with photos)

The firefighters alleged that beginning in 1995, in order be hired into the Fire Department, individuals would have to score higher than 65 percent on a written exam to qualify. The Fire Department would then only hire individuals who scored 89 percent or hire, and hire a random sampling of these individuals. This sampling had greatly impacted the ranks of African American's within the fire department, and a lower court Judge agreed.

Upon appeal however, it was argued that the firefighters did not make a timely claim of discrimination, and had their claims dismissed.

This time around five Justices, led by Antonin Scalia, determined that since the City has continued to use the discriminatory test since 1995, it would fall under the continuing violations doctrine. As a result, it was ordered that the City hire 132 members of the class, and to provide a payment for the other members of the class that were affected by this discriminatory policy.

Simmons, who has claimed to have seduced thousands of women over the years, denies any inappropriate touching. Simmons' defense: the suit of armor plating he was wearing would make it impossible to even get near someone, let alone carry out the sexual harassment and touching claimed in the suit. Simmons claims he will vigorously fight the charges.

The attorney, who has severe cerebral palsy, and cannot carry out even the most basic functions without assistance from others, had the Judge in his office. The Judge claims that he intentionally grabbed her, while the attorney counters that it was an involuntary and uncontrollable reaction as a result of his disability.

Read more at the Daily News' site- Lawyer: I didn't mean to touch judge's butt, my cerebral palsy made me do it

What do you think of this story?

Following an EEOC hearing and finding. the teacher was finally hired by the school district. However, she is now bringing a Federal Age Discrimination charge against the district, claiming lost wages for the two years between the failure to hire and eventual placement within the Greenwich school district.

Given the budget shortfalls in district's throughout America, it is both disappointing that school continue to fail to adhere to Federal laws and guidelines for hiring have resulted in lawsuits such as this.

This policy seems to be in violation of New York City's Consumer Protection Rules, which state that restaurants cannot charge an automatic gratuity, unless the service goes above and beyond what is stated in the menu, or is applied to parties of eight or more.

While not necessarily an employment law situation, it does raise many questions about how automatic "gratuities" are handled, and distributed to those who should be receiving them- like waitresses, porters, and back of house staff.

An employee had claimed that the individual had propositioned her for sex during the party, at which employees were said to be drinking.

Strangely, the employee who accused the individual of such sexual harassment herself was terminated while having sexual relations with a subordinate in the office, during work hours.

If these accusations are true, it is sad to see an attorney blatantly disregard the laws regarding sexual harassment in the workplace.