Filipino workers were not allowed to use the company cafeteria for their lunches. Non-Chinese employees were not allowed access to food, lodging or medical care. The company said this separation, although blatantly illegal, “promoted a harmonious working environment.”

The EEOC also alleged in its lawsuit that pregnant employees were laid off and replaced with other, non-pregnant workers.

After the discriminated employees complained and reported the violations to the EEOC, they were all told that they were being laid off because of low sales. All the laid off employees were replaced by Chinese workers.

“This major settlement shows that the EEOC will vigorously protect the rights of all workers, within every reach of our jurisdiction, to be free of discrimination,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The resolutions of these egregious cases bring a measure of justice to the many workers who were retaliated against and otherwise victimized by discriminatory employment practices because of their national origin, age, or pregnancy.”

The $1.7 million payment will resolve four separate discrimination lawsuits brought against L&T and its affiliates by the EEOC. The affiliates are Tan Holdings Corporation; Tan Holdings Overseas, Inc.; Concorde Garment Manufacturing Corp.; Micro Pacific, Inc.; Seasonal Inc.; and L&T International Corp.

The company will also have to implement a series of injunctive relief measures, such as hiring an equal opportunity consultant to train all managers and employees and agreeing to being monitored by the EEOC, among other remedies.

Filipino workers were not allowed to use the company cafeteria for their lunches. Non-Chinese employees were not allowed access to food, lodging or medical care. The company said this separation, although blatantly illegal, “promoted a harmonious working environment.”

The EEOC also alleged in its lawsuit that pregnant employees were laid off and replaced with other, non-pregnant workers.

After the discriminated employees complained and reported the violations to the EEOC, they were all told that they were being laid off because of low sales. All the laid off employees were replaced by Chinese workers.

“This major settlement shows that the EEOC will vigorously protect the rights of all workers, within every reach of our jurisdiction, to be free of discrimination,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “The resolutions of these egregious cases bring a measure of justice to the many workers who were retaliated against and otherwise victimized by discriminatory employment practices because of their national origin, age, or pregnancy.”

The $1.7 million payment will resolve four separate discrimination lawsuits brought against L&T and its affiliates by the EEOC. The affiliates are Tan Holdings Corporation; Tan Holdings Overseas, Inc.; Concorde Garment Manufacturing Corp.; Micro Pacific, Inc.; Seasonal Inc.; and L&T International Corp.

The company will also have to implement a series of injunctive relief measures, such as hiring an equal opportunity consultant to train all managers and employees and agreeing to being monitored by the EEOC, among other remedies.

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.

The jury deliberated for a mere 3 and a half hours before delivering its decision, ultimately deciding that Noyes should have been placed in the manager’s position, could have performed the manager’s duties and would have been promoted to manager if she had been in the Fellowship of Friends (though not quite in those words).

For their part, Kelly plans to appeal the decision.

“We believe today’s decision was made in error with respect to both the law and the facts in this case,” Daniel T. Lis, Kelly Services’ general counsel, said after the verdict was announced. “We are confident that there are a significant number of grounds on which we will appeal, which we intend to do.”

So don’t hold your breath, Lynn Noyes. Previous experience has shown us it could be quite some time before you get your $6.5 million.

Beginning April 6th, employers must take reasonable steps to curb harassment if they are aware that at least two incidents had already occurred. As Stuart Chamberlain, an employment law expert, told the Guardian, “Shops or bars may be able to put up notices explaining that staff harassment is not tolerated. However, professional services companies who encourage staff to socialize with clients may find it difficult to convey that message.”

The article describes a related study:

A Canadian study of retail workers 10 years ago found that a majority had been sexually harassed by customers in their job but were reluctant to confront them or complain because the work environment emphasized customer satisfaction. They were likely instead to avoid male customers and be less friendly, which could affect their job performance.

The law came about after a ruling that the British government wasn’t doing enough to protect workers from “any unwanted conduct related to their sex which violates their dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.”

Well, according to California law, tips can’t be split between employees and managers. A California court has ruled that Starbucks shift supervisors are in fact “managers” according to state law. Because of this, Starbucks now faces a class-action case stemming from one disgruntled California employee who filed suit in 2004 for the barista/shift supervisor tip sharing. The preliminary trial found the company liable and the damages portion starts today, according to the San Diego Tribune. According to a lawyer involved in the case, the final damages could be in the eight figure range.

The blog Starbucks Gossip has a take on the story here. What’s particularly interesting are the reader’s comments, most of whom apparently work at Starbucks stores across the United States and Canada and tend to side with the shift supervisors on this issue.

The proposed regulations would amend key provisions of the FMLA rules, including:

-employer and employee notice requirements;

-nonconsecutive periods of service in determining “eligible employee”;

-the “two-visit” treatment requirement in the definition of “continuing treatment”;

-fitness-for-duty certification and recertification;

-HIPAA privacy requirements and contact with healthcare providers;

-substitution of paid leave;

-joint employers and the 50-employees-within-75-miles requirement;

-and, to address employer challenges in administering intermittent leave, an added provision allowing employers to contact healthcare providers to discern whether an employee’s absence patterns are consistent with the employee’s qualifying medical condition.

These new proposals are an attempt to “restore balance to the FMLA,” according to Marc Freedman, director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. A big complaint that employer’s have about the current FMLA is that employees can take up to two business days to announce that their leave of absence is FMLA related. Obviously, this makes it difficult for employers to schedule their business.

Workforce management posted a thorough analysis of the new changes here.

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.

The Eight Members Club (which, in actuality, has about 800 members) is a private club that ensures “privacy and exclusivity” to its members so that “every detail of your time at eight is nothing short of perfection.” A spokesperson for the club denied firing Ms. Thomas because of her age, but rather because she was an unsatisfactory worker:

“It’s a very strange ruling because this is a young person’s business and many of the waiters and waitresses working here are the same age or even younger than Megan. She had finished her six months’ probation and had made some mistakes, so we decided to end her employment.”

Unfortunately for Ms. Thomas, landmark rulings don’t always equate to landmark fees and penalties. She’s expected to be compensated in the four digit range, however that number could possibly dip under the £1,000 mark. Not to worry, though, as she has already secured a higher paying job. As she puts it:

“I secured new employment on a higher salary of £25,000 on 7 August, 2007. I enjoy my new job where the employer treats me with respect and does not look down on me because of my age.”

U.S. District Judge Terence Kern determined that the law contradicts federal workplace safety requirements established in the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The suit was initially filed by Whirlpool Co in 2004. Later Williams Co. and ConocoPhillips joined the suit, however both Whirlpool and Williams eventually dropped out, leaving ConocoPhillips as the sole plaintiff.

Soon after the suit was filed, the National Rifle Association (NRA) spearheaded a protest against Conoco Phillips by urging members to boycott Conoco gas stations. Conoco Phillips responded by reminding the NRA that retail gas stations that sell Conoco gasoline are not owned by the company, and therefore the boycott is affecting innocent businesses.

Similar gun laws have passed in Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky and Minnesota. All were created after eight Oklahoma employees were fired by Weyerhauser Corp. in 2002 after leaving guns in their cars parked in company parking lots. Although an appeal is likely, similar suits are expected to be filed in those states following Kern’s decision.

The case was brought against Sidley Austin in 2005 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which alleged that the lawyers were terminated or demoted to make room for younger employees to fill their positions.

Sidley claims the settlement was to put the issue behind the company and not an admission of guilt.

In a press release issued by the firm, Sidley announced 10 of the lawyers still work for the company, albeit in a reduced manner.

The firm believed that because the 32 employees were partners, they were no longer protected under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which prevents employment discrimination against people 40 and over.

Dillon’s lawyer, Randy Rumph, said the company was getting rid of more experienced, higher paid employees and replacing them with younger, less expensive workers.

The company claimed Dillon was fired because he forged customer’s signatures on work orders.

Rumph believes that Dillon’s $3.7 million award is the largest in Nevada’s history of wrongful termination suits; other cases with higher awards had the funds divided among multiple plaintiffs.

Dillon worked for West Group of Minnesota from 1994 to 1999 as a senior sales representative. He was 53 when he was fired.

The state had previously fined Baines $2,000 after investigating allegations of racism and creating a hostile work environment, however it allowed him to keep his position. Pasternak claims the abuse led to “insomnia, anxiety and depression.”

Read the complete story here.

Non-white people were three times as likely to report leaving their work due to unfair workplace treatment than heterosexual white men. As David Blood, a former Goldman Sachs executive, puts it:

“If companies have high turn-over or are unable to attract top talent, they will not perform in the long run . . . Not dealing with these issues is flawed finance and flawed business strategy.”

Commentary: As the article states, this trend isolates competent workers that could otherwise help a US company against ‘low-cost’ rivals in other parts of the world. The discrimination doesn’t just affect the individual worker, but the entire company as well.

When first implemented in 2005, the law was unclear on whether web-based training seminars were permitted. The new law permits online training so long as the coursework is created by “experts” – which, in this case, includes attorneys with two or more years experience with California or federal anti bias laws, HR professionals, and professors.

Newly hired supervisors must receive their training within six months of entering their post.

Read more about the development here.

Commentary: An important update for all California employers. The use of web-based training will greatly increase the efficiency of the legislation and the accessibility of the training, sparing supervisors from giving up their time to travel to and from training centers.

The closing marked the second penalty in a year for Cafe del Mar, as it faced a $37,000 fine last October for similar allegations. It was the same agency that busted the club each time. In October, the club reportedly allowed a light-skinned couple to enter, but refused admission to a dark-skinned couple because there was a “private party”.

Read the story as printed in USA Today.

A jury determined that Robert Yarbrough broke his contract with the company after he violated non-competition obligations and leaked company secrets. He was charged with $1.1 million in damages.

Westport Big & Tall, a competitor of Casual Male, was charged $400,000 for interference with contractual relations.

After officers arrived at the crossing, Sims fled into the woods, leaving behind his luggage and medication. Records show that Sims’ phone was last used in Litchfield Park, Arizona, which is 180 miles from Williams.

Commentary: Diabetes is on the rise in the U.S. and we suspect that incidents like these (mistaking diabetic shock, when blood sugar goes too low and causes slurring and potentially death, as drunkeness) will only be on the increase. A similar event happened back in April when police in Redwood City, California arrested Mr. Universe for assault when mistaking his diabetic shock as unruly, drug-induced behavior. The charges were later dropped.

Fortunately for Amtrak, Mr. Sims was later found alive. We would expect a lawsuit all the same. It’s unfortunate that these misdiagnoses by untrained personnel could ultimately result in the death of a diabetic. The liability cost to the municipality or corporation involved would undoubtedly be enormous.

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.

To help protect its reputation, IBM announced this week that it was establishing a code of conduct to govern its more than 5,000 employees who have a presence (or “avatar”) on “Second Life” and other online universes.

IBM appears to be the first corporation to create rules governing virtual worlds- its guidelines address such things as protection of intellectual property, export controls (!), proper attire, and even sexual harassment and discrimination:

IBM strives to create a workplace that is free from discrimination or harassment and takes steps to remedy any such problems. External virtual worlds, however, are outside of IBM’s control. If you are in a virtual environment in conjunction with your work at IBM and you encounter behavior there that would not be acceptable inside IBM, the recommended approach is to ignore such behavior and to “walk away” or even sign out of the virtual world.

Commentary:Check out the full IBM net-world guidelines here.

Back in the Q2 edition of Ethisphere, we reviewed IBM’s “real world” code of conduct and were impressed – while this online code is not quite as good, they are the first corporation to have established one of its kind, which is impressive in its own right.

See the avatar in the picture up above? That’s the avatar of Sam Palmisano, the CEO of IBM. Other than dressing himself in the IBM blue, it looks like he grew about a foot and hit the gym… sure beats having to work out for real.

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.

The 53-year-old Nigerian man told De Standaard he arrived at the Belgian’s wrought-iron business and was immediately confronted by the barking dog.

The Belgian turned the man away before he could even enter, wrote on his labour office letter that he could not hire the man because of his colour, and noted the probability that the dog would bite the Nigerian.

The local labour office has concluded that the Belgian was racist and has removed him from its list of potential employers.

“My dog is racist. Not me,” the Belgian told De Standaard.

He told the newspaper that he did not wish to file a formal complaint because he did not wish for his family in Nigeria to hear about the case.

Commentary: Discrimination is rife in Belgium and continues to be so. The Nigerian applicant in this case, who has resided in Belgium for 32 years, noted that he had been rejected from jobs before due to his color – although other potential employers were “more subtle” about it.

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.