Even though there currently is an African American running for president, an Indian American serving as governor of Louisiana, an African American woman as Secretary of State, and several other minorities serving in high positions in both business and government, workplace diversity still has a long way to go.

A few years ago I had a lovely three course lunch with a few of my African American, Hispanic, and Asian friends at the world famous Tavern on the Green restaurant, just off of Central Park in New York City. The atmosphere and the food were wonderful, but according to a recent settlement what was alleged to be going on behind the scenes at the famed restaurant was something quite the opposite.

An interesting ruling out of India brings to light a new question on workplace sexual harassment: should we allow workplace sexual harassment claims to include acts that occur outside the physical workplace? At first glance, this question seems like an attempt at extending workplace policy into personal life, but that is not necessarily the case.

According to a recent study on workplace ridicule, sexually inappropriate comments were heard almost twice as much in 2007 as they were in 2006. Novations Group, a business performance consulting group, and International Communications Research Media conducted a telephone survey of 546 employed Americans and found that 38 percent of women respondents to the survey heard sexually inappropriate remarks at work in 2007, an increase of 16 percent over 2006.

Carol Kline, a seven year veteran of the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division, the state agency responsible for protecting workers' civil rights, claims that the agency fired her in retaliation for her filing of discrimination and sexual harassment claims against the agency. Between 1999 and 2003, Kline filed three complaints of discrimination and harassment along with several other women in the office. Each complaint was upheld by the EEOC.
The Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division claims that Kline was fired because her work was no longer up to standards and that "termination was the only way to go." What kind of upside down world do we live in when the agency that is supposedly protecting workers’ civil rights is itself accused of engaging in discriminatory practices?

A county judge in Hagerstown, Maryland was reprimanded for calling three African American female lawyers “the Supremes” in open court and for advising their defendant to get an “experienced male attorney.” The judge has since acknowledged that his comments suggested racial and sexual bias, but said that he was trying to protect the three public defenders from representing a difficult defendant.
How? By publicly humiliating them?