The trio recently introduced legislation to reverse a 2009 Supreme Court decision which made it much more difficult for elderly workers victimized by age discrimination to win in court. In a 5-4 ruling, the high court shifted a long-held legal precedent regarding the burden of proof in a discrimination suit from the employer to the worker.

Before, the employer was required to show that age bias was not a factor in a demotion or dismissal. Currently, as a result of Gross v. FBL Financial, the worker must prove that age was the determining factor, above all else, in such situations. This burden of proof shift has made it almost prohibitively difficult for workers to prove their cases.

If passed, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act would place the burden of proof back on the employer. Older workers would then be in a better position to successfully argue that age discrimination occurred with regards to a given adverse employment decision.

Hopefully Congress will act swiftly and resolutely in protecting the older members of the nation's workforce.

Currently, neither federal nor Florida state law protects lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender employees or job applicants from workplace discrimination.

Since he was elected nearly four years ago, LGBT rights advocates have been calling on President Obama to issue an executive order banning employers with federal contracts from engaging in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Earlier this month, one of President Obama's senior advisors informed the advocates that the president has decided not to issue such an order at any time in the near future.

The president's decision has left many gay-rights advocates stunned. They note that LGBT people face disproportionately high rates of workplace discrimination. Further, the president's refusal to act means that it will continue to be permissible under federal law to fire or refuse to hire workers for no other reason except that the employer perceives them as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

The absence of protections in federal or state law means that it can be harder for victims of Florida LGBT discrimination to seek redress for unfair workplace practices. However, it does not mean that they are without options. Many Florida local governments, including Palm Beach, Miami Beach, Broward County and Orange County, have passed ordinances protecting LGBT workers. In addition, workers may be able to bring state or federal claims for discrimination based on gender, race or another protected class.

"Hazard pay" is not a novel term for employees in dangerous industries like fishing, logging and construction. The Department of Labor defines hazard pay as "additional pay for performing hazardous duty or work involving physical hardship." In other words, workers in dangerous fields earn more money for performing jobs that put them at risk of injury or death.

According to a Vanderbilt University study, the same principle holds true when that risk is sexual harassment. Women working in industries with high rates of sexual harassment earn an average of 25 cents more per hour than their counterparts in less risky fields. Men facing similar risks earn an extra 50 cents per hour, in accordance with the higher wages that men earn generally.

• Mining (71 reports of sexual harassment per 100,000 workers)
• Construction (20 per 100,000)
• Forestry (18 per 100,000)
• Fishing (18 per 100,000)
• Hunting (18 per 100,000)
• Transportation and utilities (17 per 100,000)

Just as dangerous industries must pay workers a premium to offset the chance of injury, it seems that industries plagued by sexual harassment must offer higher pay to attract and keep good employees.

In today's economy, many people feel fortunate to have any job at all, particularly one that pays enough. Employees who are fighting for job security may feel that they have to put up with harassment to avoid retaliation or termination.

While employers may believe that high wages make up for the risk of sexual harassment, that doesn't excuse inappropriate conduct in the workplace. State and federal law requires employers to take reasonable care to prevent sexual harassment and to promptly correct harassment which has occurred. If you have been harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, an employment law attorney can advise you of your rights and recommend proper legal action when appropriate.

The plaintiff, Daniel Kirk, brought a qui tam suit against his employer, Schindler Elevator Corp., alleging that the company made hundreds of false reports regarding hiring veterans in order to win government contracts and seeking damages on behalf of the U.S. To supplement his personal observations from his employment regarding Schindler Corp. reporting practices, Kirk cited documents that his wife received in response to requests that she made under the FOIA.

The district court held that Kirk's suit could not go forward because of the public disclosure bar within the False Claims Act, which prevents plaintiffs from relying on "public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media" as a basis for suit. The district court concluded that Freedom of Information Act requests constitute government "reports" or "investigations" for the purposes of the False Claims Act.

The Court's decision that future qui tam suits will need to be based solely on personal observations of employees makes the task of bringing such suits much more difficult for employees, who may have suspicions that a company is doing something wrong based on observations made while working, but who lack the documents to substantiate those suspicions.

Additionally, the holding seems to give corporations a dangerous free pass, in that if they disclose huge amounts of information to the government - even potentially incriminating information - they can then use the public disclosure bar as a way to prevent FCA suits based on that information, claiming that the information is a "government report."

The Supreme Court's decision has stuck a blow to the effectiveness of the FCA as a means for employees to help the government police companies and prevent fraud. Employees looking to hold companies responsible will now unfortunately have a much more difficult time getting their day in court.

Social Media "Background Checks" Could Lead To Employer Liability

According to a poll by CareerBuilder of some 2,600 hiring managers, up to half of employers use social networking sites to look up potential hires; some even retain independent firms to conduct social media intelligence-gathering before making employment decisions.

These concerns are not unfounded; using social media networks as a tool in the hiring process can get employers into legal trouble. Often, a social media check will reveal a potential employee's race, religion, age, gender, disability, pregnancy or other characteristic that may not legally be taken into consideration in hiring decisions.

Do Not Let Discrimination Go Unchecked

It is important to protect your privacy online by monitoring security settings on social networking sites and by being careful about the type of content you post yourself. But, there is only so much you can do on your own to avoid being discriminated against.

If you think that an employer's perusal of your online information led to an improper hiring decision, be sure to explore the legal options at your disposal.

Recent studies by The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy indicate that as many as 43 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual workers have experienced workplace harassment or discrimination due to their sexual orientation. Further, 90 percent of transgender employees have reported workplace abuse due to their gender identity, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality and the national Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Sexual orientation-based discrimination, including lost jobs and missed opportunities for advancement, creates legitimate concerns for affected members of the LGBT community. From identity and self-esteem issues to safety and financial stability, employment discrimination forces victims to grapple with personal, socioeconomic and legal challenges.

While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does offer some protection for LGBT workers, this federal law does not consistently guard gay and transgendered individuals against employment discrimination. Protections under state law are just as inconsistent. In fact, in more than half of all states it remains legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act Offers LGBT Protections

First introduced in 1994, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a clear, defined policy prohibiting discrimination in the workplace. It adds "gender identity or expression" and "sexual orientation" to already federally protected classes, which include:

• Age
• Sex
• Race
• Religion
• National origin
• Disability

Due to the current lack of specific laws protecting the legal rights of LGBT employees, passing the ENDA may be a necessary step in ensuring the protections that LGBT employees deserve. For nearly every year since 1994, a revised version has been brought before the House and the Senate, though none of these versions have been passed. Most recently, Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (D-FL) and Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) introduced ENDA in April 2011 to both chambers of the 112^th Congress. The legislation is currently awaiting further action in Congress.

If you have faced or are facing discrimination in the workplace due to your identity as a lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered employee, please contact an experienced employment law attorney to discuss your options.

Rather than creating a brand new definition of disability, the new regulations simply return to the original meaning intended when the ADA was first enacted: a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

In the employment context, the amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act will broaden an employer's obligation to make accommodations for disabled employees. Also, by shifting the burden of proof onto the employer, the new law will make discrimination claims easier to prove. Under the old interpretation of the statute, an employee who was seeking accommodation from an employer had to prove that he or she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Now, in contrast, an employer who refuses to make a requested accommodation must prove that an employee is not disabled. For the disabled community, these changes are overdue and most welcome.

The Act seeks to add the unemployed to the groups protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Currently, the Civil Rights Act protects workers from discrimination based race, color, sex, religion and national origin. According to Rep. Johnson, unemployment status should be considered a similarly protected class as this status is (usually) brought on by no fault of one's own.

If an unemployed job-searcher were to bring a claim under the proposed Fair Employment Act, according to Rep. Johnson, the burden of proof would be on that person to prove that his or her employment status resulted in discrimination.

Given the current state of economy, all workers should be encouraged by the potential removal of this obstacle of employment, as an individual truly never knows when they may join the ranks of the unemployed job-searcher.