2010 has seen some big-time settlements and judgements in cases involving sexual harassment, gender bias and discrimination. In cases across the United States, judges and juries are sending a clear message that these kinds of behaviors in the workplace will not be tolerated. So it's no wonder many companies and organizations are choosing to pay out large settlements before things get ugly and reputations get destroyed. These settlements not only prevent the victims of sexual harassment from reliving the often traumatic experiences in a courtroom but they can help the accused businesses avoid a public relations nightmare. Two recent cases show that settling out of court in sexual harassment cases can be beneficial for all parties involved.

Earlier this month, an employee at Washington's Western State Hospital, who said she was sexually harassed while on the job, received a nearly $1 million settlement. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and the Washington Federation of State Employees agreed to settle before the case went to trial. The DSHS said that the state will pay $795,000 while the union will pay $200,000. Neither establishment has admitted guilt or wrongdoing in the case, but has agreed upon the total settlement instead of going to trial.

In April, another big settlement in a sexual harassment case was awarded to two female sheriffs in New Jersey. Litigation in the case dragged on for nearly seven years after the two women filed a sexual harassment lawsuit in 2006; the lengthy paper trail led investigators back to March 2002, when the initial complaints were filed in Middlesex County. One day before the case was scheduled to go to trial, the lawyers for the Middlesex County Sheriff's Department decided to settle, paying out $1.59 million to the former sheriffs. Both women complained of a sexually charged and hostile work environment. They claim to have endured years of lewd comments, indecent propositions and lewd behavior from fellow officers and supervisors. Like the previous case, Middlesex has admitted to no wrongdoing despite agreeing to pay the $1.59 million settlement.

Pharmaceutical giant Novartis has been ordered by a New York federal court to pay $250 million in punitive damages to a group of 5,000 former and current women employees of the drug company. The award comes after Novartis lost a gender bias lawsuit, producing the second-largest verdict of 2010.

On Wednesday, a federal jury in Manhattan found Novartis liable for discrimination and ordered it to pay $3.3 million in damages to the 12 women plaintiffs. These women are part of the Novartis' 14,000 U.S. workers. Based in Basel, Switzerland, the company once was heralded as one of the top work environments for women by Working Woman Magazine.

One by one, women who worked at Novartis testified in court during the five week trial and told a very different story. One woman testified that her male manager suggested she have an abortion when she was pregnant. Other employees testified that they were scrutinized by the company managers while male employees were not. Another woman said she was not included in the "boy's club" type camaraderie that took place at Novartis where executives partied with doctors at strip clubs. Still another woman testified that she was denied access to the flexible hours of the job share program after she requested to work part-time to care for her newly-adopted daughter. Jurors listened to women like Holly Walters, who described in detail being passed over for promotions because they were women. Walters told jurors that she was fired by Novartis even though she had not received any formal complaints about her performance. She says she was let go by the company when she was seven months pregnant after taking a few weeks off of work upon a doctor's recommendation who was concerned about her health. After days in court, the jury was convinced: Novartis was guilty of discrimination.

Judge Colleen McMahon is expected to make a ruling next week on whether or not Novartis paid women employees less than men. If she decides that it has, the drug giant will be ordered to shell out even more money in compensatory damages. The company, which produces top-selling drugs like Lamisil, Theraflu and Ritalin, was ordered to pay $3.3 million to the twelve plaintiffs earlier this week. The $250 million will go to current and former employees of the company. Novartis also has been ordered by Judge McMahon to undergo thorough and on-going investigations to see if the company has changed its standards and practices in regard to women employees.

Sometimes evidence of the still-omnipresent glass ceiling pops up in unlikely places, like your local discount store. Massive chains like Wal-Mart are known for great deals and low prices that drives competitors out of business while shoppers flock to pick up incredible values. Thousands of female Wal-Mart employees, however, say the super store also is famous for gender bias and discrimination.

This week, the largest class-action employment lawsuit filed in U.S. history was granted class action status by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The 6 to 5 ruling will give more than 1 million former and current female employees of Wal-Mart their day in court. By achieving class-action status, the lawsuit could cost Wal-Mart billions of dollars in damages, legal fees and projected settlement costs.

The massive discrimination lawsuit claims that women workers of the world's largest retail chain were paid lower and given fewer management opportunities than their male co-workers. The plaintiffs claim that men employed by Wal-Mart systematically earn higher wages and receive promotions despite the sheer number of women Wal-Mart has in its workforce. According to the lawsuit, the company sent a clear message to their female employees: management is for men and not women. Betty Dukes of Pittsburg, Calif., is named as the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Dukes first filed a suit against Wal-Mart in 2001 with six other Wal-Mart employees who worked at 13 of the company's 3,400 nationwide stores. Dukes and her co-plaintiffs are seeking back pay and punitive damages.

Wal-Mart adds its name to a shameful list of national businesses accused of gender bias and discrimination in 2010. Banking giant Goldman Sachs, airline Jet Blue and Bank of America are among the companies facing high-profile gender discrimination lawsuits.

Discrimination in the workplace is one of those unfortunate practices that can go on for years without ever being discovered. Occasionally, though, this kind of behavior is exposed and winds up on the front page of every newspaper, especially when the employer involved is an outspoken local politician like Brooklyn Borough president Marty Markowitz. Female former staff members of Markowitz's filed a lawsuit against the elected official that paints an unsavory picture of inner-office sexism, favoritism, and abuse.

Court documents claim that Marty Markowitz admitted to keeping a slovenly, absentee male staff member on the payroll even though he should have been fired. The claim is filled with allegations that the politician repeatedly deemed female workers incompetent, and he even referred to one former female employee as "Tinkerbell." Another complaint in the report comes from the fourth woman mentioned in the lawsuit who claims to have heard Markowitz and his former chief of staff telling lewd jokes.

Regina Weiss, who is named as the plaintiff in the lawsuit, was the former chief of communications for Markowitz and claims that several staff members were recruited to work on Markowitz's 2005 campaign while on the city's time and payroll. Weiss and a half a dozen other staffers were allegedly asked to work on campaign press releases and were asked to assist in helping him prepare for an upcoming debate. Campaign related duties are to take place on a separate payroll and not during city hours or in city facilities.

Markowitz has fervently denied the allegations while blasting Weiss and her claims. He did admit to calling a former employee Tinkerbell because she supposedly left her belongings scattered about the office like fairy dust. Markowitz has also admitted to keeping the male staffer with scant attendance and unprofessional appearance but out of compassion and not favoritism. Meanwhile, the New York press is having a field day with the allegations against Markowitz and are waiting to see if any more scandalous details will be brought to light.

Elaine Joyce is used to big wins as a champion amateur golfer, and she experienced another victory on Monday in court. The U.S. Federal Court in Boston ruled that Joyce was the victim of sex discrimination. Joyce sued the town of Dennis after being barred from participation in a tournament at the Dennis Pines Golf Course in Cape Cod. Unlike her wins in golf, however, this courtroom triumph has required years of fighting a lonely battle.

In 2007, Elaine Joyce wanted to play in a men's tournament. After all, it was being held at Dennis Pines, a club where she is a member, and she had played in coed tournaments before. When Joyce was flatly rejected and told that she was not allowed to participate in the tournament, she was shocked. Granted, Elaine Joyce had encountered the “old boy's club” mentality in the world of golf before, but rarely did she ever experience blatant discrimination. Elaine Joyce retaliated and filed a lawsuit in 2008 alleging that the town of Dennis, and other officials and organizations, were guilty of discriminating against her simply because she is a woman.

The suit requested a mere $500.00 and that Dennis Pines be required to inform female golfers at the club of their rights. The judge obliged and recognized the hypocrisy involved in the sport of golf. Furthermore, Judge Gorton ruled that Elaine Joyce was protected under federal civil rights laws and therefore is entitled to damages and legal fees. No trial date has been set to determine those fees as of yet.

Both Judge Gorton and Elaine Joyce hope that an important precedent will be set as a result of this long, messy case. For years, private golf clubs have practiced discrimination while using government money to fund segregated tournaments. Foreign golf tournaments have already heard the warning of this case, and the golf world is awaiting big changes in the way men and women play the sport.

“Mommy tracking” is something that few talk about but many still experience in the workplace. Mommy tracking, if you are not familiar with the term, is the polite description for discriminating against women who have full-time careers but also have families. What makes this discrimination especially insidious is the glass ceiling it assists in enforcing on working women. For some, mommy tracking basically says, “We’ll offer you benefits and flexibility up to a certain point, but don’t expect any promotions or new opportunities.”  

The dirty secret of mommy tracking might be blown wide open as one of the biggest of such cases rocked the financial and legal world last week. Legendary global investment banking firm Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street icon since the late 1800s, was hit with a discrimination lawsuit from a former female employee who claims that the company treats working moms like “second-class citizens.”

A former employee of Goldman Sachs University, the company’s in-depth educational and training program, Charlotte Hanna, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan last Wednesday. The lawsuit alleges that Hanna faced discrimination after having her first child in 2005 and was wrongfully terminated during maternity leave after she had her second child in 2009. As a former vice president of GSU, Hanna opted for a part-time schedule to accommodate her family obligations. Goldman Sachs offered part-time tracking to women specifically to address the balance of work and family.

Hanna was naturally surprised when she was fired in 2009 and to find her position was being eliminated. Hanna was shocked even more so when she learned that an alleged 75% of fellow employees whose jobs were terminated at the same time consisted of other women who were fired while on maternity leave. Lawyers for Charlotte Hanna consider this to be a clear message of how Goldman Sachs feels about mothers as employees.

While Goldman Sachs has issued no response to the lawsuit, and no trial date has been set, “mommy tracking” has officially become a water cooler topic and is no longer a corporate secret.

Over the past two years, the United States has seen women make amazing strides in the effort to break the glass ceiling. The progress has enabled women to earn places and positions never before thought possible. From Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign to Katherine Bigelow's recent Oscar win for best director, we have come a long way… Or have we? A quick Internet search for the word "discrimination" turns up the headlines of hundreds of cases, many of them filed on the grounds of gender bias. Cases such as the one recently settled in Oregon involving Les Schwab Tires may be an indicator that workplace discrimination is still alive and well.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced last week that it had finally resolved its gender-biased hiring class lawsuit against Les Schwab Tires of Washington for $2.0 million. Les Schwab is a giant franchise that not only serves Washington State, but Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, California and Utah. The EEOC's case alleged that Les Schwab had failed to hire qualified women to work in the Sales and Service divisions of their outlets. The Sales and Service divisions at Les Schwab are primarily in charge of changing customer tires.  And according to the chain, it is strictly man's work. Les Schwab, according to the EEOC, denied the applications of over 200 women throughout the West for Sales and Service positions since 2004. These women will be eligible for a share of the settlement.

One charge that Les Schwab was able to have dropped from the suit was that it failed to promote women to managerial positions.  While never admitting guilt, Les Schwab has agreed as part of the settlement to continue to train employees on anti-discrimination, as well as to encourage and promote the hiring of qualified women candidates for all positions that they apply for.

Meanwhile, the EEOC is thrilled at the result of the settlement and vows to monitor Les Schwab's hiring practices and development. The EEOC also sees the settlement as a fresh start with Les Schwab in a "new era of cooperation.  And really, that is what change and progress are all about—recognizing wrongs, fixing them, and moving forward.