The former Penthouse Executive Club cocktail waitress alleges that a female general manager touched her on her legs and thighs in a sexual manner. The plaintiff also alleges that the manager offered to engage in sexual relations with her in front of customers for a fee.

In commenting on the case, EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis Jr. stated, “EEOC is determined to stop sexual harassment whether faced by men or women.” The case has been filed in the U.S. District in the Southern District of New York. The EEOC's press release can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-31-09.cfm.

The former employee received positive reviews and two raises while employed by the hotel, but was criticized for wearing loose fitting clothes and not wearing make up. After she was fired, the hotel began videotaping potential front desk employees so officials could see how they looked before hiring them. The court stated that companies cannot make employment decisions based on sex stereotypes, and that to fire an employee for failing to wear makeup and dresses would be sexual discrimination.

Among the remedial measures to be put in place are immediate emergency hiring of qualified minority candidates and revisions of the exams.

Gender discrimination manifests itself in many different ways. For instance, this case is an example of a "glass ceiling" which is a point that women cannot advance beyond in the workplace. Additionally, sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination are types of gender discrimination, as well.

The basis of the claim was that women were denied equal opportunities to advance, were impeded by a "glass celiling," were barred from promotion to managerial positions, and were prevented from receiving favorable job assignments.

The statistics are available at:

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/index.cfm

The E.E.O.C. complaint stated that Barbara Alexander, who is African-American, was amply qualified for the position of financial planning manager, but was not hired, despite performing capably during thirteen in-person interviews. The position ultimately went to a white male. It is significant to note that discrimination may exist in all aspects of the employment relationship, from hiring to promotion to termination.

Under the settlement, Bridgewater has agreed to pay Christopher a financial settlement and conduct annual training of its managers and supervisors on the issue of racial discrimination. The EEOC was pleased with the steps taken by Bridgewater to resolve the situation and confident in Bridgewater’s future adherence to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it illegal to deny an employee a promotion based on race.

Francine Katz, A-B’s former most senior female ranking executive, alleges that she was given smaller salary and bonuses than other male executives despite repeatedly raising concerns about the disparity to A-B’s board of directors.

When Katz was promoted to the role of Vice President of Communications and Consumer Affairs, she received all the same duties formerly assigned to a male employee who held the role, but she was paid $750,000 per year less than him, according to the lawsuit.

Katz seeks lost wages, uncapped compensatory damages and punitive damages.

In Jute v. Hamilton Sunstrand Corp., 420 F .3d 166, 178-79 (2d Cir. 2005), the plaintiff was on the verge of obtaining a new job. Before she was offered the job, however, her former employer told the new job that he could not give a reference because Jute "had a lawsuit pending," even though the plaintiff did not actually have a lawsuit pending. The Second Circuit, the federal appeals court in New York, held that this false statement could "negatively affect Jute's chances of securing employment" and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case.

Other courts since that time have also confirmed that individuals may assert a claim against former employers who, in an effort to retaliate against the employee's claim, give a negative reference. For example, in Brescia V. Sia, 2008 WL 1944010, at *4 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2008), the court rejected the defendant's effort to dismiss the plaintiff's case under similar circumstances, finding that even where the negative reference is "factually accurate," an individual may have a claim.

Chery interviewed for an adjunct lecturer position with the University and claims that she was not hired due to her race and national origin. The University defended its decision not to hire Chery by arguing that other candidates had superior qualifications, including speaking multiple languages and familiarity with the student body.

The Second Circuit reasoned that Chery failed to provide any evidence to show that CUNY discriminated against her, and thus, Chery was not able to fulfill her burden of proving that the adverse employment actions were discriminatory.

The bill calls for employers to bear the burden of proof by showing they complied with federal age-discrimination laws. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that employees were required to prove that age was the deciding reason for termination and not one of several reasons such as salary cut backs.

The bill was introduced as increasing unemployment has been accompanied by a rise in the number of age discrimination claims filed throughout the country. According to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, about 25,000 age-discrimination claims were filed in 2008, a 30 percent increase from 2007.

The bill would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gross v. FBL Financial and make it easier for older workers to show they have been victims of age discrimination.