The plight of aging applicants and aging workers generally has not escaped the notice of the nation's lawmakers. Recently, a congressional hearing and a high-profile report both highlighted the prevalence of age discrimination in the American workforce.

Nevertheless, it is an indisputable fact that even though older workers are currently unemployed at lower rates than younger workers, older workers stay unemployed for longer, despite years of experience. This reality is clear evidence that age discrimination does factor into the hiring decisions of America's companies and corporations.

There is no easy answer as to how we might solve this difficult and complex problem. However, the fact that Congress and the GAO are taking notice of the issue is a step in the right direction; one of change and just treatment for older workers.

Source: Huffington Post, "Age Discrimination's Impact Disputed In Congressional Hearing On Unemployment," Arthur Delaney, May 15, 2012

As long as your previous jobs were legal, they shouldn't jeopardize your current or future employment status, right? Apparently not if you are a former stripper. In a recent employment complaint making national headlines, a woman alleges she was fired from the newspaper where she worked after her employers discovered one of her previous jobs as an exotic dancer. The woman's attorney believes that this constitutes gender discrimination.

A rival newspaper discovered the connection and ran a story about this young reporter's past. Soon afterward, her employers fired her, allegedly for failing to disclose this information on her employment application.

But the woman argues that she filled out the application honestly, and that no questions on it were relevant to her past as a dancer.

The woman has filed a complaint with the EEOC, and a high-profile attorney representing her says that this behavior is nothing short of gender discrimination. The attorney explains: "Most exotic dancers are female, and therefore to terminate an employee because they had previously been an exotic dancer would have an adverse impact on women, since it is a female-dominated occupation."

It is important to remember that while exotic dancing is not universally accepted behavior, it is nonetheless legal. This case may be relevant to nearly anyone who has to stay afloat financially while in pursuit of a higher goal; especially if you must resort to work you might not otherwise want to do.

At a recent press conference, the woman said: "Some young women will use dancing as a way to make ends meet while they study to prepare for the career that they hope to be able to have for the rest of their lives. These women should not have to live in fear that once they acquire a position in the career that they have worked hard to achieve, that their past work experience as a dancer will jeopardize that position."

Source: CNN, "Reporter, fired for stripping, charges gender discrimination," Alan Duke, May 11, 2012

We all seem to apply a double standard when it comes to jokes about groups to which we belong. For instance, it is only considered socially acceptable to make ethnic, cultural or religious jokes about Jewish people if you are Jewish. But do you have to be Jewish to take offense to such jokes? How about in order to file an employment lawsuit alleging that these jokes constitute race discrimination and harassment?

But here's the odd part: the man is not Jewish.

Nonetheless, he claims he frequently overheard phrases such as "Only a Jew would argue over his hours," and references to "Jew money." During one supervisor's testimony, he admitted that he made "Hava Nagila" his ringtone for when the plaintiff would call.

Because the man is not Jewish, the lawsuit initially proved unsuccessful. But a state appellate court recently ruled that the man's case may proceed.

The three-judge panel's decision said, in part, that the "Plaintiff's supervisors were motivated by their belief that the plaintiff was Jewish and thus engaged in 'real discrimination and harassment' . . . That their target happened not to be Jewish should not serve to excuse their conduct."

No matter what race, religion or gender you belong to, insensitive jokes simply do not belong in the workplace. As this lawsuit suggests, you don't have to belong to the group being ridiculed in order to find a joke offensive.

Source: BusinessInsurance.com, "OFF BEAT: Man can sue for anti-Semitism even though he's not Jewish," April 24, 2012

In 2011 alone, just shy of 5,800 pregnancy discrimination complaints were filed with the EEOC on behalf of American women. This number represents an astonishing 23 percent increase from the number of complaints filed just six years prior.

However, women all over America are experiencing pregnancy discrimination at unacceptable and astonishing rates. Evidence suggests that women who work in low-paying jobs are at particular risk of such treatment.

The EEOC recently held a hearing to address the prevalence of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. During the hearing, a senior staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society insisted that women in low-paying jobs face, "an increasingly common pattern of discrimination."

This pattern is characterized by wrongful termination following employer notification about a pregnancy, or otherwise forced unpaid leave.

The EEOC's general counsel David Lopez also noted during the hearing that this pattern is fueled by unfounded bias. Lopez explained that, "At the core, all of these cases involve employers who held stereotypical assumptions about pregnant women."

The EEOC is working to combat this bias and resulting discrimination. However, the prevalence of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace suggests that these regulators have a significant challenge ahead of them.

Source: Washington Post, "Workplace pregnancy discrimination cases on the rise," Vickie Elmer, Apr. 8, 2012

A recent study indicates that a certain class of workers is being subjected to a higher risk of illegally hostile work environments, harassment and discrimination than their peers. Recently published in the International Journal of Obesity, the study has determined that prejudice against overweight and obese women is becoming a significant workplace challenge.

This study echoes a 2011 study conducted in Iceland, which indicates that women who are not overweight are more likely to be gainfully employed than overweight women. The 2011 study determined that overweight men do not face the same prejudices that their female peers do.

Seeking redress for harassment, discrimination or a hostile work environment as an overweight female can be challenging. Many women are hesitant to admit that they perceive that they are being passed over for a job, a promotion, a salary increase or are being otherwise targeted due to their size and gender.

However, the law protects employees from these kinds of practices and environments for sound reasons. Every responsible employee deserves to be treated with respect and consideration.

Source: MyFoxPhonex.com, "Study Finds Overweight Women Face Employment Discrimination," May 1, 2012

However, today we are discussing a significant step which was recently taken in a positive direction for GLBT rights in the workplace. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ruled that a transgender worker may move forward with her work-related discrimination grievance against the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The ruling is being heralded as a significant clarification in anti-discrimination law. Specifically, the ruling is being viewed by many as confirmation that transgendered individuals are protected under certain federal employment discrimination laws and that they may file grievances with the EEOC accordingly.

EEOC spokesperson Christine Nazer recently told the Los Angeles Times that the ruling does clarify the EEOC's position and similar rulings will be applied "in all our enforcement activities" related to Title VII claims. Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act protects workers from employment discrimination based on categories including sex, race, national origin and religion.

The subject of GLBT workers' rights has evolved significantly in recent years. As previous EEOC decisions have been inconsistent regarding the rights of transgendered workers under federal law, this clarification in favor of workers' rights is most welcome.

Source: Los Angeles Times, "Ruling allows transgender woman to sue for job discrimination," Apr. 24, 2012

Sadly, there is a disturbing history of sexual harassment and hazing of women in many South Florida fire departments. Recently, however, a female firefighter won a lawsuit in against the city of Miami Beach and its fire department after years of suffering alleged sexual harassment, hostile working conditions and even death threats.

In addition to regularly hearing comments such as "women belong in the kitchen," the lawsuit claims that male coworkers sometimes refused to work with her simply because she was not a man.

The complaint also alleges sexually aggressive acts from other firefighters as well. For instance, a male coworker once walked in on her in the shower. On another occasion, her bathing suit went missing and was later found in a locker. It had been stained with semen.

The woman filed an EEOC complaint in 2008 and a federal sexual harassment and discrimination suit two years later. Last month, she prevailed in her federal lawsuit and was awarded $700,000 by a jury.

The verdict is being challenged by the legal office of Miami Beach. Unfortunately, this means that the woman's fight may not yet be over.

But no matter how the case is ultimately decided, her struggles will not have been in vain. Many of us will rightly find ourselves inspired by this brave woman, who was willing to challenge the status quo in a male-dominated job and stand up for her rights in the face of bigotry and closed minds.

Source: Miami Herald, "Female Miami Beach firefighter awarded $700,000 in sexual harassment case," David Smiley, April 5, 2012

Specifically, the Court shifted the Act's burden of proof from employers to employees. This basically means that in order to win an age discrimination claim, workers must demonstrate that their age was indeed a critical factor in whatever adverse circumstance (such as demotion, termination or unequal pay) amounted to discrimination.

However, hope may be on the way for employees who have been negatively affected by age discrimination. Two United States Senators have introduced a bill aimed at reversing the 2009 Supreme Court decision. If the bill passes, it would shift the burden of proof back to employers.

A similar bill was previously introduced in the Senate and did not pass. However, the co-sponsorship of this particular bill makes passage more likely.

The standard articulated in the 2009 case has resulted in the dismissal of countless age discrimination claims. It has also been applied to dismiss cases involving sex, religion, race and national origin discrimination. Passage of the newly introduced bill could potentially benefit all employees who have been discriminated against for any illegal reason.

Source: New York Times, "Combating Age Discrimination," Mar. 29, 2012

However, a pressing issue related to GLBT rights in the workplace will not be the subject of an executive order anytime soon. This past week, a senior adviser to the president delivered the message to activists that the White House will not soon be penning an executive order banning discrimination against homosexuals by employers subject to federal contracts.

Current anti-discrimination law does not explicitly protect employees from bias based on gender identity or sexual orientation. While the president is advocating for a more broadly inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, he is refusing to push this agenda through an executive order at this time.

The president of the Human Rights Campaign recently summed up the GLBT community's response to the news by stating that, "We are extremely disappointed with this decision and will continue to advocate for an executive order from the president. The unfortunate truth is that hard-working Americans can be fired simply for being gay or transgender."

Source: New York Times, "Obama Won't Order Ban on Gay Bias by Employers," Jackie Calmes, Apr. 11, 2012

The higher-ranking member of the couple and/or the company could find themselves facing a sexual harassment lawsuit. While older employees may shy away from office romances, younger workers in Florida and across the nation feel differently, according to a new survey.

According to the survey, 71 percent of workers in this age group say that an office romance could be beneficial. About 40 percent of millennials say they have not experienced any negative effects from an office romance.

Attitudes are very different among older workers. When asked if they would ever engage in an office romance:

• 29 percent of Baby Boomers (age 46-65) said "yes"
• 36 percent of Generation-X employees (age 30-45) said "yes"
• 84 percent of millennials answered "yes"

It also appears that millennials have fewer qualms about dating colleagues who outrank them. About 40 percent would be willing to date their supervisor. Among other age groups, that number was just 12 percent.

Of course, this scenario is usually among the riskiest when it comes to office relationships. Many accusations of wrongful termination, sexual harassment or other illegal employment actions have been sparked by relationships between managers and lower-ranking employees.

For better or worse, it seems that office dating is going to continue to happen. Therefore, employment professionals urge us all to be careful.

The CEO of one of the organizations sponsoring the survey said: "Regardless of the culture or industry of any given company, clear communication about personal relationships among co-workers is vital. Employees must be made aware of where the boundaries are so that things that occur on personal time don't become a distraction or a source of conflict in the workplace."

Source: WorkplaceOptions.com, "Millennials More Likely to be Smitten with Superiors, Co-Workers," press release, Feb. 8, 2012

It is an important protection, and employees who file FMLA claims may be entitled to receive money damages from their employer. That is, unless your employer happens to be the state of Florida, or any other state for that matter.

The case before the Court involved an employee for the state of Maryland who was fired in 2007 for taking 10 days off under the FMLA to attend to personal health problems. He was fired from his job for taking time off.

Voting 5-4 along conservative-liberal lines, the Court said that states are granted sovereign immunity by the 11th Amendment, and therefore are protected against FMLA lawsuits that seek money damages.

There are approximately 5 million Americans who work as state employees, which means that this ruling could have far-reaching consequences. It is also fairly easy to see the dangerous precedent it could set for future employment lawsuits.

Criticizing the Court's ruling, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union said it could be especially harmful to women. He noted that, "Today's decision leaves women more vulnerable to sex discrimination and elevates states' rights over a woman's right to be free from unconstitutional sex discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination."

Source: Reuters, "Top court rejects state damages in medical leave case," James Vicini, Mar. 20, 2012

This means they are only willing to hire candidates who already have a job or those facing only recent unemployment. But unlike gender or race discrimination, employment status discrimination is currently legal. Thankfully, legislation proposed in Florida and elsewhere may soon be changing that.

But according to related national statistics, just less than half of unemployed Americans have been jobless for at least six months. This amounts to about 5.4 million people who could be potential victims of employment status discrimination.

The proposed anti-discrimination laws vary by state. Some states seek to ban employers from posting in job ads that the unemployed need not apply. However, some employment experts believe this does not go far enough.

A representative with the National Employment Law Project says: "It's not just a problem with ads. The ads are surface-level. This kind of discrimination permeates all levels of the hiring process. ... It's really important that the legislation get at those levels of discrimination as well."

Of course, individual employers and chambers of commerce are often critical of such proposed legislation, calling it unnecessary. But qualified workers who haven't been able to find a job since the recession started see the problem from a much different angle.

As one unemployed woman recently said, "There are a lot of people unemployed right now, and people screening the resumes are trying to cut down on the resumes they screen. It's not fair."

Source: Baltimore Sun, "Md. legislation targets employer bias against unemployed," Eileen Ambrose, Mar. 18, 2012