text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
June 9, 2010
ANTHONY G. PETRELLO AND CYNTHIA A. PETRELLO, PLAINTIFFS,v.JOHN C. WHITE, JR., WHITE INVESTMENT REALTY, LP., DEFENDANTS.
This case centers around an August 25, 1998 contract of sale (the "Contract") for 9.56 acres of waterfront property located in Sagaponeck, New York (referred to as lots 4, 5, and 6). Presently before the Court for resolution is the sole remaining issue precluding the closing of title viz. the meaning of the phrase "shall be subject to covenants that lots 5 and 6 shall be owned by a common owner of record" as used in ¶ 33(2) of the Rider to the Contract. Plaintiffs contend that the subject phrase means that the lots will have at least one owner in common, while Defendants contend that it means the lots will be owned by the same person or persons. For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds that the phrase requires that the title to lots 5 and 6 shall be in the same person or persons.
The relevant facts are set forth in the various decisions rendered by the Court, familiarity with which is presumed. For present purposes it suffices to state that by Order dated December 30, 2008, the Court directed specific performance of the Contract. As relevant hereto, the Court ordered that: there shall be held a closing of title for certain real property known as lots 4, 5, and 6 on the subdivision Map of John C. White Farm (recorded in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on June 21, 2000 as Map File No. 10454) . . . and that at such closing, upon the payment by the Plaintiffs Anthony G. Petrello and Cynthia A. White of the balance of the purchase price, as adjusted in accordance with the terms of the Contract, (a) Defendant John C. White Jr. shall (I) convey to Plaintiffs Anthony G. Petrello and Cynthia A. White by bargain and sale deed with covenants against grantor's acts certain real property known as lots 4, 5 and 6 on the subdivision Map of John C. White Farm (recorded in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk on June 21, 2000 as Map File No. 10454) which conveyance shall be subject to covenants that lots 5 and 6 shall be owned by a common owner of record and shall not be further divided . . . .
Order dated December 30, 2008, as amended January 5, 2009. The Court further directed the parties (1) to hold a pre-closing so that adjustments to the purchase price as well as the precise language of the required documents could be addressed, and (2) in the event there remained any open items or disagreements at the conclusion of the pre-closing to so advise Court by letter.
There were in fact a number of disagreements at the conclusion of the pre-closing. Only the current dispute concerning paragraph 33(2) remains unresolved. That paragraph provides: "Lots 5 and 6 shall be subject to a covenant that they shall be owned by a common owner of record. This paragraph shall survive delivery of the deed."
By Orders dated October 28, 2009 and November 3, 2009, the Court appointed an expert to render an opinion "on the question whether the phrase 'owned by a common owner of record' as used at paragraph 33(2) . . . is a term of art in the area of real estate, and if so, what is its meaning in the present context." The court-appointed expert has rendered an opinion in which he concludes that the subject phrase (1) is not a term of art; (2) is unambiguous and should be decided within the four corners of the contract; and (3) requires that lots 5 and 6 have at least one common owner between them. See Expert Report (Dkt. No. 344) at 2-5. Although neither party disputes the expert's conclusions that the phrase is neither a term of art nor ambiguous, Defendants challenge his opinion as to its meaning.
"'[T]he fundamental, neutral precept of contract interpretation is that agreements are construed in accord with the parties' intent.'" Eternity Global Master Fund Ltd. v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 375 F.3d 168, 177 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569 (2002)). "Typically, the best evidence of intent is the contract itself; if an agreement is 'complete, clear and unambiguous on its face[, it] must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.'" Id.; see also Continental Ins. Co. v. Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co., 603 F.3d 169, 180 (2d Cir. 2010) ("When interpreting a contract, the 'intention of the parties should control ...[, and] the best evidence of intent is the contract itself; if an agreement is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face, it must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.'") (quoting Hatalud v. Spellings, 505 F.3d 139, 146 (2d Cir. 2007). "Where the language of the contract is unambiguous, and reasonable persons could not differ as to its meaning, the question of interpretation is one of law to be answered by the court." Rothenberg v. Lincoln Farm Camp, Inc., 755 F.2d 1017, 1019 (2d Cir. 1985).
"Ambiguity is determined by looking within the four corners of the document, not to outside sources. . . ." Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y.2d 554, 566, 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 356, 696 N.E.2d 174 (1998). Contract language is not ambiguous if it has "a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [contract] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion." Breed v. Insurance Company of North America, 46 N.Y.2d 351, 355, 413 N.Y.S.2d 352, 355, 385 N.E.2d 1280 (1978); see, e.g., Seiden, 959 F.2d at 428. "Language whose meaning is otherwise plain does not become ambiguous merely because the parties urge different interpretations in the litigation." Hunt Ltd. v. Lifschultz Fast Freight, Inc., 889 F.2d 1274, 1277 (2d Cir. 1989). Rather, "[a]mbiguous language is language that is 'capable of more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reasonably intelligent person who has examined the context of the entire integrated agreement and who is cognizant of the customs, practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the particular trade or business.'" Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C., 221 F.3d 59, 66 (2d Cir. 2000) . . . (quoting Seiden Assoc., Inc. v. ANC Holdings, Inc., 959 F.2d 425, 428 (2d Cir. 1992) (other internal quotation marks omitted)); see, e.g., Readco, Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, 81 F.3d 295, 299 (2d Cir. 1996) ("contract is ambiguous where reasonable minds could differ on what a term means").
JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 568 F.3d 390, 396-97 (2d Cir. 2009) (brackets in original). "Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the Courts." Eternity Global Master Fund, 375 F.3d at 178 (internal quotation marks omitted). "In interpreting an unambiguous contract, the court is to consider its '[p]articular words' not in isolation 'but in the light of the obligation as a whole and the intention of the parties as manifested thereby,' . . . but the court is not to consider any extrinsic evidence as to the parties' intentions." JA Apparel Corp., 568 F.3d at 396-97 (quoting Kass, 91 N.Y.2d at 566 and citing Seiden, 959 F.2d at 428 and Metropolitan Life Insur. Co. v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 906 F.2d 884, 889 (2d Cir.1990)).
Both parties maintain that the subject language is clear. See, e,g, Plaintiffs' November 6, 2009 Letter (Dkt No. 32) at 3 (urging the Court to construe paragraph 33(2) "according to its plain meaning"); Defendants' November 13, 2009 letter (Dkt. No. 325) at 1 ("the paragraph means what it says"). Alternatively, each argues that even if, arguendo, it is ambiguous, the testimony supports their position and the other party's interpretation requires "rewriting" the subject language. Of course, Plaintiffs argue that the clear import of the language means that the two lots must have one owner in common thus, in their view, preserving the single and separate ownership of the two lots, whereas Defendants argue that it means the two lots must have the same owner or owners.
First, in accordance with the opinion of the court-appointed expert, the Court finds that the phrase "owned by a common owner" is not a term of art.
Next, the Court finds that the language is unambiguous. That the parties and the expert have reached differing conclusions as to the plain meaning of the language does not render the language ambiguous. "Language whose meaning is otherwise plain does not become ambiguous merely because the parties urge different interpretations in the litigation." Hunt Ltd. v. Lifschultz Fast Freight, Inc., 889 F.2d 1274, 1277 (2d Cir. 1989). Given the Court's conclusion that the language is unambiguous, its interpretation is one of law for the Court and extrinsic evidence will not be considered.
The question is therefore what is the plain meaning of the phrase "shall be owned by a common owner of record." The Court finds compelling Defendants' argument that the use of the language "shall be owned" clearly states a condition of ownership of lots 5 and 6, i.e. the only person or persons who can own lot 5 shall be the person or persons who own lot 6 and vice versa. See Defendants' Objection to Expert Report at 4. As Defendants appropriately maintain:
"By using the phrase "shall be owned by", the paragraph is clearly stating a condition of ownership of the lots. The only person who can own that land shall be a common owner. Because of this, no person who is not a common owner can own this land. Notably, the paragraph does not say that the lots will "have a common owner" or "have an owner in common." The problem with Plaintiffs' and [the court-appointed expert's] analysis is that their focus is exclusively on the phrase " a common owner" where as [sic] the key to understanding the paragraph is the use of the phrase "shall be owned." The paragraph states that the lots "shall be owned by a common owner of record" not that they "shall have a common owner of record" - this is the important distinction between what the paragraph says, and the meaning that Plaintiffs and [the court-appointed expert] are trying to read into it. (Id. at 4-5.) The clear meaning of the phrase "shall be owned by a common owner" requires the two lots to have unity of ownership.*fn1 Accordingly, the deed from defendant White for lot 5 shall convey that lot to the same person or persons as to which lot 6 is conveyed. In other words, both lots may be conveyed to either Anthony Petrello, or Cynthia Petrello, or both Anthony and Cynthia Petrello.
Plaintiffs' argument that requiring the two lots to have unity of title would result in a merger and therefore "be irreconcilable with the undisputed purpose of creating Lot 6 as a separate lot - namely, to allow the Petrellos to keep the existing cottage on Lot 6 while also building a new house on Lot 5" (Dkt. No. 328 at 4), is not germane given the unambiguous meaning of the phrase. Nor is the Court persuaded by Plaintiffs' argument that to the extent contractual the phrase at issue requires the two lots be titled in the same person(s), such a requirement was "waived" when Mr. Reale, Defendants' then real estate attorney, prepared deeds for the two lots which did not name the same grantees. (See Dkt. No. 322 at 3.) Mr. White refused to execute said deeds and no closing of title took place.
Having considered all the arguments of the parties and the report of the court-appointed expert, the Court finds that the contractual provision requiring that "Lots 5 and 6 shall be subject to a covenant that they shall be owned by a common owner of record" is unambiguous and requires unity of ownership of the two lots.*fn2
As there are no further issues precluding the closing of title in accordance with the Court's Orders and Judgment granting specific performance of the Contract, the parties are directed to close title to the property at a date, time and place mutually agreed upon by the parties but no later than thirty (30) days from the date hereof.
Denis R. Hurley Senior District Judge
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
THIS IS A DIRECTORY PAGE. Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic.
Learn about this topic in these articles:
The fly reel has changed the least of any fly-fishing accessory. An arbor-type reel equipped with a crank is used to store line. Unlike spinning reels used to retrieve lures and baits, fly reels are not used to retrieve flies. While casting, the fly angler simply pulls the needed line from the reel. Most modern fly reels are constructed of machined aluminum alloys and employ an internal braking...

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Grunge Dancer
Street art style vector image for music and party visuals. Abstract splatter pattern with dirty arrows and paint splashes, solid color silhouettes of a jumping and dancing girl with short hair and big detailed speakers. Free vector for music, parties, dancing, hip-hop, graffiti and underground culture visuals.
This File Appears In Searches For
splatter Graffiti Silhouette music Arrows jump girl woman Speakers dirty female party dance stained Street art Paint splashes Dancer vector
Users Who Downloaded This File Also Downloaded
Users who downloaded this file also searched for
Grunge Dancer


text:
March 18, 2013
Vipar Heavy Duty has announced that Carolina Powertrain is the newest stockholder to join its network of distributors. Based in Charlotte, N.C., with a branch location in Hickory, N.C., Carolina Powertrain is led by its president and owner John Phillips.
In business since 2002, Carolina Powertrain's main location provides service within a 30-mile radius of Charlotte with two outside salesmen and two delivery trucks. The company's branch location in Hickory opened in 2009 and serves customers within a 25-mile radius with two delivery vehicles and one outside salesman.
Between its two locations the company has 15 employees. Carolina Powertrain specializes in driveline and gearing, and provides a variety of other heavy duty parts and services to its customers.
We offer e-newsletters that deliver targeted news and information for the entire fleet industry.
The expert, Shawn Whitacre from Chevron Delo, will answer your questions
The expert, Steve Carlson from Xantrex, will answer your questions
The expert, Brian Fletcher from Eaton, will answer your questions
On the Spot: Drive the Future With Volvo's SuperTruck [Video]
Highlights From ATA Management Conference & Exhibition [Video]
Navistar's Las Vegas LT Series Launch Presentation [Video]
Test Drive Preview: Freightliner's 2018 Cascadia [Video]
App Helps Truckers Report Accidents
Charger Keeps Batteries Topped Off in Winter
Tool Designed to Remove Tie Rods and Ball Joints
Driver Wellness Courses Address 3 Key Concerns


text:
- 18 & over
- 2 Beverage Minimum Per Person
- Non-Refundable & Non-Transferable
Purchase Tickets
Share with your friends:
Performing Artists (Click on Artist for Reviews and Previews)
Show Details
- Ticket Price: $25.00 - $115.00
- Door Time: 11:15 PM
- Show Type: Comedy
18 & over
2 Beverage Minimum Per Person
Non-Refundable & Non-Transferable
Robert Kelly's comedy is deeply rooted his own life and relationships which makes it honest, abrasively funny, yet refreshingly vulnerable. He has been winning over audiences for years touring clubs, colleges and theaters, including repeat performances at Montreal's Just For Laughs Festival.
His new hour special Robert Kelly: Live at the Village Underground debuted on Comedy Central and is now available on Netflix. Besides being a fixture on Comedy Central, Robert plays Bam Bam in Denis Leary's FX show Sex&Drugs&Rock&Roll, which will air again this summer. He can also be seen as Louie CK's brother Robbie on the hit series Louie. His other acting credits include roles in Trainwreck, Maron, Benders, Nurse Jackie and Inside Amy Schumer. Robert currently hosts the top rated podcast "You Know What Dude?" that can be found on iTunes. Robert is also the co-founder of the RiotCast podcasting Network.
Tweet Feed
- Let's do this #NYC! If u missed her on @jimandsamshow & @TheJennyMShow, come C @sarahcolonna LIVE this wknd! Tix bit.ly/2gV3EIk Dec 02
- YES! This Weekend #nyc twitter.com/sarahcolonna/s… Dec 02
- Let's Get Laughing 2nite @ 8p @GinaBrillon @marinayfranklin @RodneyLaney @LennyMarcusNY & more special guests! Tix bit.ly/2fKrevu Dec 01
- RT @mikeyardcomedy: Guess who's Headlining, @GothamComedy on Dec 9th & 10th 2016 for the first time ever? Damn right it's me! Please come o… Dec 01
- #nyc this fri & sat you don't want to miss Sarah Colonna from #chelsealately #lifeasiblowit… instagram.com/p/BNaM5O5hctA/ Nov 29


text:
Alumasc Roofing
construction, building, roofing
Applications, Materials & Installation
Harmer Two-way outlets area for connection to pipework through a parapet
Balcony outlets are for use in areas of pedestrian access and Gulley outlets are for narrow gutter and gulley drainage situations
Car park outlets are available to meet drainage requirements in multi-level car park and utility areas
Horizontal and 45 degree discharge outlets are available for flat roof applications
Materials & Finishes
Harmer Detail outlets are precision cast in aluminium silicon alloy LM6 to BSEN 1559:1997. Aluminium is 100% recyclable
The life expectancy of aluminium is 40 years (rural/suburban areas) and up to 25 years (industrial/marine areas)
The Harmer Detail outlet body (fully concealed after installation) is supplied in mill finish aluminium. They are also available in a gunmetal specification used to connect to copper pipework and for copper or lead-clad roofs
The Detail outlet grate is polyester powder coated in blue; the clamping collar is coated in yellow
Installation & Maintenance
Harmer Detail outlets are easy to handle and fix, and connect to all standard sizes of pipework
Minimal routine maintenance is required
- See more at: http://www.alumascroofing.co.uk/products/roof-accessories/flat-roof-outlets/harmer-detail-roof-outlets/#sthash.XIMNvSZj.dpuf
Print this page
Harmer Uni-Ring is a versatile, economical system for concealed drainage beneath paving slabs, based on shallow injection moulded polyethylene rings.
Harmer Modulock is a fully engineered, self levelling, raised pedestal system for supporting paving slabs, timber or plywood sheet decking at varying heights from the sub-structure
Harmer Insulated outlets are used to eliminate condensation forming on the underside of the outlet due to cold bridging, mainly in metal deck warm and inverted roof installations.
Harmer Cast Iron Roof outlets provide a practical solution to many building drainage applications. Inherently strong, cast iron is an ideal choice for load-bearing applications.
Harmer AV metal roof outlets are available with a choice of spigot or screw connection for vertical discharge and are suited to regular flat roofing applications.
Alumasc's modular and bespoke rooflights are available in a choice of design, making them the ideal choice for providing natural daylight into commercial, industrial and domestic buildings.
The Alumasc Guardrail range of lightweight edge protection systems is ideal for collective fall protection measures on flat roofs. Systems are supplied in kit form for easy handling and installation.
Blackdown Intensive green roofs offer the benefits of a small urban park and support a wide range of plants, trees and shrubs. They provide recreational space for people and a rich habitat for wildlife.
Blackdown Biodiverse roofs adopt many of the features of an extensive green roof and can be planted with vegetation to replace or replicate a lost habitat or allowed to naturally develop over time. They are light to medium weight with relatively shallow substrate depths.
Blackdown Extensive green roofs are lightweight with a relatively shallow substrate, providing a versatile range of planting generally comprising of drought tolerant succulents such as sedum, rockery and alpine plants.
The Armaseam standing seam metal roofing system is maintenance free, totally weatherproof with no penetrative fixings and provides outstanding performance for the life of the building.
Firestone UltraPly™ TPO offers a white or light grey coloured, environmentally friendly roofing system that combines aesthetics with outstanding seam strength and strong resistance to ultraviolet radiation and weathering.
Firestone RubberGard® EPDM single ply roofing systems offer a variety of installation options for both renovation and new build applications, including ballasted, mechanically attached and fully adhered systems.
The Euroroof Caltech Walkway System is a flame-free, cold-applied liquid waterproofing system for communal balconies, walkways and staircases
Create your free Hotfrog business profile
Follow Hotfrog on:
Share on:
Hotfrog Small Business Hub


text:
No Offers Available
India Times Offer - Rs. 10 ka Rs. 30 Offer (New Oxigen Wallet Users)
View more T&C
Flat 10% Cashback on RSRTC Bus Ticket
Login to avail this Special Offer
Get 5% Cashback
paying through PayUmoney at Bookmyshow.
This is a Onetime Couponso a secret code will be generated for your purchase
Signup/Login to get this code in your mailbox.
Hurry only few codes remain!
Get 1% Cashback on Every Transaction of Nestham app
Flat Rs.500 OFF on Purchase above Rs.2000
Buy Limited Edition Cricket Jersey Signed by South Africa T20 Cricket Team
Buy Limited Edition Cricket Bat Signed by South Africa T20 Cricket Team
Book a PVR Movie Ticket and Get 50% Cashback on Paying through Oxigen Wallet
Jabong Offer - Upto Rs. 400 OFF when payment is made using Oxigen Wallet
For alerts on
Oxigenwallet's latest
Join & Browse
Click through & Shop
Cashback gets Confirmed within 60-90 days
Get Paid
Our Apps
Follow Us


text:
Stone Soup by Jan Eliot
- August 31, 2014
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Next feature
- Current
Comments (27) (Please sign in to comment)
I have a spatula, and I am not afraid to use it!
So cute to see Alix and Max in the pool. Wally you gotta be jealous of a teen that can eat & eat & eat with no sodium and cholesterol concerns. Very refreshing strip. Everyone is enjoying last BBQ of 2014. Even the dog has her ball! Happy Labor Day everyone.
Where's Evie and Arnold?
Biscuit want to play ball.
What adults see as limits teenagers see them as goals.
How is he not burning his hands in first panel? lol
Living in North Florida, the BBQ season extends into November or December and occasionally into January. Then starts again about the middle of March.
Ah, the endless appetite of a teenaged boy.
No bratwursts?
Living in Florida I grill year round. There are days that it's cold and the grill keeps you warm and days that are just right because it's not that cold.
If the weather is nice, we will be at the cabin in October for Thanksgiving (Canadian) and my father-in-law will BBQ at least one meal. One year, I was in charge of the turkey, I spatchcocked it, marinated it and did it on the BBQ. There were 3 types of stuffing done on the side, along with gravy and mashed potatoes and veg, and 3 different types of pie (mind you, there were 15 – 20 of us at that meal)
HAHAHA, Wally has to warn Andy to stand back! xD
It's actually called a cookout; barbecueing is something totally different.
Careful, got a teenage boy all ready to pull a Peter Fox.
You heard him back.
Only 3 pies for 15-20 people?
We've been known to have 3 pies for 6 people.
Of course, that usually means there will be left over pie for breakfast.
- Load the rest of the comments (12).
You must be signed in to make a comment.


text:
And by that I mean their character was poorly designed or that they just seemed out of place with the rest. For me it would probably be Molly because she seemed too much like a videogame character rather than a normal person with all her over the top stunts,she took me out of the immersion in the game.
74 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
Yeah I've done about six different playthroughs, all but one of them saved Carley. Saved Doug on my second playthrough, and never did that again.Bioshock Infinite WD;819479 said:It does not make any sense to me, but I am not judging at all, so I am going to guess and say you picked Carley.
I dunno, but I like Doug, I'm not his biggest fan, nor did I feel like his death was that great a loss, but I wouldn't call him a prick, but that again depends on everyone's perception I guess.
I do tend to pick on Molly for all the action-hero tropes. Abrasive for the sake of being snarky, flippancy about her actions that you can't call her out for, introduction set up in a way that forces two people with guns to walk into melee range to show off her capabilities, etc.
I liked Mark, but found his red shirt status obvious from the get-go.
Really? I thought Doug came across as one of the most passive guys in the group.Violet Virago;819477 said:He's just very abrasive. And I get that they were trying to make him rather socially awkward, but to me he just comes off as an asshole.
Are you sure this is Doug you're talking about? I've seen several playthroughs of him, and he's far from what you've just described. In some areas, you sound as if you're describing Larry.Violet Virago;819477 said:He's just very abrasive. And I get that they were trying to make him rather socially awkward, but to me he just comes off as an asshole. He really seems like he really doesn't much care about Lee and even when you save him he goes and berates you (which I know, is entirely okay and within his character to do), however, Doug kind of goes a bit too far and comes across just flat out antagonistic towards Lee. It's probably just the way I perceive Doug that is different from some others, but he honestly has just... Nothing going for him. The one playthrough where I did save him just felt tremendously annoying with him constantly having this unreasonable demeanor and constant whining about everything. Like, the first time I played, I REALLY REALLY tried to like Doug, or even mourn his loss, but it's like... He's not even nice. Sure he does nice and good things, but as a general person he comes across a prick. And he's just flat out annoying... But mostly because he just comes off as a prick.
Hopefully that makes some form of sense, I really feel like there was something to his character, but the way his relative "social awkwardness" was portrayed made it instead seem to me like he was just an asshole.
Sorry if I sounded a little rude.
The police officer that's with Shawn if you decide to wait until nightfall before leaving with Clem.
What kind of police officer is going to leave a little girl behind in the care of some random guy?
Other than that, yeah, Molly's ninja antics were a bit too unbelievable.
Doug's a cool dude. Awkward, but good value.
In saying that I picked crackshot over dork nonsense the first time around.
I don't really think anyone was poorly written at all.
I actually really like Molly and didn't find her ninja-ing all that unbelievable. If only because I'd searched up the term "parkour" for the first time just a few weeks before ep 4.
I can't think of any poorly written characters, just a few moments from certain characters who were otherwise well-written. Like Kenny's superhumanly obsessive grudge-holding powers, or Shawn's incredible lack of tractor-safety.


text:
Create Your Own Steampunk Cartoon Vehicle - Part 1 Premium class
Andrey Bzhitskikh, Freelancer Illustrator
- 0.5x
- 1x (Normal)
- 1.25x
- 1.5x
- 2x
Drawing a Sketch15:32
Preparing Adobe Illustrator Workspace9:24
From Sketch to Vector Illustration8:33
Contour correction10:17
Fill with Pathfinder panel7:12
About This Class
Join and create your own Steampunk Vehicle! :)
This class consists of two parts:
- In the first we learn how to draw a sketch of Vehicle and then create vector outlines with fill.
- The second part will be dedicated to coloring and adding shadows and light
In the two parts of this class, I will teach you in great detail how this illustration were drawn:
Together we will create a new and unique vehicle with gears, pipes, steam and leather seats!
Step by step, I will show how to:
- create a sketch
- how to transfer it to a vector graphic
- and then how to add colors, shadows and effects with an eye to your vehicle looked magnificently! (in the Part 2)
Here are the main topics that will be covered in the class:
- Drawing a sketch
- Prepare Adobe Illustrator Workspace
- From Sketch to Vector Illustration - Outline
- Work with brushes
- Contour correction
- Fill method using the Pathfinder panel
- Choose colors (in the Part 2)
- Where to look for interesting combinations of colors (in the Part 2)
- Add shadows (in the Part 2)
- Add lights (in the Part 2)
- Add finish touches (in the Part 2)
What you'll need for class project:
- Software or notepad with pencil for sketch drawing
- Illustrator CC (Free Trial) or other vector graphic software.
- Tablet or mouse
This class is perfect for practiced illustrators, emerging designers, and everyone looking to improve their Adobe Illustrator skills.
I cannot wait to see what you can create!
My other classes you can found here:
Class Projects 1 See All
No projects have
been added yet
No projects have
been added yet
No projects have
been added yet
28 of 28 students recommendSee All
Very nice artwork. lloks like Yellow Submarine and Monty Python.
Jay Cruise
Achieve Optimum Health and FItness
Very unique class from a professional artist and designer. Well presented and flows well. I loved seeing the process of sketching, it helped me overcome my fear of trying to sketch something I've never tried before. I'm inspired to give it a try!
Keren Duchan
Crafter, Doodler
Hey! My name is Andrew Bzhitskikh (I know it is too difficult to pronounce, so simple - Andrew :) ) and here's few facts about my life:
- I live in the cold and beautiful Siberia in Russia. The truth is not so cold but really beautiful!
- Sometimes I make a Native American Flutes for fun and ice figures.
- I'm participate in Aikido, love skiing, hiking and archery.
- I love to sketch and draw all time of my life. So today I'm a Freelance Illustrator and Graphic Designer. And I want to tell you all that I know and of course to learn something new!
Stay tuned! It will be interesting! :)


text:
A 59-year-old motorist is fighting for his life in hospital after being carried along on the bonnet of his car as he tried to stop a thief driving off in it.
Geoffrey Hazeldene had stopped on his way to work at the city's naval dockyard to pick up a newspaper. When he came out of the newsagents' a man was in the driver's seat and Mr Hazeldene stood in front of the car to try to make him stop.
Witnesses described how the thief edged forward and then drove off at high speed as Mr Hazeldene clung to the bonnet.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
September 18, 2009
BERNADETTE MERRIGAN, PLAINTIFF,v.ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., DEFENDANT.
Before the Court is Defendant ARAMARK Services, Inc.'s ("ARAMARK") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14), Plaintiff Bernadette Merrigan's Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 15), and ARAMARK's Reply (Doc. No. 16.) For the following reasons, ARAMARK's Motion will granted.
I. Procedural History
On December 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against ARAMARK alleging that ARAMARK unlawfully terminated her employment because of her gender and race (Count I), subjected her to a sexually hostile atmosphere and sexual harassment (Count II), and retaliated against her when she complained about ARAMARK's allegedly unlawful employment practices (Count III). Plaintiff seeks relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"). On January 4, 2007, ARAMARK filed an Answer to the Complaint. On November 8, 2007, ARAMARK filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all three counts of the Complaint. On December 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to ARAMARK's Motion. ARAMARK filed a Reply on December 21, 2007. This matter was reassigned to my docket on April 28, 2009.
On May 20, 2009, counsel for Plaintiff petitioned the Court for leave to withdraw as counsel of record, stating that she has been unable to locate Plaintiff.
II. Factual Allegations
The Court recites the facts as viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
From approximately October 6, 2002, to January 19, 2006, Plaintiff, a Caucasian woman, was employed by ARAMARK at its on-site dining operation at the NFL Films facility in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. For Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mem."), Ex. A, Dep. of Bernadette Merrigan ("Merrigan Dep.") 9, 12, 30.) Plaintiff was first employed by ARAMARK as a cashier but transferred to the position of "Deli worker/Prep cook" in October 2003. (Merrigan Dep. 30-33, 40.) In this capacity, Plaintiff prepared the deli counter, prepared the salad bar, and assisted with catering. (Merrigan Dep. 31.)
As a deli worker, Plaintiff was supervised by Executive Chef Nick Vaccaro, a Caucasian man. (Merrigan Dep. 40-42.) Plaintiff and Vaccaro reported to Food Service Director Christopher Husenica, a Caucasian man. (Merrigan Dep. 40-42; Def.'s Mem., Ex. B, Dep. of Christopher Husenica ("Husenica Dep.") 15-16.) Plaintiff's supervisors, Husenica and Vaccaro gave directions, assigned work and evaluated Plaintiff's performance. (Husenica Dep. 15-16; Def.'s Mem., Ex. C, Dep. of Nick Vaccaro ("Vaccaro Dep.") 10-11, 17.) Plaintiff's file contained two "write-ups": one from December 7, 2004, regarding proper sanitation and cleanup procedures at her deli station and another from August 16, 2005, regarding the need for Plaintiff to work more efficiently. (Pl.'s Resp. in Opp'n to Summ. J. ("Pl.'s Resp."), Ex. D., Dep. of Nick Vaccaro II ("Vaccaro Dep. II") 40-41.) In October 2005, after her evaluation showed that she had improved and increased production, Plaintiff was given the maximum raise plus an additional two percent. (Vaccaro Dep. II 63.)
Plaintiff's co-workers included two African American males: Jesse Copling, a grill cook, and Larry Hunter, a dish washer. (Merrigan Dep. 37-40.) Copling began working for ARAMARK in either 2004 or 2005. (Merrigan Dep. 37-38; Husenica Dep. 21-22.) Prior to September 5, 2005, Plaintiff had no problems with Copling, Hunter, or anyone else at the NFL Films location. (Merrigan Dep. 39-40, 43.) Plaintiff was friendly with Copling, took cigarette breaks with him, and sometimes gave him rides to work in the morning if she saw him walking from the bus stop. (Merrigan Dep. 38-39, 44; Husenica Dep. 42-43.)
On September 5, 2005, Plaintiff saw Copling walking to work and picked him up in her car. (Merrigan Dep. 44.) They drove to work together and went about their day as normal. (Merrigan Dep. 44.) At the end of the day, Copling told Plaintiff that he had left something in her car, so Plaintiff gave Copling her car keys so he could retrieve his property. (Merrigan Dep.
44.) Later that evening, when Plaintiff returned to her car to go home, she discovered that a ten-dollar bill was missing from her purse, which she had left in her car. (Merrigan Dep. 45.) When Plaintiff discovered that the money was missing, she immediately told Husenica, who was in the parking lot at the time. (Merrigan Dep. 45-46.) Husenica mentioned that Copling had been in Plaintiff's car that day, and said, "Well, I guess we both know where that money went." (Merrigan Dep. 46.) Husenica told Plaintiff that they would talk about the incident the next day, and that Plaintiff should not mention anything to anyone. (Merrigan Dep. 46.) Husenica later checked the surveillance tapes for September 5, 2005, and found that Plaintiff's car was out of view. (Husenica Dep. 45, 170-171, 177-78.) Husenica told Plaintiff that he would not accuse Copling of theft because he was not a police officer and that, if he accused Copling, he would have "a racial issue." (Pl.'s Resp., Ex. A, Deposition of Bernadette Merrigan II ("Merrigan Dep. II") 53.) According to ARAMARK's Employee Handbook, removal of property of another employee or a customer without permission may result in immediate discharge. (Def.'s Ex. I, ARAMARK Employee Handbook at NFL Films ("Employee Handbook") 16.) This provision applies when the theft is substantiated. (Pl.'s Resp., Ex. C, Dep. of Christopher Husenica II ("Husenica Dep. II") 109.) Husenica investigates accusations of theft when they occur in the building and on ARAMARK property. (Husenica Dep. II 109.) Husenica considered the September 5 incident not to be a work-related incident because, although the incident was on ARAMARK property, it was not in the building. (Husenica Dep. II 44.)
After the September 5 incident, Plaintiff stopped giving Copling rides to or from the bus stop and stopped speaking to him other than for work-related issues. (Merrigan Dep. 50-51.) Copling also treated Plaintiff differently after September 5, 2005. (Merrigan Dep. 51, 55, 60.) He stopped speaking to Plaintiff. (Husenica Dep. 58.) His demeanor and actions toward her changed, and the changes were evident on a daily basis. (Merrigan Dep. 55-56, 67.) They no longer helped each other out at work. (Merrigan Dep. 60, 64-65.) Copling stopped preparing certain food items for Plaintiff's station, so Plaintiff either had to prepare the food items herself or get help from the chef. (Merrigan Dep. 58-60.) Before the incident, Copling and Plaintiff would clean up their stations and put their materials on the same cart, but after the incident Copling made a point to return the cart to the dish room before Plaintiff could load her materials onto it. (Merrigan Dep. 60-61; Vaccaro Dep. 19-20.) The dish room was not far from Plaintiff's work area, but Plaintiff would have to get the cart herself or carry all of her materials. (Merrigan Dep. 61.) That could cause Plaintiff to spend up to an additional 10 minutes doing her job. (Merrigan Dep. 62-63.) After Plaintiff made allegations about the September 5 incident, Copling also put all of his clean-up materials away without leaving them out for Plaintiff, and the same thing happened in the morning. (Merrigan Dep. 61-62.) In addition, Copling told customers to "give [Plaintiff] a hard time." (Merrigan Dep. 62-64, 77-78, 117; Vaccaro Dep. 18-19.) On November 18, 2005, Copling used a cleaning solution called D-Lime,*fn1 which made Plaintiff physically sick. (Merrigan Dep. 64, 75-76.) Copling had been told by someone not to use this product once before. (Merrigan Dep. 74-77.)
Plaintiff never told Copling why she stopped socializing with him, but she believes that Husenica or Vaccarro told Copling that she had made an allegation about him stealing. (Merrigan Dep. 51, 55-56.) Plaintiff could think of no other reason why Copling's behavior toward her had changed. (Merrigan Dep. 56-57.)
Soon after the September 5 incident, Hunter's behavior toward Plaintiff also changed. (Merrigan Dep. 57.) Hunter was the dish washer at ARAMARK, and he was responsible for the pots. (Merrigan Dep. 63.) Plaintiff made a point to put her pots on a low rack, where she could reach them, but when she came into work in the morning she would find the pots were on a shelf too high for her to reach. (Merrigan Dep. 62-63; Vaccaro Dep. 18-19.) Hunter also gave Plaintiff threatening dirty looks that made her feel uncomfortable and unsafe, "like he was looking right through [her]." (Merrigan Dep. 71.) Both Copling and Hunter made "snide comments" at or about Plaintiff and gave her "threatening dirty looks." (Merrigan Dep. 71, 117-118, 247-248.) Plaintiff does not know why Hunter's behavior toward her changed. (Merrigan Dep. 57.)
After the September 5 incident, Plaintiff complained on numerous occasions to Husenica and/or Vaccaro about the problems she had with Copling and Hunter. (See, e.g., Merrigan Dep. II 72-73, 82, 87, 121, 123; Merrigan Dep II 164-65.) Plaintiff told Husenica and Vaccaro that she did not feel safe or comfortable working at ARAMARK and that she wanted them to do something about how Copling and Hunter were treating her. (Merrigan Dep. II 72-73, 82, 87, 121, 123; Husenica Dep. 194, 198.) When Plaintiff complained about the cart issue, Husenica spoke with Copling, who said that it would not happen again, and Husenica documented the meeting. (Merrigan Dep. 60-61, 86, 88; Vaccaro Dep. 19, 44; Husenica Dep. 85-88.) Vaccaro did not hear anything further from Plaintiff about disputes regarding the cart. (Vaccaro Dep. 20, 36-37, 44.) Plaintiff asked Vacarro to ask Hunter not to put the pots on the top shelf. (Vaccaro Dep. 18-19. See also Merrigan Dep. II 165-66.) Husenica and Vacarro instructed Hunter to ensure that Plaintiff's work materials remained on the middle shelf where Plaintiff could reach them. (Vaccaro Dep. 18-19, 37, 75; Merrigan Dep. 79-80, 82-83.) A week later, the pots were back on the top shelf. (Vaccaro Dep. 19.) When confronted, Hunter said he had forgotten. (Vaccaro Dep. 75.) Husenica then gave Hunter a written warning not to put the pots on the top shelf again. (Vaccaro Dep. 19.) After that, Vaccaro never noticed the pots out of place again, and Plaintiff's complaints about the pots stopped. (Vaccaro Dep. 19, 95-96.)
Husenica held a monthly staff meeting on November 7, 2005, to address customer service, the need for teamwork and to alleviate the tension among his employees, many of whom were not talking to one another. (Husenica Dep. 56-58; Merrigan Dep. 84, 88-89, 91-92, 128.) During the meeting, all employees signed a document acknowledging internal staff tensions that were affecting customer service. (Husenica Dep. 56; Def.'s Ex. D, Internal Issues Statement, Nov.7, 2005.)
On November 10, 2005, Husenica met with Plaintiff and Carol Hartman, another female ARAMARK employee, about their concerns about their safety due to Copling's words and behavior. (Merrigan Dep. 94-97; Husenica Dep. 81-82; Def.'s Ex. E, Husenica's Notes, Employee Meeting, Nov. 10, 2005 ("Mtg. Notes, Nov. 10, 2005.")*fn2 The women complained that Copling had given them intimidating and threatening looks and that he had jokingly said he would bring his "boys" and use knives to straighten out a situation with Hartman's boyfriend. (Mtg. Notes, Nov. 10, 2005; Merrigan Dep. II at 98-99.) The women also reported to Husenica that Copling had told customers not to eat the food prepared by the Chef because it was four weeks old, and that he would not eat the food himself. (Husenica Dep. 83, Mtg. Notes, Nov. 10, 2005; Merrigan Dep. II at 99.) Plaintiff also told Husenica that Copling was turning some customers away. (Merrigan Dep. II 102-03; Mtg. Notes, Nov. 10, 2005.) Husenica spoke with Copling about the complaints and documented the meeting in Copling's file. (Husenica Dep. 83, 85.)
November 11, 2005, Husenica met with Plaintiff and offered her a transfer to another ARAMARK account at Charming Shoppes in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. (Husenica Dep. 49-51, 67-69, 73; Merrigan Dep. 105-106; Def. Ex. G, Employee Meeting with Merrigan Notes, Nov. 11, 2005.) Plaintiff had requested that either she or Copling be transferred out of the NFL Films location because she could no longer work with Copling. (Husenica Dep. 50.) Husenica thought the Charming Shoppes position was a better fit for Plaintiff than for Copling, so he offered it to her first. (Husenica Dep. 53.) The Charming Shoppes location was only five minutes from Plaintiff's home. (Merrigan. Dep. 108-109.) Plaintiff did not accept the transfer because she believed the Charming Shoppes account might be lost by ARAMARK and had heard Vaccaro complaining about that account. (Merrigan Dep. II at 107-109.) Plaintiff was very upset about being offered the transfer. (Husenica Dep. 52.) After this meeting, Plaintiff said to Husenica, "I am so upset right now[.] I can't believe that you cannot provide a safe working environment for me and the rest of your staff. You know what, I'm done. I'm done with this. I'm taking matters into my own hands." (Husenica Dep. 73. See also Husenica Dep. 52, 70.) She then stormed out of Husenica's office. (Husenica Dep. 70, 73.)
After Plaintiff declined the Charming Shoppes transfer, Husenica offered the transfer to Copling, who had also asked for a transfer, but Copling declined because he had to rely on public transportation and he lived in southern New Jersey. (Husenica Dep. 51-53, 71, 191-192.) Copling did not react in an angry or upset manner when he was offered the Charming Shoppes transfer. (Husenica Dep. 52-53.)
On November 21, 2005, Plaintiff met privately with Husenica and reported that she felt Copling had harassed her that day by telling customers to give her a hard time and make snide comments to her. (Merrigan Dep. 117-118; Husenica Dep. 85, 87; Def.'s Ex. F, Husenica's Notes, Meeting with Merrigan, Nov. 21, 2005 ("Meeting Notes, Nov. 21, 2005").) Plaintiff also reported that Copling was not working with her at the end of the day because, on several occasions, he had taken the cart to the dish area before allowing her to load her equipment, and she reported her belief that Copling had purposely used D-Lime the previous Friday to make her sick. (Meeting Notes, Nov. 21, 2005; Merrigan Dep. 73-75.)*fn3 Husenica addressed the D-Lime issue with Copling, instructed him not to use that solution because it was a safety hazard, and documented the meeting. (Husenica Dep. 75, 88, 189; Merrigan Dep. 73-74.) Husenica saw the D-Lime incident as a safety issue, not an employee interaction problem, because sometimes the employees used strong cleaning solutions to clean their equipment. (Husenica Dep. 75-77, 189-190.) That was the first time the D-Lime issue had been brought to Husenica's attention, and, to Husenica's knowledge, Copling never used D-Lime again. (Husenica Dep. 88-89, 189.)
In November or early December, Plaintiff complained to Husenica that situations with Copling and Hunter were getting worse, not better. (Merrigan Dep. 83-84.) In response, Husenica called a staff meeting to try to get all the employees to get along, but things continued to get worse. (Merrigan Dep. II 84-85.)
On December 5, 2005, District Manager Michael Churback held a staff meeting at the NFL Films location about the increase in staff tension and how that was affecting customer service. (Merrigan Dep. 159-160.) After the meeting, Churback met privately with Plaintiff and another female employee. (Merrigan Dep. 160-61; Husenica Dep. 94.) Around December 15, 2005, Churback held another staff meeting about customer service issues. (Merrigan Dep. 162-163; Merrigan Dep. 130-31.) After this meeting, Plaintiff met privately with Churback and expressed her concerns about Copling and Hunter. (Merrigan Dep. 162-163; Merrigan Dep. II 130-32.) Churback said he was well aware of Plaintiff's complaints. (Merrigan Dep. II 132.) Plaintiff got upset and started to cry, and she told Churback that she did not want to lose her job and did not want to transfer locations. (Merrigan Dep. II 133.) Churback responded that he would talk to the rest of the staff and that someone would be transferred. (Merrigan Dep. II 133-34.)
On January 11 and January 16, 2006, Plaintiff again complained to Husenica and Vaccaro about dirty looks and about her supplies and equipment being placed on out-of-reach shelves. (Merrigan Dep. 164-166.) Upon Churback's suggestion, Husenica told Plaintiff that he wanted to have a meeting with Vaccaro, Plaintiff, Copling and Hunter. (Merrigan Dep. 167.) Plaintiff told Husenica that she thought that any such meeting would make the situation worse for her. (Merrigan Dep. II 167.) Plaintiff was concerned that Copling and Hunter would gang up on her and say that there were no problems, and Plaintiff thought she would be forced to tell Copling and Hunter that she felt threatened by them. (Merrigan Dep. II 172-183.) According to Husenica, the intent of the meeting was not to blame or discipline anyone but to create "an opportunity to work together to resolve the situation." (Husenica Dep. 104-106.)
Husenica scheduled the meeting for January 19, 2006. (Merrigan Dep. 180; Husenica Dep. 103-104; Vaccaro Dep. 27; Merrigan Dep. II 169.) On that date, he asked Copling and Hunter to join the meeting, and Copling and hunter agreed to do so. (Husenica Dep. 104.) When Husenica spoke to Plaintiff about the meeting, he said he and Vaccaro would be present to mediate but otherwise would not speak. (Merrigan Dep. II 169.) Plaintiff told Husenica that she did not feel safe or comfortable attending such a meeting, and she refused to attend. (Merrigan Dep. II 172-73, 175, 183-85; Husenica Dep. 104.) Construing Plaintiff's refusal to participate in the meeting as insubordination, as described by the ARAMARK Handbook, Husenica called Churbuck who, along with Vaccaro, agreed to terminate Plaintiff's employment. (Husenica Dep. 110-11; Vaccaro Dep. 79-80; Employee Handbook 16-17 (defining insubordination as "refusal to perform any job or work assignment given by an employee's Manager or by other designated management".) Vaccaro believed the decision to terminate Plaintiff was justified because of the write-ups in her file. (Vaccaro Dep. 35, 39.) Husenica then informed Plaintiff that she was being fired for insubordination. (Merrigan Dep. 178, 180, 182, 184; Vaccaro Dep. 35; Def.'s Ex. H, Employee Meeting Notes, Jan. 19, 2006.) In the Employee Handbook, insubordination falls in the category of employee conduct constituting "[s]erious offenses which will call for strong disciplinary action, and possibly discharge." (Employee Handbook 16.) After Husenica told Plaintiff she was being terminated, Plaintiff said she did not intend to disobey an order, and she proposed an alternative meeting format that would not require her to face Copling and Hunter together. (Merrigan Dep. II 182-83.) Husenica apparently did not accept that proposal.
On April 21, 2006 -- seven months after Plaintiff accused Copling of theft -- Copling was fired after Vaccaro suspected that someone had been in his car. (Vaccaro Dep. II 46-48; Husenica Dep. II 168-169.) Security surveillance cameras showed Copling smoking a cigarette in Vaccaro's car, from which nothing was missing. (Vaccaro Dep. II 47-48; Husenica Dep. II 169.)
Plaintiff filed a complaint of harassment in September or October 2006. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on March 16, 2006. (Compl. ¶ 9, Ex. A, EEOC Charge of Discrimination.) Plaintiff received her right to sue letter from the EEOC on September 8, 2006. (Compl. ¶ 10; Pl.'s Resp., Ex. B, EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights Letter.)
III. Standard of Review
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, disputes must be both (1) material, meaning concerning facts that will affect the outcome of the issue under substantive law, and (2) genuine, meaning the evidence must be such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Summary judgment is mandated "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. An issue is genuine if the fact finder could reasonably return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party with respect to that issue. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
"In an employment discrimination case, the burden of persuasion on summary judgment remains unalterably with the employer as movant. The employer must persuade [the court] that, even if all of the inferences which could reasonably be drawn from the evidentiary materials of record were viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no reasonable jury could find in the plaintiff's favor." Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court "does not make credibility determinations and must view facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Seigel Transfer, Inc. v. Carrier Express, Inc., 54 F.3d 1125, 1127 (3d Cir. 1995).
IV. Discussion
A. Unlawful Termination
Plaintiff alleges that ARAMARK unlawfullly terminated her employment because of her race and gender. Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer "to discharge any individual . . . because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (2003). Because Plaintiff presents only circumstantial evidence of wrongful discharge based on race and sex, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework governs. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 198 F.3d 403, 410 (3d Cir. 1999). This analysis has three component parts. First, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 801-802. Second, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the defendant is able to carry that burden, the burden of proof shift back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant's proffered reasons are pretextual. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 801-04; Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53 (1981).
1. Plaintiff has Made a Prima Facie Case of Wrongful Termination
a. Race
Here, Plaintiff is White. Nonetheless, she is entitled to the protections of Title VII.
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 283 (1976); Iadimarco v. Runyon, 190 F.3d 151, 158 (3d Cir. 1999) ("[I]t is now clear that the dictates of Title VII are not limited to discrimination against members of any particular race and Title VII proscribes racial discrimination in private employment against Whites on the same terms as racial discrimination against nonwhites.") (internal quotations, citations, and alterations omitted). The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis also applies to "reverse discrimination" suits, or Title VII suits by White plaintiffs alleging racial discrimination. In the Third Circuit, a plaintiff who brings a reverse discrimination claim must establish a prima facie case by "present[ing] sufficient evidence to allow a fact finder to conclude that the employer is treating some people less favorably than others based upon a trait that is protected under Title VII." Iadimarco, 190 F.3d at 161. Therefore, in this case, Plaintiff must present sufficient evidence that she was treated less favorably than similarly-situated non-White ARAMARK employees because of her race. See id. at 165 ("[T]he inquiry is not whether [the supervisors] discriminated against Whites in general, but whether they illegally discriminated against [this plaintiff].").
Plaintiff has made a prima facie case of racial discrimination because she has presented evidence that non-White employees were not terminated after engaging in serious offenses. Plaintiff was terminated after an action that her supervisors considered to be insubordination. Plaintiff has not claimed that Copling, Hunter, or any other non-White ARAMARK employee retained his or her employment despite insubordination. However, she "need not establish that precise kind of disparate treatment to establish a claim of discrimination." Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Service, 352 F.3d 789, 797 (3d Cir. 2003). Plaintiff has presented evidence that non-White ARAMARK employees engaged in behavior in the same Employee Handbook category of "serious offenses" but were not terminated. Husenica admitted that Copling's use of D-Lime constituted the serious offense of violating a safety practice. (Husenica Dep. II at 111-12; Employee Handbook 16-17.) Husenica also admitted that, if true, some of Plaintiff's allegations regarding Copling would constitute the serious offense of "use of profane or abusive language, where the language used is uncivil, insulting, contemptuous or harassing." (Husenica Dep. II at 112-19, 133-37; Employee Handbook 16-17.) In addition, Plaintiff has presented evidence that Hunter and Copling engaged in behavior that could be considered the serious offense of "[t]hreatening, intimidating, coercing or interfering with fellow employees on Company and/or client premises." (Employee Handbook 16-17.) Finally, Plaintiff has presented evidence that Husenica would not accuse Copling of theft -- an offense that, according to the Employee Handbook, may result in immediate discharge -- because that accusation could cause "a racial issue." (See Employee Handbook 16.) Considering all of this evidence, drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, and remaining "[m]indful that the plaintiff's burden at this first stage is not particularly onerous," the Court concludes that Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of racial discrimination.
b. Sex
Likewise, Plaintiff has made a prima facie case of wrongful termination due to sex discrimination. To establish a prima facie case of wrongful termination based on sex, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; and (3) she was discharged under conditions that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. See Geraci v. Moody-Tottrup, Intern., Inc., 82 F.3d 578, 580-81 (3d Cir. 1996). As a woman, Plaintiff belongs to a protected class. There is no dispute about whether she was qualified for her position at ARAMARK, from which she was terminated for insubordination. Plaintiff has put forth some evidence that Copling and Hunter -- two male employees -- were not terminated despite their apparent serious offenses. The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied her initial burden.
2. Defendant has Articulated a Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reason for Plaintiff's Termination
Defendant rebuts Plaintiff's prima facie case of discrimination with a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for her termination: insubordination. By refusing to participate in an employer-mandated meeting, Plaintiff was insubordinate. The Court finds that Plaintiff's insubordination is a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for her termination, thus shifting the burden back to Plaintiff to demonstrate pretext. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254-55; Hicks, 509 U.S. at 506-07.
3. Plaintiff has Failed to Present Evidence of Pretext
When a defendant meets its burden of articulating a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for an adverse employment action, "the court's 'factual inquiry then proceeds to a new level of specificity.' " Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 358, 370 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 255 (1981)). "The presumption of discrimination established by the prima facie showing 'simply drops out of the picture'" and the plaintiff must show that the legitimate reason offered by the defendant is pretextual. C.A.R.S., 527 F.3d at 370 (quoting St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993)).
In order to show pretext, a plaintiff must submit evidence which
(1) casts doubt upon the legitimate reason proffered by the employer such that a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that the reason was a fabrication; or (2) would allow the fact-finder to infer that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employee's termination. Put another way, to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiff's evidence rebutting the employer's proffered legitimate reasons must allow a fact-finder reasonably to infer that each of the employer's proffered non-discriminatory reasons was either a post hoc fabrication or otherwise did not actually motivate the employment action (that is, that the proffered reason is a pretext).
C.A.R.S., 527 F.3d at 370 (citations omitted). The plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that he or she has been the victim of intentional discrimination. Hicks, 509 U.S. at 508.
Plaintiff has not offered any evidence or argument that ARAMARK's legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating her was pretext for discriminatory animus based on race or sex. Plaintiff does not rebut that the Employee Handbook permits discharge for insubordination. Plaintiff argues only that ARAMARK terminated her without first following its own "policy of progressive discipline." (Pl.'s Opp'n 16.) However, Plaintiff has not established the existence of a progressive discipline policy or presented any evidence that her supervisors' reasons for not following the purported policy were discriminatory. Plaintiff also argues that ARAMARK did not respond properly to her complaints about workplace harassment or to her allegations regarding Copling's alleged theft of September 5, 2005. Here, again, Plaintiff's disagreement with her supervisors' decisions do not demonstrate discriminatory animus. "To discredit the employer's proffered reason, . . . the plaintiff cannot simply show that the employer's decision was wrong or mistaken, since the factual dispute at issue is whether discriminatory animus motivated the employer, not whether the employer is wise, shrewd, prudent, or competent." Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 765 (3d Cir. 1994).
Because Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that discriminatory animus motivated her supervisors' decision to terminate her, the Court finds that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that ARAMARK's legitimate non-discriminatory reason was pretext for unlawful race or sex discrimination. Thus, the Court shall grant judgment in favor of ARAMARK and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff's unlawful termination claims.
B. Sexual Harassment
"A plaintiff may . . . establish that an employer violated Title VII by proving that sexual harassment created a hostile work environment" Huston v. Procter & Gamble Paper Products Corp., 568 F.3d 100, 104 (3d Cir. 2009). A hostile work environment violates Title VII "when the workplace is permeated with 'discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,' that is 'sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.' " Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 116 (2002) (quoting Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993)). To establish a Title VII hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must prove (1) she suffered intentional discrimination because of her sex; (2) the discrimination was pervasive and regular; (3) the discrimination detrimentally affected her; (4) the discrimination would have detrimentally affected a reasonable person of the same sex in the same position; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability. Id. When the hostile work environment is created by a plaintiff's non-supervisory co-workers, the employer is only liable if it "was negligent in failing to discover the co-worker harassment or in responding to a report of such harassment." Id.
Although Plaintiff has presented considerable evidence of harassment by Copling and Hunter, she has presented no evidence whatsoever that she was harassed because of her sex. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80-81 (1998). She has presented no evidence that Copling and Hunter's behavior was motivated by sexual desire, had sexual connotations, or included any sex-specific terms. This evidence is not required if a plaintiff seeks to prove sexual harassment with "comparative evidence about how the harassers treated members of both sexes in a mixed-sex workplace." Id. However Plaintiff has not done so. She has presented evidence that other female ARAMARK employees had problems with Copling and Hunter, but she has not provided comparative evidence of Copling and Hunter's treatment of male ARAMARK employees. Plaintiff also testified in her deposition that she did not know why Hunter's behavior toward her changed and that she believed Copling's behavior toward her changed after she accused him of stealing money from her. (Merrigan Dep. II 57, 173.) According to Plaintiff, "the day before [the theft allegation] things were fine and then the next day after I made my complaint is when things changed." (Merrigan Dep. II at 57.) Plaintiff's theory regarding Copling may explain his change in behavior, but it does not support an inference of harassment because of sex.
The Court has evaluated the totality of the circumstances in this case and has drawn all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, and it concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of a hostile work environment claim actionable under Title VII. Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251, 261-62 (3d Cir. 2001). The Court shall grant judgment in favor of ARAMARK on Plaintiff's sexual harassment claim.
C. Retaliation
According to Title VII,
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). Opposition to discrimination "can take the form of informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management." Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, 343 (3d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting paradigm, the employee bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The employee must prove that (1) she engaged in a protected employment activity under Title VII; (2) her employer took an adverse employment action after or contemporaneous with the protected activity; and (3) a causal link exists between the adverse action and the protected activity. Andreoli v. Gates, 482 F.3d 641, 649 (3d Cir. 2007); Marra v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 497 F.3d 286, 300 (3d Cir. 2007). If the employee establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. Marra, 497 F.3d at 300 (citing Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913, 920 n.2 (3d Cir. 1997)). If the employer meets its burden, the burden of production returns to the employee, who must now show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that "the employer's proffered explanation was false, and that retaliation was the real reason for the adverse employment action." Marra, 497 F.3d at 300 (citations omitted.).
To satisfy the adverse employment action requirement for a prima facie case of retaliation, "a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which . . . means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006) (quotations and citation omitted). "[P]etty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack of good manners" that often occur in the workplace do not normally constitute materially adverse employment actions. Id. "Context matters" in determining whether a challenged act would have dissuaded a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination, and an "act that would be immaterial in some situations is material in others." Id. at 69 (quotation omitted).
Here, Plaintiff claims that ARAMARK attempted to transfer her to the Charming Shoppes account and terminated her employment in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination. (See Pl.'s Opp'n at 9, 11-15.) Despite ARAMARK's arguments to the contrary, the Court finds that Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct when she complained to her supervisors about Copling and Hunter's treatment of her, thus satisfying the first element of a prima facie retaliation claim. Although the Court has found that Plaintiff's sexual harassment claim fails as a matter of law, the Court cannot conclude that no objectively reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have believed that Copling and Hunter's behavior was unlawful under Title VII. See Wilkerson v. New Media Tech. Charter Sch. Inc. 522 F.3d 315, 322 (3d Cir. 2008) ("[I]f no reasonable person could have believed that the underlying incident complained about constituted unlawful discrimination, then the complaint is not protected."); Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, 341 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that a plaintiff claiming retaliation "must hold an objectively reasonable belief, in good faith, that the activity they oppose is unlawful under Title VII."). Plaintiff's termination clearly satisfies the second element of a prima facie case. However, ARAMARK's offer to transfer Plaintiff to the Charming Shoppes account is not an adverse employment action because it did not alter the terms, conditions, or privileges of Plaintiff's employment or adversely affect her in any way. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). See also, e.g., Weston v. Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420, 431 (3d Cir. 2001) (holding that written reprimands were not adverse employment actions because they did not change or alter the plaintiff's employment status in any way).
Plaintiff's retaliation claim fails at the third element of the prima facie case: causation. It is undisputed that Plaintiff complained to her supervisors about Copling and Hunter numerous times prior to her January 19, 2006, termination, Plaintiff has presented no evidence of a causal link between her termination and her protected activity. The timing of the termination is not suggestive of retaliation, and, even if it were, timing alone very rarely suffices to support causation. Marra v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 497 F.3d 286, 302 (3d Cir. 2007). Although a Plaintiff may rely on "a broad array of evidence" to demonstrate causation, Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence in support of causation, and the Court has not found anything in the summary judgment record that it could use to infer causation. Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co., 206 F.3d 271, 284 (3d Cir. 2000).
Moreover, even if Plaintiff had made a prima facie case of retaliation, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that ARAMARK's non-discriminatory reason for her termination -- i.e., insubordination -- is pretextual. Therefore, Plaintiff's retaliation claim fails as a matter of law.
D. Petition to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff
The Court finds that Plaintiff's counsel, Nessa B. Math, Esq., has shown good cause why she should be permitted to withdraw as counsel of record. The Court will grant Ms. Math's Petition for Leave to Withdraw. However, as her last duties in this matter, Ms. Math must (1) attempt to contact Plaintiff by telephone to communicate the Court's judgment in this matter; (2) attempt to deliver a copy of this Memorandum and the accompanying Order to Plaintiff via United States mail to Plaintiff's last known address; and (3) file with the Clerk of Court a Statement indicating whether she was able to contact Plaintiff as directed herein.
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment will be granted in favor of ARAMARK and against Plaintiff on all Plaintiff's Title VII claims. Plaintiff's counsel's Petition for Leave to Withdraw will be granted.
An appropriate Order follows.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
If you want to pay your bill, please visit Dillards.com/payonline.
Item #04675256
Click Image To Zoom
REVIEW SNAPSHOT®by PowerReviews
Reviewed by 1 customer
Love the results!
By Kelkel1008
from Fruitland, MD, United States
Comments about StriVectin HAIR Color Care Conditioner for Color-Treated Hair:
Most conditioners that are meant for color care, weigh my hair down and make my hair look greasy. Not this conditioner. This conditioner made is super soft and full of bounce. The smell is awesome in the shower, I wish it lasted longer. Definitely recommend this conditioner.
Bottom LineYes, I would recommend this to a friend
Was this review helpful? Yes / No
- You may also flag this review


text:
radon mitigation
Be the first to suggest a tag
American Radon, LLC
5499 S Curtice St, Unit B Littleton CO 80120
Offering radon mitigation, testing, and removal for all of Colorado.
American Radon, LLC. are your home grown Colorado radon experts. From radon mitigation, radon testing, and radon removal we do it all in a professional and timely manner while making sure you fully understand the process we will doing to keep you and your family safe from radon.
uploaded 47 weeks ago by americanradonllc in Rumble, 1 views


text:
It has an acrylic glue base and is made from polypropylene. It is 50mm wide so that it will easily cover existing 'Anti Hot Spot Tape' and will stick to both the existing polyester clear cover or the exposed PVC foam, effectively sealing in the faulty tape and stopping any old Anti Hot Spot Tape from giving off chemical vapour which is harmful to the Polythene.
Please select the number of rolls of the Anti Hot Spot Repair Tape you require. 50mm width x 50m long.
Go Back to Product Listing
Copyright 2015


text:
The Original and Multi-Award Winning TV Craft
Join The Club >>
Members Area >>
Add items to your basket to see applied discounts and Flexi-pay options
Flexi-pay, our interest-free scheme
Thank you for nominating us for 8 awards – we'd appreciate
your vote >>
10% DISCOUNT FOR CLUB MEMBERS - Buy Today for £17.99
It's the most wonderful time of the year! So "Celebrate the Season" with Heartfelt Creations! This stamp and die combo set features Christmas designs!
Create and Craft special offers are only available for a limited time, previously recorded videos may contain pricing, exclusivity claims or promotional offers that have expired.
Formed as part of the Heartfelt Creations Celebrate the Season Collection, this fantastic stamp and die combo set will enable you to create wonderful Christmas themed projects!
This pack contains a metal die and a rubber stamp, allowing you to combine two crafting elements together for fantastic finished results.
The design features Christmas garlands decorated with bells, perfect for adding a little festive cheer to your crafting projects.
Both the die and the stamp are made from high quality materials to ensure fantastic results time after time.
Your order will be despatched within 3-5 working days. Most deliveries require someone to accept and sign for the delivery to ensure the goods are received correctly. To help you we can arrange for delivery to be made elsewhere.Click here for more information.
We hope you like your purchase, however, if you are not entirely satisfied, your item* may be sent back to us for a refund, provided it is returned within 14 days (unless otherwise specified)
from the date of despatch. *Please note: Exceptions apply. Please click here for more information.
Only £19.99
Club Price £17.99


text:
Tupac Shakur's biopic is yet to receive a due date.
However, that's done little to stop its promotional machine churning out a brand new teaser designed to draw in the eyes it hopes will view the release when it makes its way to movie theatres.
Its name? 'All Eyez on Me.'
Press play below…


text:
This profile was last updated on .
Is this you? Claim your profile.
+ Get 10 Free Contacts a Month
Please agree to the terms and conditions
I agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. I understand that I will receive a subscription to ZoomInfo Grow at no charge in exchange for downloading and installing the ZoomInfo Contact Contributor utility which, among other features, involves sharing my business contacts as well as headers and signature blocks from emails that I receive.
6 Church St
Chatham, New York 12037
United States
Here at Lofgren Agency we are fully committed to helping you get the protection that you need. As an independent agency, we work for you, getting you the best price and coverage from among our many providers. ... more
Board Member
Columbia County Habitat
Lofgren Agency | Lofgren Insurance Team | Lofgren Insurance NY
www.lofgrenagency.com [cached]
www.columbiacountyhabitat.org [cached]
Columbia County Habitat for HumanityColumbia County Habitat for Humanity
www.columbiacountyhabitat.org [cached]
Lofgren Agency - About
www.lofgrenagency.com [cached]
November 4, 2009
www.taghkanic.org [cached]
16. 2013 Town/County & 2012/2013 School Tax Rates
Tim Kneller
GlidePath Inc
Bryan Kneller
Ledcor Group of Companies
Matt Kneller
Brantford Paving & Construction
Robert Kneller
University of Tokyo
Graham Kneller
Hampshire County Council


text:
If there's one thing for certain, email still makes the online world go around. Despite the doom and gloom many have predicted for email with innovations like RSS and social media, email still rules the day. It's a crucial marketing medium for the success of any online business (or any business at all), so over the next few weeks, I would like to take you through all the important aspects of email marketing.
I am looking forward to sharing a whole lot about email marketing in the coming weeks. There will be a post every week from now until the end of July. I plan to cover everything from why email is important to all the nuts and bolts stuff you need to know to make email marketing successful for your business.
Here are the topics I'll be covering for you:
– Why email marketing is important for business
– Choosing an autoresponder service or software
– Understanding the difference between autoresponder and broadcast emails
– Should you use confirmed / double opt-in?
– Your first steps to setting up a mailing list
– The importance of the opt-in / squeeze page
– Surefire ways of growing your list
– Engaging your readers and delivering exactly what they want
– Email conversion tips
If any of that terminology isn't familiar with you, don't worry, I'll explain everything. We're going to cover a lot in the next few posts, so make sure you sign up for A Daily Dose of Motivation, if you're not on already, then you won't miss any of this email series.
I look forward to helping you turn your email marketing into an important profit source for your business – see you next Wednesday


text:
The average cost for a Brake Caliper Replacement - Front is between $175 and $243. Labor costs are estimated between $140 and $178 while parts are priced between $35 and $65. Get a personalized estimate based on your location and specific car. Estimate does not include taxes and fees.
Front Brake Caliper Replacement Cost for GMC Rally Wagon 1500
Brake Caliper Replacement - Front Estimate (National Average)
Validated estimate range for national average.
View Estimate Details
Parts & Labor Breakdown
Labor: $140 - $178
Parts: $35 - $65
Estimate does not include taxes and fees.
Best Practices
We recommend the brake calipers be replaced in pairs and the brake hydraulic system flushed when calipers are replaced.
Common Symptoms
Brake calipers require replacement when they are leaking fluid or if one or more of the caliper pistons have become stuck.
A failing brake caliper can cause the vehicle to pull to one side when braking.
Last step before receiving your estimate:
* Estimate for all GMC Rally Wagon 1500 model years. Get a more accurate price by entering in your year.


text:
N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
FASCICOLI E ARTICOLI I PIÙ LETTI eTOC
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,632
Periodicità: Bimestrale
Online ISSN 1827-191X
Meco M., Gramegna G., Yassini A., Bellisario A., Mazzaro E., Babbini M. *, Pediglieri A. *, Panisi P., Tarelli G., Frigiola A. **, Menicanti L. **, Cirri S.
From the Division of Cardiac Surgery
*Division of Anesthesia and Resuscitation
**Division of Cardiac Surgery
Malan Center S. Ambrogio Clinical Institute, Milan, Italy
San Donato Hospital San Donato Milanese - Milan, Italy
Background. The purpose of this study, was to assess the incidence of and predictors for mortality and morbidity in patients who required postoperative intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support.
Methods. We have retrospectively estimated 116 patients and data were statistically analyzed, and significant variables were evaluated with multivariate analysis.
Results. Mortality rate was 57.8% (67 patients). Nineteen patients (16.3%) had major vascular complications: 12 patients (10.3%) limb ischemia, 1 patient (0.9%) aortic dissection, 6 patients (5.2%) mesenteric infarction. Thirty patients (25.8%) had minor vascular complication: 23 patients (19.8%) bleeding from insertion site, 7 (6%) patients infection of insertion site. Limb ischemia was resolved by IABP removal (10 patients), thrombectomy (2 patients). No patient required limb amputation. Sixty patients (51.7%) had renal insufficiency, of which 40 patients needed dialysis. Fifteen patients (10.3%) had neurological complications, 13 patients (11.2%) thrombocytopenia and 5 patients (4.3%) sepsis.
Conclusions. The incidence of IABP insertion in our institution was 1.5%. Mortality rate is similar to mortality of other studies in which the IABP has been inserted in the postoperative period. We have found that timing of IABP insertion, thrombocytopenia, presence of peripheral vascular disease and the redo intervention are independent predictors of mortality. We also found that female sex, diabetes, history of cigarette smoking and preoperative use of antiplatelet drugs are independent predictors of limb ischemia. The following factors are instead independent predictors of renal insufficiency: postoperative ejection fraction lower than 40% and non use of dobutamine in the postoperative period.
lingua: Inglese


text:
F1 |FK Charming flat with amazing terrace Catania
From $48 / night
Description from the owner
Description from the owner
Bedrooms: 1/
Bathrooms: 1/
Sleeps: 4/
Type: Apt. / Condo
Book this 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom apt. / condo in Catania today! A total of 4 people can sleep here comfortably. This property has been booked 4 times.
Guests can enjoy a deck, outdoor grill, and air conditioning among other amenities offered by this rental.
Travelers are sharing their opinions on this property. It has an overall rating of 4/5 thanks to an average of 11 reviews.
Costs vary, with the average weekly rate as low as $280.00 to as high as $350.00, depending on travel dates.
The owner responds to 100% of inquiries and last updated the property's calendar yesterday.
Proximity to TripAdvisor's Top Catania Attractions
Proximity to TripAdvisor's Top Catania Attractions
Reviews (8)
Also consider
- FlipKey has rentals in over 11,000 destinations around the world:
- Florida vacation rentals- 43,581 rentals from $89/night
- Colorado vacation rentals- 10,322 rentals from $115/night
- Kellogg vacation rentals- 5 rentals from $81/night
- Lummi Island vacation rentals- 66 rentals from $200/night
- Valleyview vacation rentals- 1 rentals from $101/night


text:
Pierce Logistical
1907 E Three Notch St Andalusia, Alabama 36421(334) 222-2620
Print | Save | Directions
AboutPierce Logistical is located at the address 1907 E Three Notch St in Andalusia, Alabama 36421. They can be contacted via phone at (334) 222-2620 for pricing, hours and directions.
For maps and directions to Pierce Logistical view the map to the right. For reviews of Pierce Logistical see below.
You must Sign in to post reviews.
0 Reviews


text:
A beautiful Manhattan 50 lying in Turkey, she has been kept in fantastic condition with all standard maintenance and servicing kept up to date. She had a new water maker mounted and her windlass anchor has been replaced recently. "CHIARA" is a boat a boat ready to be enjoyed, she has ample of space for entertaining and her sleek flybridge allow for beautiful views whilst soaking up the rays. Viewing is a must! For more information please contact us.
She comes fitted with the classic Sunseeker Cherry Gloss interior which is carried into her 3 cabins. The Master Cabin aft and the forward VIP Guest Cabin enjoy the luxury of a double bed and ensuite. The Guest Pullman is located on the Port side, opposite the fully equipped galley. "CHIARA'S" saloon is on the main deck, her large windows allow the boat to filled with natural light during those stunning sunny days.
30M. Extra chain
Air Conditioning 2 x 12000 BTU, 1 x 16000 BTU
Bow thruster
Cherry gloss
Crew Cabin fit out installation
Dhingy iflator and socket 12V
Flybridge teak decking
Galley and Vanity Granite tops
Generator upgraded to Kohler 11Kw, 50 Hz ( 11 EFOZ)
Hydraulic Centraline Gangway
Icemaker fitted in the upper saloon cupboard
Icemaker in the saloon
Pouffee stool with low backrest with storage inside
Raymarin Autopilot system ST6001 6 dual station in liue of standard
Raymarine E120-12.1 Colour Radar chartplotter on lowe console with E120-12.1 colour repeater on fly console & raystar 120 GPS Diff receiver with 4kw4 48 open scanner in lieu of standard
Raymarine ST60 speed & Dept system in liue of Simrad IS 15
Washer/Dryer fitted in enclosed cabinet under the staircase
Water maker
Whilst every care is taken in the preparation of these details their accuracy cannot be guaranteed. They are intended as a guide only and do not constitute part of any contract. All prospective purchasers should be aware that the Builder, Sunseeker International Limited Model Year runs from the 1st of August to the 31st of July of the following year. The Company offers the details of this vessel in good faith but cannot guarantee or warrant the accuracy of this information nor warrant the condition of the vessel. A buyer should instruct his agents, or his surveyors, to investigate such details as the buyer desires validated. This vessel is offered subject to prior sale, price change, or withdrawal without notice.
|Motor Boats
|Sales status:
|Model:Manhattan 50
|Mooring Country:
|Year built:
|15.24 m/50 ft
|4.17 m/14 ft
|1430.0 hp
She is a one owner boat from new and has been kept in immaculate condition. Her 2 MAN D2848 engines still run as ...
£ 234,245
Vat Excluded / Not Paid
Launched in 2004, this hard top version of the popular Sunseeker Portofino 53 is in excellent condition and ...
£ 242,763
Vat Included / Paid
2006 Model Crownline 270CR equipped with 350 MAG/MPI and Bravo III outdrive, offering 4 berths. Specification ...
£ 39,950
Vat Included / Paid
2002 Azimut 68 Plus Engines 2 x 1150 MTU *Extended Warranty Avaialbe ACCOMMODATION Number of cabins: 4 Number ...
£ 482,520
Vat Excluded / Not Paid
Price reduced from €3, 270, 000. An excellent opportunity to purchase this factory display model at a very ...
£ 2,546,882
Vat Excluded / Not Paid


text:
Kelly Honda Sales Reviews
- 540 Lynnway
- Lynn, MA 01905 (map)
- (888) 610-3930
- Visit dealer's website
- Chat with Dealer
Great ExperienceWritten by djackson01801 on 12/19/11 01:58:36 AM UTC Go back to Sales reviews
Recommend this dealer? Yes Purchased a vehicle from this dealer? Yes
I purchased a 2012 Honda Accord from Kelly Honda and my experience could not have been better. The first person I spoke with was Stephanie. She set me up with an appointment with Dennis Card. The entire process went smoothly.


text:
Recall date: 17, 2012
Recall number: 13-071
Recall Summary
nguy hiểm:
When the marble-sized toy is ingested, it expands inside the body and causes a blockage in the small intestine, resulting in severe discomfort, vomiting, dehydration and could be life threatening. The toys do not show up on an x-ray and require surgery to be removed from the body.
Recall Details Report an Incident Involving this Product
Consumers should immediately take this recalled toy away from children and contact Dunecraft for a free replacement toy.
Manufactured In:
China and United States


text:
0 results
+ 0 miles
Min Price
Max Price
Min Beds
Max Beds
New Homes and Developments For Sale in Bluebell Park, Middlesbrough, Cleveland
An impressive 4 bedroom home which offers a generous living area, ideal for growing families. The large kitchen/dining room is the hub of the home, whilst the light and airy lounge offers a peaceful place to relax. The first floor features four double bedrooms, two of which benefitting en-suite s...
Added on 14/09/2016
01642 268026 Local call rate
Email developer
Your search has returned 0 results
There are no available properties matching the criteria which you have specified.
In order to return more great properties in your searches, try adjusting your search criteria.


text:
Vallejo is the largest city in Solano County, California, United States. The population was 115,942 at the 2010 census. It is located in and is the tenth most populous city in the San Francisco Bay Area on the northeastern shore of San Pablo Bay. Vallejo is named for General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo. Vallejo is home to the Six Flags Discovery Kingdom theme park (formerly Marine World and Marine World Africa USA) ; the now-defunct Mare Island Naval Shipyard; the regional office for Region 5 of the United States Forest Service; the California Maritime Academy (part of the California State University system); the Vallejo Center campus of Solano Community College; and Touro University California, a graduate school offering programs in osteopathic medicine, education, pharmacy, physician assistant studies, and public health.
Contributions by Braintoad, WikiLeon, and Suisun.


text:
Job Ref: 27818
Talent Area: RN - ER
Houston Methodist San Jacinto Hospital
Baytown, TX 77521
Area/Department: Graduate Nurses
Employment Type: Regular
Job Type: Full-Time
Organization: Houston Methodist
Work Shift: 7:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.
Work Week: 12 hour shifts with rotating weekends/holiday off
Houston Methodist San Jacinto Hospital, located 35 miles southeast of Houston, is the area's only full-service hospital offering specialized medical care for patients at every stage in life. This 392 licensed bed hospital with 18 operating rooms, and over 1,400 employees, brings Medical Center excellence and quality care close to East Harris and surrounding counties.
The GN is a graduate nurse, who as an entry level professional nurse demonstrates the ability to continuously progress in ability to care for increasingly complex patients. Professionals at this level function at the Novice to Advanced Beginner stages according to Benner's model of clinical practice. The GN provides direct patient care and participates in unit initiatives and shared governance. The GN receives coaching from experienced Registered Nurses and benefits from their practice. Duties and Responsibilities are cross-referenced to the hospital's Pillars of Excellence: People (providing direction and plans, leading and managing people, ICARE values) Service (patient/customer satisfaction, interpersonal effectiveness) Quality and Safety (making judgments and decisions) Finance (driving for performance excellence) Innovation and Growth (leading improvement and innovation, role-specific expertise)
PATIENT AGE GROUP SERVED Varies- patient age group defined by each clinical area.
a. Provides care to increasingly complex patients with support of more experienced staff. (Quality/Safety)
b. Participates in unit projects focused on improvement in patient care and shared governance activities. (Growth/Innovation)
c. Uses resources effectively and efficiently. (Finance)
d. Contributes to meeting departmental financial target on unit-based scorecard. (Finance)
a. Plans and updates plan of care in partnership with the patient and family using the nursing process, incorporating the patient's priorities and abilities. (Service)
b. Provides patient teaching based on learning needs, uses appropriate resources, incorporating planning for care after discharge. (Service)
c. Advocates on patient/family's behalf to identify and help resolve clinical or ethical concerns. (Service)
d. Contributes to meeting departmental target for patient satisfaction on unit-based scorecard. (Service)
a. Follows the nursing process in providing care. (Quality/Safety)
b. Plans for routine events and manages emergent situations in collaboration with the healthcare team. (Quality/Safety)
c. Contributes to meeting departmental targets for quality and safety measures on unit-based scorecard. (Quality/Safety)
a. Communicates in an active, positive and effective manner to all health care team members and reports pertinent patient care and family data in a comprehensive and unbiased manner, listens and responds to the ideas of others. (People)
b. Uses a structured format for regular communication with patients and families, such as hourly rounding. (Quality/Safety)
c. Develops a therapeutic relationship with patients and families; communicates competence and confidence to patients and health care team. (Service)
5. TEAMWORK a. Manages usual patient assignment and other unit demands, completes patient care responsibilities in timely manner with accurate documentation. (Quality/Safety) b. Requests help when needed and accepts constructive feedback. (People)
c. Supportive of change initiatives. Adapts to unexpected changes. (Growth/Innovation)
a. Reports "near misses" as well as errors promptly and consistently to improve systems and processes and identify trends. (Quality/Safety)
b. Stays focused on task at hand and plans care to limit distractions. (Quality/Safety)
c. Implements unit and hospital initiatives to achieve National Patient Safety Goals. (Quality/Safety)
a. Participates in unit evidence-based practice or performance improvement projects. (Innovation/Growth)
b. Identifies areas of practice that should be updated with current research. (Quality/Safety) c. Uses evidence-based practice to support care and has a strong understanding of designated core measures. (Quality/Safety)
a. Assesses own competence on continuous basis and identifies learning needs. (Growth/Innovation)
b. Seeks opportunities to expand learning beyond baseline competencies. (Growth/Innovation)
a. Maintains level of professional contributions as defined in Clinical Career Path program guide.
10. Demonstrates the components of the ICARE values statement.
11. Demonstrates SERVICE PRIDE standards.
12. Follows all safety rules while on the job. Reports accidents promptly and corrects minor hazards.
13. Performs other duties as assigned.
EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS Graduate of an accredited Nursing School Bachelor's degree in Nursing required Current TMHS employees: For A.D.N graduates, qualification and continued employment is contingent upon continued enrollment and pursuit of Bachelors degree in Nursing. Supporting documentation must be presented at completion of each semester/session.
Graduate Nurse with current Texas temporary permit.
Current BLS Certification Required. (Must be American Heart Association BCLS "Healthcare Provider") Other certifications as required by unit/service
Must be able to perform skills and competencies as defined in orientation checklist and annual departmental competency checklist if applicable. Basic computer skills. Must be able to write and speak effectively in English
Houston Methodist is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
Equal employment opportunity is a sound and just concept to which Houston Methodist is firmly bound. Houston Methodist will not engage in discrimination against or harassment of any person employed or seeking employment with Houston Methodist on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, status as a protected veteran or other characteristics protected by law.
VEVRAA Federal Contractor – priority referral Protected Veterans requested.
Houston Methodist
Employee Resources
Learn more >
Returning Job Seekers
Click here to manage
your profile >


text:
Need an Allergy Blood Test in Forest Hills, TN? Simply order online 24/7 and get a fast, affordable Allergy Blood Test at a lab near you (Find More Locations):
Why would I get an Allergy Blood Test?
An Allergy Blood Test checks the blood for antibodies related to allergy. People in Forest Hills, TN order the Allergy Blood Test for general screening or to guide therapy.
How much does an Allergy Blood Test cost?
Our Allergy Blood Test prices include the doctor's order that you need to get tested in Forest Hills, TN, all lab fees and taxes, and a pdf copy of your results. For current prices, please CLICK HERE.
We are pleased to offer an Allergy Blood Test in Forest Hills, TN.
Allergy Blood Test in other cities near Forest Hills, TN:Antioch | Arrington | Belle Meade | Brentwood | College Grove | Franklin | Goodlettsville | Hermitage | La Vergne | Madison | Nashville | Nolensville | Pegram | Thompsons Station | Whites Creek
Limited Time Offer!
Save 5% on Your Order Today Only
Use Promo Code XTPUDSKLC
Offer Expires in


text:
Bell Yard Dental Surgery
Dental Care, dental implants
Bell Yard Dental Surgery is your dental care in Westminster, London. We offer our dental care to workers and residents throughout the City, and will always welcome new patients from all professions. We are registered with the CQC (Care Quality Commission) and General Dental Council, and the quality of our dental care is second to none. If you need high quality cosmetic dentistry work, by a General Dental Council practitioner, you have come to the right place. You can have same-day emergency dental treatment, even if you are simply visiting London for the day. Our professional staff will take care of you, and ensure your smile is restored as well as possible. As a GDC and CQC registered practice, you can be sure your treatment will be of the highest quality. Whatever walk of life you are from, we will provide you the quick, responsive dental work you need. From restorative dentistry to urgent root canal treatment, we can take care of your teeth and make sure your working life is not disrupted any more than necessary.
Print this page
Create your free Hotfrog business profile
Follow Hotfrog on:
Share on:
Hotfrog Small Business Hub