One of America's most popular television shows is the target of a federal lawsuit that alleges that the show discriminates against black Americans.  Two African American men have filed a race discrimination lawsuit against the makers of the popular show The Bachelor.

According to the lawsuit, the show has run for more than 10 years and 23 seasons, and yet, there has never been a single African-American ‘Bachelor’ on the show. The Bachelor has over the years, featured people of color as contestants on the show, but never as the main star.

The 2 men, who have filed this lawsuit, are college football players.  Both men auditioned for the show.  One of them, a linebacker at Middle Tennessee State University had attended a casting call for the show in Nashville.  According to him, while the other applicants’ auditions last for an average of 45 minutes, his audition lasted for only about 15 to 20 minutes.  The other plaintiff also attended the same casting call, but according to him, he was stopped right in the lobby, while the other applicants were allowed to proceed.  A staff member later told him that he would be called in to meet with a casting director. 

That never happened.  Neither candidate ever heard back from the producers.  

The men are asking for class-action status for their lawsuit, on behalf of all persons of color who have applied for the role of the central character in The Bachelor, and have been rejected based on race. 

The lawsuit names Warner Horizon Television, Next Entertainment, NZK Productions and executive producer Michael Fleiss as well as ABC, the network that runs the show.  According to representatives for Warner Horizon Television, the company has had participants of color on the series throughout its history, and has always welcomed diverse candidates.

We hope that this lawsuit will at least trigger a serious discussion on why so many dating and romance competition shows on television seem to filter out participants of color.

A company that operates several Taco Bell outlets in North Carolina has agreed to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against it by an employee.  The chain, Family Foods Incorporated operates a chain of Taco Bell outlets across the state.

Family Foods had been sued by employee, Christopher Abbey.  Abbey is a practicing Nazirite, and as per his religious beliefs, he has let his hair grow as a show of his devotion to God.  He has not had his hair cut since he was 15 years old.

Abbey has been an employee of Family Foods since 2004.  His long hair does not seem to have concerned his employers for several years.  However, in April 2010, he was informed by the company that he would have to cut his hair, in accordance with the company's grooming policy. 

He refused to do so because of his religious practices, and then was informed by the company, that if he refused to cut his hair, he would no longer be able to work at the outlet.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against Family Foods, holding that the company had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1954.  Under this section, companies that have more than 15 employees must accommodate workers’ religious practices.  Employers are only exempted if allowing the workers to follow these religious practices causes any undue hardship to the company.

Now, Family Foods has agreed to pay $27,000 to settle this religious discrimination lawsuit.  Family Foods will also establish formal policies about religious discrimination, and will also conduct training sessions to train employees about Title VII.

San Jose employment lawyers  have found that such religious discrimination lawsuits are becoming common in a diverse United States.  Some lawsuits filed by Muslims, Hindus, Rastafarians and others have been settled, while other claims have been dismissed.

The federal administration is currently considering an executive order that would increase protection for members of the lesbian and gay communities.  

The order would expand current protection for members of the LGBT community to contractors who do business with the federal government.  The order is expected to cover at least 16 million employees. estimate that the proposed order would expand protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to between 11 million and 16 million additional workers.  The LGBT workforce currently accounts for about 4% of the country's workforce. 

A number of think tanks are already encouraging the President to issue the order.  The Williams Institute has released a report titled the Impact of Extending Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Requirements to Federal Contractors.  According to the report, millions of Americans continue to live and work in environments that afford them no protection against gender identity and sexual orientation-based discrimination.

The report investigated the number of employees who are currently covered by the LGBT discrimination laws protecting against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, as well as the percentage of employees who currently have access to health coverage for a same-sex partner.  The Williams Institute specifically looked at the number of people who would be eligible for protection if the president actually passes his order.  According to the Williams Institute, many private and public companies currently have policies that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  However, many federal contractors do not have such policies, and an order like this would expand protections for the LGBT community. 

Photo by livinlowcarbman

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=10868&MediaType=1&Category=25#

As any San Jose gender discrimination lawyer would tell you, gender discrimination is rife in the restaurant industry.  A new report titled Tipped over the Edge released by Restaurant Opportunities Centers United confirms this fact.

According to the report, discrimination in this industry includes everything from lower wages and fewer sick days off, to more harassment than female workers in other industries face.  Restaurant workers account for 7 out of the top 10 lowest paid occupations inside the United States, and most of these workers tend to be female.  These jobs are also well known for offering below-average wages that are at or below the poverty line. 

Restaurant servers are especially hard-hit by systemic discrimination in the industry.  They are almost 3 times more likely to receive wages that are below the poverty line, than female workers in the general workforce.  There are also twice as likely to require food stamps as female workers in general.

According to the report, the restaurant industry seems to have an established business model that depends heavily on relegating women to the lower rungs of the salary scale within restaurants.  They are not only relegated to the lower paying jobs, but also account for just about 14% of the positions in a restaurant, in spite of the fact that women tend to do most of the cooking in the home.  Additionally, women also tend to be confined to the lower paying sectors in the restaurant industry, like family dining and self-service, and not the higher-paying luxury fine dining segment. 

Female restaurant workers get fewer sick days off, and also experience 5 times more harassment in the workforce than females in the general workforce. 

http://rocunited.org/blog/tipped-over-the-edge-gender-inequity-in-the-restaurant-industry/

Photo by peter burge

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, Americans spend approximately 10 times more time working than they do socializing.  With all that time in the office, it's not so surprising that romances often bloom cross cubicle.  Unfortunately, San Jose workplace retaliation lawyers find that most of these romances will not have a happy ending. 

Many of them will end in breakups and recrimination.  In some cases, the end of the affair can be the start of harassment, retaliation and a host of other tactics aimed at forcing the former flame out of the office. 

In fact, according to research conducted 2 years ago, the number of office romances has dropped, with an increase in the number of retaliation lawsuits filed.  In 2010, a survey conducted by Monster.com found that 75% of workers surveyed believed that an office romances ended in conflict.  62% believe that an office romance detracted from job performance. 

According to another survey by Careerbuilder,com, there has been a dramatic decline in workplace romances.  In 2006, roughly half of all respondents admitted to having had a fling in the workplace.  In 2010, that number had declined to 37%.

Some companies actually encourage romance in the workplace.  For instance, Southwest Airlines has a policy that encourages interoffice dating, and the company boasts of hundreds of married couples.  Virgin Atlantic boss Richard Branson also finds employees falling in love as something to be celebrated.  

Photo by  jcoterhals

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_39/b4196073729941.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/valentines-day-office-romance-common-more-third-american-workers_n_1263941.html