In the southern Los Angeles community of Lynwood, school board officials are still trying to decide if they should hire Edward Velasquez, the current superintendent in the nearby Montebello Unified School District. Board members recognize Velasquez's experience but many are feeling apprehensive. Even normally complacent high school students have shown up at school board meetings to voice their concerns. Why? Edward Velasquez is currently the target of an explicit lawsuit filed against the Montebello Unified School District in March by former employee Irving Bartikofsky. The suit claims that Bartikofsky was the victim of employment discrimination, sexual battery, retaliation, wrongful termination and hostile work environment. Many folks in Lynwood are unsure if they want to be associated with Velasquez and a lawsuit that has the potential to get really ugly.

According to the lawsuit, working at the Montebello Unified School District as a former administrator in the district's special education department was a nightmare for Irving Bartikofsky. Bartikofsky claims that Velasquez stuck a wet finger in his ear and grabbed his genitals. Reportedly, Velasquez made numerous sexual remarks to Bartikofsky and told him he wanted to kiss him. Bartikofsky formally filed a complaint with the school board who dismissed his allegations and denied him a claim for damages in 2009. To make things worse, the lawsuit alleges that Irving Bartikofsky's job was eliminated after he filed the complaint and was replaced by Velasquez's friend and divorce attorney. Shortly after being fired, Bartikofsky was sent back to working in the classroom. Finally, Bartikofsky's complaint was approved by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing in a letter from June 2009 which stated he had the right to sue the school district. Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court last month, the lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

Meanwhile, the members of the Lynwood school board are expected to make a decision on whether or not they will hire Edward Velasquez as Superintendent in the next few days.

Sometimes the juiciest stories never end up on screen. Nicolette Sheridan, who played neighborhood bad girl Edie Britt on ABC’s hit show “Desperate Housewives” for five seasons, filed a lawsuit this week that claims the actress was hit in the face by show creator Marc Cherry and then fired in retaliation for complaining about him. Sheridan also alleges that she was the victim of assault and battery, gender violence, sexual discrimination, and a hostile work environment. Sheridan, whose character was killed off of the show last year, is suing for $20 million, alleging that her termination from the show caused damage to her finances and professional reputation.

The lawsuit, filled with claims of violence and verbal abuse, reads like one of the “Desperate Housewives” scripts. Sheridan claims that Cherry directed his anger at cast and crew members after she went above his head to complain to ABC executives. Cherry even allegedly lashed out at Sheridan’s onscreen nemesis, Terri Hatcher, when he told Sheridan, "I hope Teri Hatcher gets hit by a car and dies," according to the lawsuit. ABC Studios, who produces “Desperate Housewives,” says they investigated claims alleged by Sheridan last year but found them to be without merit.

The actress claims that she tried to discuss her issues with Cherry in a private meeting during the summer of 2008, but Cherry told Sheridan at that time he did not have any problem with her performances or quality of work. Yet that following September 24 during a rehearsal, Cherry allegedly exploded and “forcefully hit her with his hand across the face and head” after she had inquired about something that was in the script. Sheridan erupted, according to the lawsuit, allegedly yelling back at the producer, “You just hit me in the head! That is not okay! THAT is not okay!” Cherry tried to apologize to the Sheridan, but still his behavior worsened.

In February 2009, the actress was informed that her character was going to be killed off. Lawyers for Sheridan claim that she was a victim of retaliation for complaining to ABC about the fight that occurred earlier that fall since none of the other lead housewives were to be killed off or written out of the show.

Marc Cherry has declined to make any comments in regard to the lawsuit while former coworkers of Sheridan’s, like Eva Langoria-Parker, have stated that they are surprised and shocked by the allegations of discrimination and abuse.

Sometimes the juiciest stories never end up on screen. Nicolette Sheridan, who played neighborhood bad girl Edie Britt on ABC’s hit show “Desperate Housewives” for five seasons, filed a lawsuit this week that claims the actress was hit in the face by show creator Marc Cherry and then fired in retaliation for complaining about him. Sheridan also alleges that she was the victim of assault and battery, gender violence, sexual discrimination, and a hostile work environment. Sheridan, whose character was killed off of the show last year, is suing for $20 million, alleging that her termination from the show caused damage to her finances and professional reputation.

The lawsuit, filled with claims of violence and verbal abuse, reads like one of the “Desperate Housewives” scripts. Sheridan claims that Cherry directed his anger at cast and crew members after she went above his head to complain to ABC executives. Cherry even allegedly lashed out at Sheridan’s onscreen nemesis, Terri Hatcher, when he told Sheridan, "I hope Teri Hatcher gets hit by a car and dies," according to the lawsuit. ABC Studios, who produces “Desperate Housewives,” says they investigated claims alleged by Sheridan last year but found them to be without merit.

The actress claims that she tried to discuss her issues with Cherry in a private meeting during the summer of 2008, but Cherry told Sheridan at that time he did not have any problem with her performances or quality of work. Yet that following September 24 during a rehearsal, Cherry allegedly exploded and “forcefully hit her with his hand across the face and head” after she had inquired about something that was in the script. Sheridan erupted, according to the lawsuit, allegedly yelling back at the producer, “You just hit me in the head! That is not okay! THAT is not okay!” Cherry tried to apologize to the Sheridan, but still his behavior worsened.

In February 2009, the actress was informed that her character was going to be killed off. Lawyers for Sheridan claim that she was a victim of retaliation for complaining to ABC about the fight that occurred earlier that fall since none of the other lead housewives were to be killed off or written out of the show.

Marc Cherry has declined to make any comments in regard to the lawsuit while former coworkers of Sheridan’s, like Eva Langoria-Parker, have stated that they are surprised and shocked by the allegations of discrimination and abuse.

Jennifer Paviglianti of Centereach, New York wanted to keep her pregnancy quiet from her boss John Doxey until she reached the three-month mark. Doxey is the owner of the gentlemen’s club Café Royale, and Jennifer is a bartender there, or at least she was. Gossip amongst her fellow employees reached Doxey before she was able to tell him the news of her pregnancy herself. Paviglianti says her now former employer immediately assumed that the pregnant bartender would be unable to do her job and she was soon fired from her position.   

On February 2, Jennifer Paviglianti filed charges of discrimination based on sex discrimination, retaliation, perceived disability discrimination, and pregnancy discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  According to Paviglianti, her employer repeatedly told her that customers of the Café Royal would not be pleased to see a pregnant woman behind the bar as they expected to be served by sexy bartenders. Furthermore, she claims that John Doxey told her that her pregnancy and appearance were actually hurting business.  

Soon, Jennifer found her shifts falling off the schedule and saw her paychecks dwindle. She claims he was trying to get her to quit and hitting her where it hurt. He also hired another bartender on the nights that she worked to cut into her already disappearing tips. The abuse, says Paviglianti, continued with Doxey finding ways to make her job more difficult, like forcing her to clean the bar with ammonia rather than safer products for pregnant women.  

Jennifer Paviglianti started to sense something was wrong so she did some research. After discovering that cases of employee discrimination were extremely hard to prove, she concocted a plan to tape record her boss. With little coaxing and within the confines of the law, Jennifer easily captured her boss on tape saying discriminating things about her being pregnant and how her condition was negatively affecting business. This tape became the smoking gun that Jennifer needed. Armed with the tape, lawyers, and her complaint with the EEOC, Jennifer has a real shot of protecting other pregnant women form facing the kind of discrimination she has.

The Ohio Workers' Compensation Council was created nearly three years ago after a massive statewide scandal. The state’s insurance fund for injured workers was drained of a hefty $300 million as a result of being sunk into risky investments like Beanie Babies, collectable rare coins, and other financial gambles. In the wake of this financial disaster, the state of Ohio created the panel to assist lawmakers in policing the insurance fund.

In an ironic and equally scandalous twist, the Ohio Workers' Compensation Council itself is facing embarrassing allegations of religious discrimination, wrongful termination, age discrimination and retaliation.  The whirlwind of lawsuits all center on the council’s director, Virginia McInerney, who allegedly pushed her own religious beliefs on her staff members before firing them. Three female ex-employees allege that McInerney held mandatory prayer sessions, distributed religious literature and CDs to her staff, and subsequently fired them after tensions around the religious subject matter in the office erupted. The former workers state in separate letters that McInerney offered each of them severance agreements that would also release her from any legal claims. All three of the employees refused to sign.

Virginia McInerney has publicly denied the claims while refusing to discuss the nature of the firings in any depth. The three fired women had all been hired within the past year and appear to have been model employees with no previous disciplinary charges having been brought against them. Each of the women claim that McInerney gave them copies of the “God at Work” CD collection and required them to take notes on the religious material and share those notes with other staff members. Furthermore, office employees of different faiths started to feel uncomfortable with the office prayer policy.  Others were asked to do tasks to prevent acts of Satan. The three women are all seeking to change the status of their terminations from firings to a settlements.