Along with this letter from the City Council members, the MTA is also in the midst of a 2004 federal discrimination lawsuit with the U.S. Justice Department regarding employees and their religious headwear. It is still unclear whether the current situation will lead to court action against the MTA as well.
City Councilman John Liu referred to the rule as, “as backwards as you can possible imagine,” while City Councilman David Werpin said, “No one should ever, ever, under any circumstances, have to choose between their livelihood and their religion.”

Recently, in Barnum v. New York City Transit Authority, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, held that the Faragher-Ellerth defense can be used by employers to defend claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, and under the New York City Human Rights Law for claims that arose prior to the enactment of the Local Civil Restoration Act of 2005, an amendment to the NYCHRL which requires courts to interpret the NYCHRL more favorable to employees than would be justified by case law interpreting federal and state civil rights laws. Moreover, other recent court decisions have held that the Fragher-Ellerth defense is unavailable under the NYCHRL for harassment claims arising after October 2005, when the Restoration Act was passed.

The applicability of the Faragher-Ellerth defense to employment harassment claims continues to be a developing legal issue. In Zakrzweska v. The New School, the federal district court explained that “[t]he apparent tendency to press claims under the state and city antidiscrimination laws, either in lieu of or in addition to claims under federal statutes, creates a genuine need for resolution of the vicarious liability standards applicable to employers under those statutes.” Additionally, the district court asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to state conclusively whether the defense is available under the NYCHRL.

In this case, Pleener v. New York City Board of Education, the court said that it is not okay for an employer to discriminate against a person on the basis of race even if they claim it is for a client's happiness. Pleener cited race as a reason for her termination as she was replaced by a black principal. However, Pleener lost her case because the district proved her firing was based on the fact that parents had become outraged when she fired someone with a record of insubordination less severe than her own record.

In American Airlines, Inc. v. Charles F. Imhof and Delta Airlines Inc. Judge Lewis Kaplan concluded that there was no material risk of irreparable harm to American Airlines on the taking of the information. Judge Kaplan went on to hold that the inevitable disclosure theory, which bars an employee from working for a competitor because he would be unable to avoid using confidential information gained from working for the former employer to benefit the new employer, only applies when the employee has knowledge of actual confidential information and there is deliberate misappropriation of the information.

The EEOC and Tarhini filed a discrimination claim against UOP, claiming that UOP had violated the retaliation statute of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Tarhini an enrollment counselor claimed that UOP management said she would not be in line for a promotion because she had made an earlier pregnancy discrimination claim against UOP and its parent company, Apollo Group Inc.

In the settlement, UOP admitted to no wrongdoing or liability according to a statement provided to the Phoenix Business Journal. However, the EEOC said UOP will be required to provide updates on other possible retaliation claims by its workers.

U.S. District Judge Katharine Sweeney Hayden wrote in Richards v. Johnson & Johnson,
"While the Act certainly contains expansive language ... it ... does not save otherwise untimely claims outside the discriminatory compensation context." However, while the act "does not save untimely discrimination claims outside the compensation context, the statute explicitly affirms the evidentiary principle ... that Title VII and the ADEA do not bar an employee from using time-barred acts as background evidence in support of other timely claims," she wrote.

Under the ruling, the plaintiff is still allowed to pursue his race and age discrimination
claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination.

Supporters of the bill claim that the domestic workers deserve special protection because they are the most invisible and vulnerable workers in the state. Currently, domestic workers are not covered by employment discrimination laws, occupational safety laws or the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

An important provision, however, limits the threat of discriminatory pay. The Act contains a stipulation that prohibits employers from raising non-union employees’ compensation in hopes of undermining the union. The Act can bring significant change by encouraging employees to work harder towards the potential rewards. Under the RAISE Act, the typical union member could earn between $2,600 and $4,300 more per year.

Collins is also bringing charges against Steiff’s North American CEO James Pitoco, claiming he ignored her complaints about Frechen. Chief Financial Officer Deiter Statzinger says the company “resolutely den[ies] the allegations in the complaint and will vigorously defend the claims in court.” Collins is bringing charges for $80 million in damages.

Ms. Morales’ attorneys maintain that their client has never been involved in prostitution, and that the photos in question must have been lifted from her Myspace page and posted on other websites without her knowledge or consent.

Ms. Morales is suing the Hawaiin Tropic Zone for racial discrimination, alleging that they did not hire her for a position with the company due to her Latin accent.

Despite his long-time employment, the team informed the 73-year old Vendikos that he would be required to re-apply for his job when the new stadium opened across the street. He dutifully complied with the demand, since he wanted to continue to work for the Yankees.
Vendikos said that after waiting in line for three hours to be interviewed with Legends Hospitality, the new merchandising/concessions company co-founded by the Yankees, the interviewer asked him, “Why should I hire you? You’re an old man!” Vendikos thought the interviewer was joking, but when he found him to be serious, Vendikos was shocked and insulted. Then the veteran drink-server, who had been a bartending staple at the stadium since the early 1980s, never even received a phone call from the Yankees.

A Yankees spokesperson told the New York Post that the team has hired many people over the age of 65 at the new stadium and that the organization did not discriminate against Vendikos.

Vendikos’s attorney Lenard Leeds sees it differently, stating, “We can’t believe that after 27 years, that John was told you’re just too old. We wonder what George Steinbrenner would say. He used to serve George Steinbrenner.” Leeds says that this is a textbook case of age discrimination.

According to the lawsuit, ConocoPhillips unlawfully discriminated against Clarence Taylor, a pipe fitter, at its refinery in Linden, N.J. Taylor had served as a deacon in his congregation, and in May 2006, was informed by the company that he was required to work a schedule that would force him to miss Sunday mass or else he would be terminated.

“If reasonable alternatives exist, the law does not allow an employer to force an employee to choose between keeping his job and practicing his faith,” said District Director Spencer H. Lewis of the EEOC’s New York District Office.

ConocoPhillips actions, violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ and applicants’ sincerely held religious beliefs.

The EEOC had sought relief for Taylor and policy changes at ConocoPhillips, including: revised employment policies and new training for its managers. ConocoPhillips has agreed to the recommend changes by the EEOC and will provide $20,000 to resolve the ligation, including relief for Taylor and a donation to charity, as well as five days of additional leave for Taylor.

According the lawsuit, Duane Reade unlawfully created, maintained and failed to remedy a hostile work environment at one of its Bronx Stores by subjecting several female employees to sexual and pregnancy harassment. The lawsuit claimed that the store manager, Madiaw Diaw, frequently made vulgar remarks about women’s private parts, sexually propositioned female employees, made lewd comments about their pregnancies and bodies, assigned unfavorable job duties to pregnant employees, and repeatedly grabbed female employees, including grabbing their buttocks. Moreover, employees who complained and filed discrimination charges with the EEOC were retaliated against by being subjected to further harassment by their supervisors.

“This settlement achieves the EEOC’s objectives by providing appropriate relief to the victims of sexual harassment while implementing appropriate measures to prevent this kind of violation in the future,” said Spencer H. Lewis, director of the EEOC’s New York district office. The EEOC sought both money damages as well as improvements in training and other policies.

The article continued by documenting the plight of older, laid off workers, many of whom have children already in college or attending in the next few years. These workers are frustrated with their inability to change their situation. Some have resorted to thinking about a change in career, hoping that a different career will be easier to break into. Either way, these workers feel sure they are being discriminated against because of their age, something they recognize each time they interview.