Pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has agreed pay $750 million to settle charges that the company knowingly sold contaminated medication.  The charges stem from a lawsuit filed by Glaxo whistleblower and former Quality Assurance Manager Cheryl Eckard. Eckard reported GSK’s fraud to the FDA and filed a qui tam whistleblower lawsuit which allows a private citizen to sue on the government’s behalf and receive a share of the proceeds. She was fired by GSK in 2003 after repeatedly complaining to management about conditions at its plant in Puerto Rico.

The suit led to an investigation which allegedly revealed that GSK’s antidepressant drug, Paxil, was made without any controlled-release mechanism. And both their anti-nausea medication and anti-infection ointment may have been contaminated with microorganisms.

GSK will pay $600 million in civil fines and $150 million in criminal fines. Eckard will receive $96 million in return for bringing the story to light.

Read the full story here.

Thanks to an odd voicemail from Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sexual harassment allegations made against the justice nearly 20 years ago are back in the spotlight. For those too young to remember watching the story unfold long before text messages, Facebook and Twitter, here’s the story in a nutshell. In October 1991 as the Senate was set to confirm Thomas, who would become only the second African American to serve on the court, one of his former senate aides, Anita Hill, came forward with allegations of sexual harassment.

I remember watching much of the hearings, which aired over three days on network TV. The image of the infamous pubic hair on the coke can, Hill’s somber expression and Thomas’ “high-class lynching” comments are forever etched in my mind. I remember believing Hill, finding Thomas’ “lynching” comments ironic and wondering why Hill waited so long to make her claims. I remember colleagues, family members and college students asking out loud why Thomas would have to, or “want to” harass Hill since, in their opinion, “she wasn’t even attractive” anyway. Those conversations and Thomas’ eventual confirmation sent strong messages to a young woman just entering the workforce.

The first message I got loud and clear – only women who look a certain way get sexually harassed by their superiors. The next – it’s better to keep quiet about harassment because nothing’s going to be done about it anyway and it will have a negative impact on your life and career. And the fact that back in 1991 only 24% of Americans believed Hill, sent the final and loudest message – no one is going to believe you.

Of course those messages were wrong. Harassment is first and foremost about power, and sexual harassment can and does occur regardless of a person’s appearance, sexual orientation or race. It can and does occur in environments and with individuals who have a need to assert their authority in an inappropriate and demeaning manner. And while Hill’s accusations were lost in the noise of politics and race, the truth is, her speaking out about what happened gave voice to women across the country who previously had none.

As for people not believing when harassment is reported – some people will never believe. I imagine that’s at least part of the reason behind Virginia Thomas’ bizarre voicemail to Hill asking for an apology. I have a little message of my own for Mrs. Thomas – people who haven’t done anything wrong have nothing to apologize for.

Check out Virginia Thomas’ voicemail to Ms. Hill here, and footage of the 1991 Thomas hearings here.

Where were you when the hearings were taking place in 1991? What did you think of them then and has your view changed? Share your thoughts in the comment section.

That’s how a Manhattan jury described the University Club, a 100 year-old New York social club. Six waitresses accused 71 year old banquet captain Mel Guzman of allocating shifts based on how they responded to his advances.

When the club received its first complaint, it confronted the married banquet captain who said that there had been “consensual” contact. The waitresses’ attorney Joshua Friedman is quoted as saying “Guzman is between 20 and 45 years older than the plaintiffs, and they worked with his wife at the club, and they were married or in steady relationships. Yet he is going to ask you to believe the plaintiffs desired him so badly that they initiated sexual contact with him. Where? In the elevator,” He continued, “Six women do not schedule rendezvous in freight elevators and ask the man to grope their breasts, buttocks and private parts through their pantyhose. It was a sickening abuse of power that left six women emotionally scarred.”

Guzman’s attorney, Daniel Hughes, said his client was a victim of a “she-said, she-said conspiracy” where the waitresses motivation was to get more money and work.

Read more about the case here.

According to a lawsuit filed in late September by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Reed Pierece’s, a sports bar and grill in Byram Mississipi has been a really bad boss, allegedly firing a waitress based soley on the fact that she was pregnant.

Melody McKinley contends that she was fired after asking to change her shift to go to a doctor’s appointment and experiencing pregnancy-related complications. The suit alleges that Reed Pierce’s told McKinley that although she was a good employee, “the baby was taking its toll on her.” She was then let go from her waitressing job. McKinley asked to keep working as a call-in employee or hostess, but the bar refused. The EEOC clearly outlines its policy on pregnancy discrimination:

Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi (Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-00541-WHB -LRA) after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement. The suit seeks monetary relief for the victim, a court order requiring the company to implement new policies and practices designed to prevent pregnancy discrimination, provide employee training on anti-discrimination laws, posting of notices at the work site and other injunctive relief.

“The law protects employees’ rights to continue working during their pregnancy,” said Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director for the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office.

C. Emanuel Smith, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office, said, “It is important for employers to recognize that women have the right to remain gainfully employed throughout their pregnancy. This lawsuit is a step in that direction.”

In Fiscal Year 2009, the EEOC received 6,196 charges alleging pregnancy discrimination.

For more information on the EEOC and its policies, click here.

What the blogoshpere’s saying about bosses this week…

• When they’re bad, we all talk about them. But when they’re really good, we should talk about that too. Luis Urzua, one of the trapped Chilean miners and the group’s leader, for two months kept his head and his group together. In the words of his president, Luis Urzua “acted like a good boss.” Bob Sutton agrees. Read his take here.

• DirectTV’s Undercover Boss, Mike White, mans the phones at his call center and calls a she, a he. Watch the hilarity here.

• Interesting new website Your Secret Gift suggests sending revenge gift to a bad boss with complete anonymity. Hmmm…

• An Annapolis blogger calls out Annapolis Mayor Josh Cohen for failing to do a background check on his nominee to run the Department of Transportation. Apparently the nominee, Richard Newell, served time for assault, armed robbery and a weapons charge in the 1970s. Retail employees undergo more rigorous screening for their minimum wage jobs. Read more here.

• The Control Freak and The Finger Pointer are just two of ten archetypes of a bad boss – Find out what the others are here.

Did you know that the EEOC prohibits “forcing an employee to resign by making the work environment so intolerable a reasonable person would not be able to stay”? Here a few more actions the EEOC prohibits:

• Harassment can take the form of slurs, graffiti, offensive or derogatory comments, or other verbal or physical conduct. It is illegal to harass someone because they have complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.
• The law requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause difficulty or expense for the employer. This means an employer may have to make reasonable adjustments at work that will allow the employee to practice his or her religion, such as allowing an employee to voluntarily swap shifts with a co- worker so that he or she can attend religious services.
• The law requires that an employer provide reasonable accommodation to an employee or job applicant with a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. A reasonable accommodation is any change in the workplace (or in the ways things are usually done) to help a person with a disability apply for a job, perform the duties of a job, or enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment.
• It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee in the payment of wages or employee benefits on the bases of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Employee benefits include sick and vacation leave, insurance, access to overtime as well as overtime pay, and retirement programs.

I believe that because these violations can be so difficult to prove on a one-on-one basis, the practice of discrimination is far more pervasive than documented. Have you personally experienced any form of workplace discrimination? Share your thoughts in the comment section or email denised@reallybadboss.com to share your story.

Click here to learn more about EEOC prohibited acts.

Solid waste company Republic Services was found to have discriminated against 21 employees who were over the age of 40. Now the Phoenix based company must pay close to $3 million to settle the age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). From the EEOC’s website:

According to the EEOC, Phoenix-based Republic terminated and denied job transfer opportunities to about 21 employees over the age of 40 at its facilities in southern Nevada between 2003 and 2005 because of their age. The list of terminated employees includes garbage collectors, drivers, and supervisors, some of whom were employed by the company for more than 25 years. The EEOC contends that those jobs were then offered to younger employees who were subsequently held to lower performance standards. The EEOC further charged that Republic engaged in a form of hazing called “break him off,” in which some employees were worked to the point of exhaustion, often making it difficult for them to do their jobs.

“No one should be harassed at work or forced out of a job for discriminatory reasons,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The law clearly prohibits mistreatment or dismissal of older workers on account of their age, and no workplace should lose productive and valuable employees because of illegal age stereotyping.”

“Our hope is that other employers implement practices to ensure that age stereotyping does not occur in any facet of employment,” said P. David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC. “As illustrated by this settlement, the EEOC will insist on substantial and meaningful relief for victims of illegal age discrimination.”

According to the agreement, Republic Services must also provide annual anti-discrimination training to its employees, designate a corporate equal employment opportunity compliance officer and conduct an audit of its employment policies.

Read the whole story here.