Abercrombie & Fitch (NYSE: ANF) is being sued by a Muslim teenager who wanted to work at an Abercrombie Kids store in Oklahoma's Woodland Hills Mall. When she applied in June 2008, Samantha Elauf was told that the hijab she wears is inconsistent with Abercrombie's "Look Policy." So, the 17-year-old took her concerns to U.S. District Court on Wednesday, where a lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A spokeswoman for the retailer wouldn't comment on the lawsuit but did indicate that the store has a strong policy around equal employment opportunity and that it accommodates religious practices "when possible."

A recent ruling handed down by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has given employers discretion in using Medicare eligibility as a factor when calculating health care benefits for retired employees, as reported by Marketplace. The AARP had raised a stink about the issue claiming that having employers shift health care costs to Medicare when applicable amounted to age discrimination. My question is, if the level of care and benefits remains the same, who really cares from what direction the bills are paid? If employers carry the burden then we all see it in our bottom line. If the government pays for it, then we all see it in our tax load. The end effect to us as a society is basically the same.

This decision reaffirms in part exactly what Medicare was intended to do. The system has two major intents. First and foremost, Medicare is meant to fill the gap in cases where health care coverage is lacking. Secondly, Medicare is intended to help free the business world from the administration of benefits for people who no longer participate as an active part of their work force.

If the level of actual benefits is in no way reduced and the process of accessing those benefits is in no way hampered, then there's no room to gripe about employers shifting the burden. In fact, this kind of move is exactly what American business needs right now. However, if this decision in any way dilutes the benefits that hard working people have bargained their working careers for, then the AARP has an extremely valid argument and they desire to have that argument tested by the Supreme Court.

The Walgreen Company (NYSE: WAG) was hit with some disappointing news yesterday from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency decided to file a class action lawsuit of discrimination based on a 2005 lawsuit brought against the company.

According to an article in today's New York Times, some black employees felt that they were discriminated upon based on their race when the company handed out job assignments. Walgreen has been denying the charges which some officials in the E.E.O.C. have described as the biggest discrimination suit in the past few years.

In the lawsuit both current and former Walgreen employees have accused the company of some pretty serious charges. They claim that Walgreen based job assignments on race and went a step further to geographically locate some black employees in predominantly black neighborhoods or less-desirable ones.

One lawyer from the E.E.O.C. stated that after reviewing some of the case details he determined that Walgreen's had frequently assigned black managers to poorer performing stores and thus limiting their chances of getting coveted job promotions. He also went on to say that black managers were paid less than white employees holding the same positions.

There have been no monetary amounts set forth in the suit as of yet, but the E.E.O.C. laid out their goals in an official statement that they would be seeking monetary damages as well as changes in the overall company policy.

Michael Fowlkes has worked as a stock trader for seven years and spent the last two years working as an analyst for the online investment advisory service Investor's Observer.