In one case against the fast food giant McDonald's, 16 year old employee Kasey Ramirez was reportedly approached by her supervisor, and taken into a back room, where she was touched inappropriately. Ramirez stated that she was scared that he would rape her, so she ran out and reported the sexual harassment to another shift supervisor. The supervisor reportedly told Ramirez not to be so upset, because everyone knew that this particular supervisor was a "pervert."

McDonald's stated that they have a strict policy prohibiting any type of harassment in their restaurants. After the incident with Ramirez in 2007, McDonald's claimed to have responded swiftly to the sexual harassment charge and proved to have taken the necessary actions to resolve the case.

In another sexual harassment case in Memphis, Tennessee, a Taco Bell manager pleaded guilty to raping two of his high school workers who were both 16. One of these workers became pregnant from the rape. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the first victim worked with the manager for nearly two months before she was raped. The second victim was attacked on her first day on the job. Although Taco Bell denied any wrongdoing, they agreed to pay the teens several thousand dollars, and signed on to train managers on how to appropriately deal with teenage employees.

According to the first suit, filed in 2007 by the U.S. Equal Employment Commission, (EEOC), Landwin Management, the company that runs the Hilton hotel in the middle of San Gabriel's Asian community, was accused of not rehiring Latino banquet servers after taking over the management of the Hilton hotel in 2005. The former servers claimed that because they were not Chinese, they were not hired back after the hotel turnover, and were replaced with Chinese employees who were less qualified.

In the second lawsuit, the EEOC claimed that the female workers in the Hilton endured a hostile work environment that was filled with verbal abuse by the supervisor of the housekeeping department, who reportedly referred to the women as prostitutes and whores. The female employees also claimed that the supervisor scolded the female workers if they talked to men. The lawsuit states that these harassment complaints were ignored by the management at Landwin.

Landwin Management will pay $500,000 to settle the two lawsuits, and will commit to a three-year consent decree that includes company policy changes, such as aiming to hire Hispanic workers, training employees in anti-discrimination, and hiring an EEOC consultant to monitor the progress of these goals.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was passed by Congress in 1978, as an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to protect pregnant women in the workplace from any aspect of discrimination when it comes to hiring, firing, pay, equal opportunity for job assignments, promotions, layoffs, fringe benefits, health insurance, or any other term or condition of employment.

Under Federal law, pregnant women, or women who have conditions related to pregnancy must receive the same fair treatment as other employees. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, medical conditions related to pregnancy, or childbirth constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII.

According to the EEOC, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:

• It is illegal for an employer to choose not to hire a woman who is pregnant due to her pregnancy or condition related to pregnancy, or based on any prejudice from co-workers, customers, or potential clients.

• An employer cannot determine the work capability of an employee based on conditions related to pregnancy. An employer does have rights, however, to request doctor's statements before giving sick leave, or sick benefits to an employee who is unable to work.

• Female employees who are unable to work temporarily due to pregnancy or conditions related to pregnancy must be treated in the same manner as other employees who are disabled temporarily.

• Employers must permit pregnant employees to do their job, for as long as the employees are capable of performing their job.

The program discussed specific cases that are pending, focusing on a suit that was filed against Starbucks, by a teenage female barista from Orange County, California who complained of sexual harassment and being taken advantage of sexually by her 24-year old store manager.

According to ABC News, months after she began working as a barista at Starbucks, 16-year old Kati Moore was approached by her adult supervisor with nearly daily demands for sexual intercourse. Moore claimed that she was embarrassed and felt like the manager had control over her job, so she agreed to the relationship. After Moore's family discovered the relationship, they pressed criminal charges against the Starbucks manager, Tim Horton, who claimed he was unaware that Moore was 16, and pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor--a felony charge that lead to a four month sentence in prison.

Moore's family is suing Starbucks for failing to protect Moore from sexual harassment and discrimination. Starbucks stated that it does have a strict policy against sexual harassment and managers dating baristas, but no specific policy about relationships with teenagers who are under the age of 18. Starbucks also stated that because the relationship was concealed from Starbucks, it was a direct violation of company policy. The coffee company is confident that this lawsuit will be resolved with Starbucks not being at fault.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Margaret Gibson was an employee at the Marietta, Georgia facility, working for U.S. Security as a security guard. After informing her manager that she was pregnant, she was allegedly mistreated, subjected to discipline that was unwarranted, and made to endure sexist comments about the manager's bias against pregnancy in the workplace, as well as sexist comments about how Gibson would look in the security guard uniform. After completing and turning in her application for maternity leave, Gibson's employment was terminated on the same day. The EEOC claimed that her husband, who was also employed with U.S. Security, was also terminated, after he failed to stop his wife from filing a pregnancy discrimination complaint.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) that amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pregnant women or women who are affected by conditions that are related to pregnancy must be treated like other employees or applicants with the same abilities in the workplace. Discrimination of the basis of pregnancy, medical conditions related to pregnancy, or childbirth constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII.

In 2007, according to an analysis of seven years of EEOC data, restaurants accounted for the majority of employers sued by the EEOC over alleged harassment of teenagers in the workplace. In the study, dating back to 1999, out of 127 EEOC complaints involving teenagers, 72 were against restaurant companies, and all but 11 of these were sexual harassment cases. Restaurants paid out more than $7.3 million to settle teenage harassment lawsuits.

According to the EEOC, an alarmingly high number of cases are now being reported by high school students who have experienced sexual harassment from their managers or supervisors. The EEOC claims that employers who choose to hire teenagers have a responsibility to protect them under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under law, it is illegal to harass or discriminate against teenage employees based on gender, race, color, sex (including pregnancy), national origin or age, in hiring, firing, training, wages, benefits and promotions.

The EEOC states that when workers complain to supervisors about harassment in the workplace, it is the responsibility of the employer to take action and end the unlawful discrimination. The commission also stated that cases involving the sexual harassment of teenage victims need to be taken seriously.

According to a San Bernardo County memo recently released, the District Attorney's Office did not retaliate against Cheryl Ristow, the former employee who claims to have had an affair with Ramos.

Cheryl Ristow worked as an investigative technician for the District Attorney's office for seven years and filed a claim last year against Ramos for sexual harassment. According to Ristow, after their affair of over seventeen months ended and the details of their affair were about to become public, she was subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliation by three top officials--by being accused of trivial violations by her supervisors that were unwarranted. Ristow took a disability leave of absence for stress in July of 2009, and recently filed a $1.5 million claim against the county.

After the county authorized a $140,000 investigation into the alleged misconduct, led by a Santa Monica law firm, the San Bernardino County's Department of Human Resources announced that Ramos did not harass or retaliate against the coworker after their consensual affair ended in February of 2005.

Cheryl Ristow worked for the District Attorney's office for seven years as an investigative technician, and claimed to have been involved in an affair with Ramos for over three years, that ended in 2005. Ristow later corrected this statement to the San Bernardino Sun Times, and stated that the relationship lasted for one and one half years--from September of 2003 until February of 2005.

Ristow alleges that after the relationship ended and news of the affair surfaced in a local newspaper, Ristow was rejected by Ramos, and made to endure workplace hostility.

Supervising Deputy District Attorney Michael Fermin and Michael Smith, Chief District Attorney Investigator, are also named in the suit. The suite alleges that Fermin acted as the main conduit between Ristow and Ramos--when the story of the alleged affair was about to become public.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and claimed that the teenage worker was forced to endure sexual comments and verbal harassment, as well as inappropriate sexual touching by a non-management Giumarra worker on a daily basis. After witnessing the sexual harassment, a group other farm workers stood by the victim and filed a complaint with Giumarra Vineyards, reportedly one of the largest table grape growers in the country.

According to the lawsuit, one day after reporting the harassment, the teenager and the class of farm workers were all fired in retaliation. All of the identified victims in the case are indigenous Indians from Mexico--a reported minority in the Mexican community of farm workers.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is against the law to harass employees based on gender, and illegal to retaliate against a worker who files a complaint about discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC states that when workers complain to supervisors about harassment in the workplace, it is the responsibility of the employer to take action and end the unlawful discrimination. The commission also stated that cases involving the sexual harassment of teenage victims are taken seriously, as are aggressive acts of retaliation against workers who stand up for their rights, and the rights of their colleagues in the workplace.

Suzanne Young, a former Tufts University researcher and lecturer took part in the Tufts University group that helped build and create experiments for the NASA mission--to study the chemical composition soil on Mars and investigate whether life is possible on the planet. Kounaves and his team created and designed a wet chemistry lab on the Phoenix Mars Langer to analyze the soil for life. NASA experiments were led by the University of Arizona, and the headquarters were located in Tuscon.

Young's sexual harassment lawsuit claims that Samuel Kounaves, an associate professor at Tufts and one of the co-investigators of the mission from 2003 until 2009, subjected her to repeated incidents of improper behavior that was disturbing and sexually charged, where Kounaves made consistent requests for sexual favors. Kounaves allegedly told her that her job security and employment advancement in the future would depend upon her sexual consent.

Kounaves also reportedly insisted that Young stay with him on business trips in 2007, and threatened not to pay her lodging reimbursement when she refused the accommodations--even though he would allegedly pay for male colleagues to have separate lodging. Kounaves reportedly only agreed to pay for her accommodations after she reported this to other NASA colleagues.

Yesterday, New York's highest court denied Rather's request for an appeal, declining to hear the former CBS Anchor's motion to reinstate the $70 million lawsuit--leaving the dismissal of the case by the Manhattan appeals court from September intact, and marking a seeming end to the embittered and costly legal battle.

In the lawsuit, Rather claimed that CBS had breached his contract by not giving him enough broadcast time, after he was removed from news anchor in March 2005. Rather alleged that CBS set him up be the scapegoat for the controversial 60 Minutes broadcast from 2004, in which President George W. Bush's Vietnam War service the Texas Air National Guard questioned.

After the broadcast, Rather and CBS received criticism for the story, especially from conservative partisans who claimed that Rather was trying influence the presidential race from 2004. The authenticity of the documents was questioned, CBS conducted an internal investigation, and determined that the story was inaccurate. Rather was forced to apologize for the journalistic errors. The episode was called "Rathergate," by the media, and according to Rather the experience cost him substantial financial loss, as well as damage to his reputation. Bush won his second term as President of the United States two months later.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Rather's decision to sue CBS in 2007 caused strain in his professional relationships, and he received journalistic criticism for trying to pass blame for the inaccuracy of the 60 Minutes broadcast that had not been fully researched. Rather clams to have made a career out of fighting for journalistic freedom, and this case has represented a mission to take on the political and business interests that he believes are influencing news organizations.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the study was geared to focus on the largely immigrant workforce that is often missed in regular employment surveys--17% of all workers in Los Angeles County, or 750,000 people. In the report, 56.4% were immigrants with no documentation, a vulnerability that is often exploited by employers. Nearly 75% of the workers in the study were Hispanic, and almost 60% of the workers claimed to not have a high school education.

According to the five-year study, workplace violations are the result of employer decisions--on whether or not to pay minimum wage and overtime, to give workers lawful meal breaks, overtime pay, pay documentation, safe working conditions, or how to respond to complaints in the workplace.

The report found that small and large employers throughout Los Angeles County are violating labor laws on a regular basis, and that certain sectors of the Los Angeles economy have allegedly built business strategies that incorporate labor law violation--especially with Los Angeles workers who have no union representation, and who are employed in service or apparel industries, and construction.

A new report was released last week that is part of the same study, and focuses specifically on Los Angeles County, the home of the largest population of undocumented workers in this country. The authors describe this study as a significant effort to focus on the largely immigrant workforce that is often missed in regular surveys.

The study, entitled "Wage Theft and Workplace Violations in Los Angeles," released by the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, surveyed 1,815 workers in Los Angeles County in 2008, all in low-wage professions, where the average worker's salary was $8 per hour. The study focused on domestic workers, garment workers, service industry employees, and construction workers, and found that compared to Chicago or New York, low-wage workers in Los Angeles County were the most likely to experience some form of pay-related violation in the workplace.

The survey also found that low wage workers are often robbed of their legal rights, by being forced to work during their breaks and off the clock, subjected to a lack of payroll documentation, stealing of tips, late pay, retaliation by employers, and being forced to work with employment-sustained injuries. According to the report, in almost every case, the rates of violation are higher in Los Angeles than the rates shown in Chicago or New York.

According to the lawsuit, Corri Buckley, a former sales manager within the exterior home remodeling company, worked in an employment environment that was dominated by men, and from mid 2006 to mid 2007, she was reportedly subjected to sexual discrimination and subsequent retaliation for filing a complaint with her branch manager.

Buckley accused the K-Designers' management of discriminating against her by trying to isolate her from other workers, denying her training along with other staff, placing her on disability leave when she was perfectly able to do work, and in the end terminating her employment.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sex, color, race, religion, and national origin. Any employee who complains against such unlawful offenses is also protected from retaliation within the company.

Jenny Lewis worked as a Playboy's Guest Relations Coordinator for the Hefner and the Playboy Mansion for eleven years, and reportedly took a medical leave to recovery from surgery. According to the suit, after Lewis had permission from the company to take the leave of absence, she was unlawfully terminated from her employment on November 4, 2009 during her recovery period.

The lawsuit accuses the Playboy executives of twelve counts of liability that relate to the California and Fair Housing Act--the statute that fights unlawful discrimination and sexual harassment in California employment and housing.

Lewis claims that after receiving outstanding performance reviews for ten years, Lewis was retaliated against after she questioned certain practices that she felt were in violation of the California Employment and Fair Housing Act. She also accused Playboy of gender discrimination, citing that Lewis along with five other women were demoted and sent to the back-offices of the Playboy Mansion, while men in similar positions were not demoted in such a way. Lewis also claims she was subjected to a hostile work environment, and according to the entertainment website TMZ, she was unlawfully terminated after she turned 47, and her position was replaced by a 33-year old woman.