Grant says in her lawsuit that she was hired “as a symbol of NASCAR’s newfound, purported commitment to diversity” and was regularly featured “at public out-reach programs designed to convince the media, corporate sponsors and others of the company’s diversity.”

Her suit names over 23 NASCAR employees, ranking from top to bottom within the organization, who allegedly participated in racial and sexual harassment and discrimination. In the lawsuit, most of the individuals are connected to the shocking racial epithets that they used. So far, Knox and Moore are the only two to have been let go.

It remains to be seen what will happen to the rest of the employees named in the lawsuit. Grant is asking for between $25 million and $50 million for seven different charges, for a total of $225 million.

Charles Daniels, a black avionics electrician, received the money. When he worked for Lockheed Martin, he was repeatedly subjected to alleged racial discrimination. His job required him to move every 4 to 6 weeks according to one report and, unfortunately, the harassment followed – from Florida to Washington to Hawaii.

After Daniels and one of his white co-workers reported the harassment to Lockheed HR the racism increased, and the offenders increased from two people to four, according to a statement by the EEOC.

On top of racial epithets, Daniels was subjected to death threats, threats of lynching and told “how easy it would be for him to be made to disappear on Whidbey Island.” He also witnessed co-workers circling the block around his apartment on Whidbey Island, Washington late at night, forcing him to uproot and move to Seattle, according to one report.

When he was told he was going to be sent to Maine where he would work under one of the employees that harassed him in the past, his objections fell on deaf ears. He was chastised by an HR representative after announcing he had filed a complaint on the issue. Daniels says the HR person responded by saying, “You did what? I could have given you a job. We have 130,000 employees. I could create a job if I wanted to. You see that file cabinet behind you? It’s filled with thousands of complaints just like yours. We’re Lockheed Martin. We never lose. You can take your chances with the EEOC.”

The EEOC determined that Lockheed Martin was properly notified about all the disturbing behavior, yet “failed to discipline the harassers and instead allowed the discrimination against Daniels to continue unabated,” according to an EEOC statement on the issue.

The settlement was publicized about a month before the case was set to go to trial. On top of the fine, Lockheed Martin was also required to fire Daniels’ four co-workers and supervisor that harassed him during his tenure, as well as implement a more stringent anti-discrimination policy. The five employees are barred from ever working for Lockheed Martin again.

According to the original compliant filed last year (which can be downloaded here), the firm has discriminated against African Americans and Latinos in the distribution of accounts and other business opportunities in its retail brokerage division since 2002.

While the terms of the five-year agreement are confidential (for now at least – they will be revealed when it is submitted to the court for approval), attorneys with the firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein said that the agreement did include provisions for changed recruiting, hiring, promotion, and account distribution policies. Furthermore, Morgan Stanley agreed to undergo diversity training in addition to appointing an independent “Diversity Monitor” to oversee that the terms of the settlement are carried out.

Nike was originally sued over this supposed systemic discrimination back in December 2003. The case, which involved approximately 400 current and former black employees of the store, was certified in March of 2004.

While Nike has denied all allegations of wrongdoing and liability, the company agreed in the settlement, among other things, to appoint a compliance officer at headquarters as well as conduct diversity training for supervisors.

Commentary: We were surprised at this case to begin with as Nike is tremendously sensitive to its reputation (and the African-American community is a core customer base so this suit represented a double-whammy). We were also surprised that Nike did not already have a “compliance officer” at its headquarters as suggested in the settlement (note the required hire). We hope this represents an isolated circumstance and puts the issue behind them with no further problems occuring elsewhere.

John Sullivan was hired in 1999 and then later demoted and replaced by a black subordinate. He claimed an African American supervisor discriminated against him and then later fired him in November 2002 based on his race. The EEOC agreed and sued on his behalf in 2005.

The jury awarded Sullivan $24,200 in expenses and another $61,000 in back pay.

Commentary: Of the 27,000 claims made annually with the EEOC, race-based claims are the most common. Only about 10% of those claims involve whites as the ‘victim’ and verdicts such as this one are quite rare.

Not surprisingly A&P strongly disagreed with the verdict and indicated that it would appeal. We recommend dropping it and moving on – especially considering no punitive damages were awarded. The company might not be so lucky the next time around.

This article from the San Francisco Gate detailed the claims:

[A] secretary’s allegations that the board chairwoman tried to pay her $10,000 to have a baby for her – and then punished her when she wouldn’t – [has] set off a charge that had everybody from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to state Senate leader Don Perata scrambling for cover this past week.

As Connelly tells it, Richardson called her into her office in September and explained that she wanted to have a child, but was already in her 50s. So she asked whether Connelly, a 31-year-old single mom, would be interested in being paid $10,000 to become a surrogate mother – although it would have to wait until Richardson was done with her board term so it wouldn’t conflict with her job as Connelly’s boss…

Connelly thought it over for a few days, then declined, she says. Richardson promptly turned sour toward her and began berating her regularly over the job she was doing in the office, Connelly says.

Once, she said, Richardson brought her dog to the office and told Connelly to walk it and clean up after it.

Commentary: You have got to love Governor Schwarzengger’s response to this suit (remember, California is the home of AB 1825, which mandates 2 hours of sexual harassment training for all managers every 2 years): “I will soon appoint a new chair for the board.” Schwarzenegger also mandated that the entire board “receive additional (sex harassment) training before its next meeting.”

In the Cline case, the Supreme Court found that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) did not prohibit employers from favoring an older employee over a younger one. As a result, the EEOC adjusted its ADEA regulations by removing language that prohibited discrimination against younger individuals.

The suit, which also claimed African-Americans were denied promotional opportunities based on race, sought back pay and compensatory and punitive damages.

Commentary: In Walgreen’s defense, having so many locations (doesn’t is seem like there is one on every corner?) and operating in diverse neighborhoods makes the company a likely target for these kind of actions.

For example, just a few weeks ago, another lawsuit alleging racial discrimination by the company against black customers was dismissed. That trial had originally stemmed from November 2005 lawsuit alleging that the company had fostered “a hostile environment” for black customers (for example, by having them followed while they shopped to make sure that they weren’t shoplifting) and employees.

We highly doubt that this settlement is a sign of a significant discrimination problem within the company, but we are too distant to comment on the merits of the cases of the individual plaintiffs. To Walgreen’s credit, the company was wise to point out when announcing the settlement that it was not an acknowledgment of guilt, but rather an attempt to simply move beyond the case. In fact, in the announcement, a company spokesman pointed out that African-Americans represent 17 percent of the company’s store managers and district managers – which, according to the statement, is significantly higher than the industry average.

In his order, the judge took issue with the fact that the proposed accord included a rich $2.25 million in attorney’s fees, did not provide adequate notification to hundreds of Oracle’s U.S. hourly workers, blocked future claims by those who weren’t contacted, and provided non-California workers lower compensation.

Alsup ordered the case to proceed toward certification of a group (class-action) lawsuit.

Commentary: We have never seen a FLSA case so roundly rejected by a federal judge. This case does raise some interesting questions around potential conflicts of interest for the plaintiffs and their attorneys. For example, we’re left wondering if, with the right fees, they were happy to push through a lower settlement for Oracle and limit the rights of future plaintiffs in the case. Overall, the dollar settlement did seem quite low compared to similar cases in the software industry – so perhaps the judge had the right to be suspicious. And, as the judge noted himself (citing estimates from lawyers involved in the case), Oracle may be forced to pay $52.7 million in this specific case if it loses at trial.

This case is based on accusations of former Morgan Stanley assistant against her boss, a broker in the bank’s Melville, Long Island office. As the NY Daily News reported last week:

In a suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court yesterday, Lisa LaMacchia, 30, claimed Richard Dorfman sexually tormented her. And when she complained to higher-ups, she was ordered transferred and ultimately fired, the court papers charge.

Morgan Stanley spokeswoman Christy Pollak insisted the firm’s policy against sexual harassment is “strongly enforced.” [but] LaMacchia’s lawyer, Joseph Ranni, scoffed at the notion.

“This is how these guys operate,” he said. “Subordinates are just fair game, especially young women. And if managers think they can do things with impunity, they’re emboldened.”

The suit is the latest in a string of legal actions against Morgan Stanley that have highlighted boorish boys’ club behavior on Wall Street. The bank has shelled out $100 million to settle sex-bias suits from women who claim they were shortchanged or forced to endure raunchy office shenanigans.

The lawyer said the abuse his client endured was especially egregious in light of the tens of millions Morgan Stanley has paid to settle sex-bias suits. “It shows they don’t want to get it,” he said. “They don’t want to do a thing about it.”

Commentary: We left out all the lurid details, leaving readers to go to the NY Daily News to check it out for themselves. It’s hard to miss though – just look for the NY Daily News headline, “BOSS STOLE MY UNDIES EX-MORGAN STANLEY WORKERS SAYS.” Rather embarrassing considering that the The NY Daily News has only…1 million subscribers.

The jury sided with Target as they saw Patton’s demotion as a decision made regardless of his military service. However, the jury decided that the company retaliated against Patton for asking the National Gaurd to intervene following his demotion. In a statement, Target revealed its intent to appeal the decision on the ground that they believe the case is “without merit” and cited Target’s strong history of support for its employees (many of whom, as the statement pointed out, are veterans, reservists, or members of the National Guard).

Commentary: This is unfortunate as Target has a strong compliance and ethics track record. We believe that this is an isolated event and not reflective of any broader organizational culture problems at the company.

What this case does is highlight the increasingly important role that the Internet plays in helping to sway public perception of an organization’s reputation. When a story gets traction in an online community, as this one did with the online military community, a company may be well-advised to settle and get it out of the press rather than try to reverse it on principle – however tempting it may be. Viral marketing works in mysterious ways, including against a company. What we do know is that it is can be close to impossible to control (unless you are in China of course).

The jury agreed.

Commentary: A large case? No. Groundbreaking ruling? No. However, we rarely see one-off age discrimination complaints pursued in court (they’re either settled beforehand or never filed due to weak evidence), so this is simply a good learning example for corporate compliance/HR departments and an excellent reminder to document all employment decisions. Including attorneys’ fees to be submitted by the plaintiff’s lawyers (as well as their own), the dealership’s “all-in” costs in this case will likely be in excess of $500,000.

This issuance serves a couple purposes. First, it reacts to the increasing number of caregivers entering the workforce. It also sets the stage for new EEOC litigation. Look for the number of caregiver discrimination lawsuits filed by the commission to rise in the coming months.

Commentary:You can view/download the actual guidelines directly from the EEOC’s website here. Will this guidance open up a flood of new litigation? We suspect that it will certainly have an impact. For example, pregnancy discrimination cases have been on the rise in recent years with the EEOC – and we see this form of discrimination as somewhat analogous.