According to a study published in Research on Aging, approximately 63% of seniors have experienced discrimination on the basis of age, and 30% have been mistreated because of their age. Respondents in the study also reported being discriminated against based on gender, race, ancestry, and to some extent, disability and appearance.

The study began in 2006, and at the time, all the people in the study were about 50 years of age. The data came from the federal Health and Retirement Study. There were about 6, 400 people included in the study. The researchers wanted to find out what seniors thought about discriminatory behavior. They were not surprised at the high proportion of seniors who said that they experienced discriminatory behavior.

However, the researchers also found that some categories of persons were more likely to report discriminatory behavior than others. For instance, black Americans, and seniors in a financially weaker position were more likely to experience discrimination. Interestingly enough, people who were divorced, widowed or separated reported higher levels of discrimination. In contrast, whites, those who were married or in a relationship, and those who had significant household assets, were less likely to face discrimination.

None of this should be news to any California discrimination lawyer, but the researchers also found that such discrimination was linked to higher rates of depression and poor mental health. When blacks and people in lower financial positions are discriminated against, it is a greater concern because these people may not have access to psychological facilities necessary to deal with depression and other mental health problems.

The researchers also found it interesting that people who felt harassed or threatened, or felt that others were afraid of them were affected differently by discrimination, compared to those who suffered more severe effects of discrimination, like the loss of a job opportunity because of age, or unwarranted questioning by police because of race.

The Supreme Court has ruled that church employees, who believe that they have been discriminated against, may not be protected under federal discrimination laws, because the Constitution recognizes the right of religious institutions to select their own leaders.

The case relates to Cheryl Perich, a teacher who alleges in her lawsuit that the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan violated federal anti discrimination laws when it terminated her after she was diagnosed with narcolepsy. She joined the school as a teacher in 1999, and underwent religious training. In 2004, she became ill, but was back at work in 2005. By this time, the school informed her that her position was no longer vacant. When she threatened legal action against the school, she was fired.

According to the church as well as school officials, her behavior amounted to a violation of the doctrine of the Lutheran Church-Missouri synod, which holds that disputes should be resolved within the parameters of the church's doctrine, and not taken to court. Perich then sued the church, alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the church on her behalf.

The EEOC based its lawsuit on ministerial exemption, a clause that California employment lawyers know applies only to persons who perform religious duties in the church. However, the US Court Of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that Perich did not qualify as a minister. The Supreme Court has disagreed, and has said that she does meet the ministerial exemption clause. According to her own estimation, the religious part of her duties took about 45 minutes per day. She taught some religion classes, and on occasion, even led chapel services.

This is one of the most important church-related decisions by the Supreme Court in decades, and is expected to include some, but not all teachers employed in church schools.

Two women have filed a lawsuit against Quest Diagnostics and its subsidiary, AmeriPath, a Florida-based company that Quest Diagnostics acquired, alleging that the company discriminates against women, specifically women with children or families. The two women are sales representatives for the company and filed this $100 million suit last Thursday in New Jersey, the company’s headquarters.

These two women, who have been employed by Quest Diagnostics for several years, describe a wide range of discrimination practices by the predominantly male management team. They allege that men and single women without the responsibility of caring for a child advance more rapidly in rank and achieve higher salaries at a quicker pace. They describe an atmosphere similar to that of an “old boys’ club” and report that females are denied equal opportunities and experience an unfavorable and even hostile work environment.

In filing this lawsuit, the women are not only asking for $100 million in damages, but also changes in the work environment to correct both past and present discriminatory practices. They also call for a monitoring system or task force dedicated to fostering an environment of equal opportunities and preventing discriminatory acts. The lawsuit extends beyond these two women as it refers to hundreds of other women who are also victims of gender-based discrimination.

Representatives of Quest Diagnostics deny these allegations and continue to avow that this company is an equal opportunity employer and treats its employees fairly. However, the rapidly growing company who reached $7.4 billion in revenue last year faces serious allegations and the possibility of large fines.

2011 was a record year for workplace discrimination complaints, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission receiving the highest number of complaints in its history.

According to the agency's annual report, there were a total of 99,947 allegations of unfair workplace practices filed during the fiscal year that ended in September 2011. That's the highest number of complaints that have been filed since the agency was launched in 1964.

These 99,947 allegations involved the kind of discrimination that California employment lawyers frequently come across. Most complaints were based on age, sex, religion, race and disability. There were even complaints alleging discrimination based on family medical history.

The agency this year also had several successes in recovering monetary compensation from employers. In all, the agency resolved a total of 112,499 cases, an increase of 7% from last year. In 2011, the agency also won substantial monetary payouts from employers. Overall, the agency won a record $365 million in monetary damages.

This included a consent decree that provided $3 million for 3M Company employees. Approximately 290 former employees of the company had filed a complaint against 3M Company, saying that the company denied leadership training, and fired hundreds of workers over the age of 45.

Another complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission involved Verizon employees, who alleged that the company discriminated against them based on disability. The company disciplined or terminated the services of employees who suffered from disabilities. A consent decree resulted in a compensation of more than $20 million to more than 800 Verizon employees who filed the complaint. This was the largest disability discrimination settlement in a single lawsuit in the history of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

It’s no secret to California workplace discrimination lawyers that the barriers between the genders are falling it comes to discrimination and harassment in the workplace.  Even just a decade ago, it would've been relatively rare to have a man filing a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment in the workplace.  These lawsuits are actually on the rise.  According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the number of sexual harassment claims filed by men, doubled between 1990 and 2009.

However, it's not just sexual harassment lawsuits filed by men that are on the increase.  More numbers of men are coming forward to claim that they were passed over for promotions and other advancements in the workplace when their employers gave preference to women.  A workplace discrimination lawsuit filed this week by a man employed by comedian Jimmy Fallon, is an example of this.  The man, Paul Tarascio, a stagehand at NBC, claims that he lost his job because Fallon preferred a woman over him. 

Such incidences are becoming more and more common.  According to the EEOC, the number of male employees coming in to file complaints about preferential treatment for women is also on the increase.  Men seem to particularly complain about being passed over for certain jobs in favor of women, or not being able to land certain kinds of jobs, like secretarial jobs.

There is a range of discriminating practices in the workplace if these complaints are any indication.  For instance, more men are coming in to complain about getting lesser time off from work in order to care for a sick family member or child.  Men, who complain about harassment or any other form of discrimination in the workplace, also don't seem to have too many willing ears to listen to them.  A common complaint seems to be that harassment or discrimination complaints made by men in the workplace don't seem to be taken seriously by employers in the way that complaints filed by women are.

Fitness club chain 24 Hour Fitness is the subject of a gender and racial discrimination lawsuit filed by the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and a California-based law firm.  The lawsuit claims that 24 Hour Fitness discriminates against its employees based on race and gender.  There are a total of six plaintiffs named in the lawsuit. 

According to the lawsuit, black, Hispanic or Asian and female employees at 24 Hour Fitness find that there's a glass ceiling whenever they apply for higher-paying jobs at the company.  They claim there are no specified criteria for promotions at the company.   Rather, they suggest, these decisions are arbitrary, and are usually made by white men.  The lawsuit also alleges that managers who are nonwhite, are paid lower salaries than white employees. 

The lawsuit is seeking lost wages and damages. It is also seeking class-action status.  If the lawsuit gains class-action status, then it could include more than 10,000 ethnic and female employees at the chain.  According to the plaintiffs, this practice of discrimination at 24-Hour Fitness is found across the country. 24-Hour Fitness is based in San Ramon, California, and has about 400 clubs across 17 states.

You would think that in the 21st century, workplace discrimination based on employees’ race or gender would be unthinkable.  Unfortunately, California employment discrimination attorneys continue to come across such discriminatory practices. Federal and California laws forbid such racial or gender discrimination.   Under California laws, discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or race in any matters that are related to the person’s terms of employment is prohibited.  These terms of employment can include the person’s salary, hours of work, vacation, overtime and other factors.  Not only that, employers are expressly forbidden from discriminating right from the time they place advertisements for positions in the company, through interviews, hiring, transfers and promotions.

Ever wonder how Wal-Mart can charge next to nothing for items that cost a bundle at other stores? According to some disgruntled workers, Wal-Mart's penchant for paying women less than men could be a reason for those notoriously low, low prices. On Monday, the largest class-action employment lawsuit in U.S. history was given the green light to head to trial by a federal appeals court. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in San Francisco ruled the combined multiparty litigation is certified to move forward to trial. The split 6-5 ruling by the court to advance the case to trail could potentially cost Wal-Mart billions of dollars.

At the center of the lawsuit are allegations of unfair pay, discrimination and gender bias. The plaintiffs claim women employed by the super store were paid lower wages than their male counterparts and were subsequently denied promotion opportunities throughout the company. The plaintiffs seek back pay and punitive damages against the globe's largest international retail conglomerate. According to the lawsuit, the company's "strong, centralized structure fosters or facilitates gender stereotyping and discrimination." Women make up roughly 70 percent of Wal-Mart's hourly work force but over the last decade only a tiny one-third of its management.

Betty Dukes, a store greeter in Pittsburg, Calif., along with five of her co-workers first filed the lawsuit in 2001. Since that time, the case has exploded, with thousands of women's names added to the plaintiffs list. The court concluded that there was enough merit to the claims of Dukes and the others in the lawsuit to proceed to trial on a class-action status. Class action status for the lawsuit ups the ante financially and judicially, since more plaintiffs now can join the lawsuit. Discovery hearings hosted by both sides of the lawsuit led to Judge Susan Gruber's approval of class-action status, despite the size and scope of the case.

Wal-Mart has been plagued with labor lawsuits and disputes for years. The company already has settled and shelled out $6 million in 13 different lawsuits alleging discriminatory treatment of African-American truck drivers and workers with disabilities.