text:
Pierre Hardy
Pierre Hardy Black Leather Gold Toned Zip High Heel Ankle Boots$320
($1,355 approx. retail)
These ankle boots are constructed of panels of matte and shiny black leather. Gold toned zippers down the interior side of a geometric zipper pull. Chunky high heel. Comes with box and dust bag. Please note this new item comes to you directly from a high-end boutique. Retails for $1,355.åÊ
Size: 40
Made in: Italy
Color: Black
Content: Leather
Condition: New in box. Faint scuffing on outsoles. No other visible signs of wear from trying on.åÊ
- Heel: 3.875"
- TotalåÊHeight: 9.75"
- Circumference: 10.25"
- Outsole Length: 10.25"
- Outsole Width: 3.25"
RETURNS: We accept returns of clothing and shoes when notified via email to firstname.lastname@example.com within 3 days of receiving the item/items. Handbags, accessories and jewelry are final sales. We only accept returns on these items if they are in the condition they were received. Items must have original Luxury Garage Sale tags and be unworn.
SHIPPING: Standard shipping in the Continental US is free via FedEx Ground. Second Day Air is $25 and next-day air is $45. International shipments are a flat rate of $45.
- All
- Black Friday 2016
- Boots and Booties
- Boutique Overstock
- Boots
- Black
- New With Tags
- Pierre Hardy
- Designers
- Frontpage
- New Arrivals
- Pierre Hardy
- $200-500
- Shoes
- Size 10-10.5
- 10, 40


text:
Hotels near Christopher Fountain
Search hotels near Christopher Fountain in Schaerding
Get Secret Prices on select hotels
These prices aren't available to everyone.
Trending now in Schaerding
Hotels within 0.5 miles of Christopher Fountain
- Most bookedApparthotel Alte Innbruecke
11 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Overnight stop-off with my two teenage sons. Room was clean, three single beds, it was however very hot and no aircon. Even with the window open (church bells striking hourly were another serene annoyance) the room was very hot. Restaurant adjacent to hotel was excellent value and the breakfast ..."
A Traveller, Jul 2015, GB
7 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Very nicely located with a helpful staff. We were on the business trip in Germany, but this hotel just next to the border was a very good alternative."
A Traveller, Sep 2015, IE
Hotels within 5 miles of Christopher Fountain
12 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Hotels within 8 miles of Christopher Fountain
25 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"IBB Sud was a last minute booking, but was a very nice stop. The receptionist was extremely helpful with directions and food options nearby."
A Traveller, Sep 2016, US
6 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"This was a perfect stop over from our trip to the Christmas Market in Normberg"
A Traveller, Dec 2013, US
5 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Hotels within 9 miles of Christopher Fountain
22 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Just across the road from the train station, so convenient if you are catching trains. Room really comfortable, breakfast good also. Staff were really helpful. Would stay here again."
A Traveller, Nov 2015, AU
17 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"Great Opera, amazing nature, outstanding buildings, walking trails"
A Traveller, Oct 2016, US
14 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Most recent review
"We had 12 minute walk from the station, finding the hotel among shops and restaurants in the old part of town. "
C, Jul 2016, US
- Hotel Weisser HaseNo Guest Reviews yet
4 people looked at this hotel in the last hour
Map of hotels near Christopher Fountain
Hotels in Schaerding near Christopher Fountain
Are you looking for a cheap Christopher Fountain hotel, a 5 star Christopher Fountain hotel or a family friendly Christopher Fountain hotel? You just landed in the best site to find the best deals and offers on the most amazing accommodations for your stay.
When you search for hotels near Christopher Fountain with Hotels.com, you need to first check our online map and see the distance you will be from Christopher Fountain, Austria.
Our maps are based on hotel search and display areas and neighborhoods of each hotel so you can see how close you are from Christopher Fountain and refine your search within Schaerding or Austria based on closest public transportation, restaurants and entertainment so you can easily get around the city. All the hotels details page show an option for free or paid onsite parking.
If you wish to see the hotels with the highest featuring discounts and deals near Christopher Fountain, simply filter by price/ average nightly rate. We recommend you filter by star rating and read our genuine guest reviews so you can get the best quality hotel with the best discount.
One of the new features on Hotels.com guest reviews is that also show reviews from Expedia for Christopher Fountain hotels and the TripAdvisor Christopher Fountain hotels reviews so you can make sure that you checking with a reliable source. See the review scores on our Schaerding hotel information pages.
Make the most out of your family vacation when you book your accommodation with Hotels.com – book your hotel near Christopher Fountain, Schaerding after reviewing the facilities and amenities listed for each hotel.
After booking your hotel near Christopher Fountain, expect to receive your reservation confirmation in the mail in less than 10 minutes. The confirmation email contains more information on all nearby attractions, local directions and weather forecast, so you can better plan the days during your trip.
After getting the best hotel rates you can still save more by winning 1 free night! That's right, book 10 nights in any hotel near Christopher Fountain, Schaerding and after you sign up for the Welcome Rewards program, you are eligible hotel you receive 1 night free*
The best hotel deals are here: We have Christopher Fountain hotel deals, Christopher Fountain last minute deals and offers to get you the cheapest Christopher Fountain hotel with our lowest price guarantee.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Dreams are like angelsThey keep bad at bay-bad at bay. Love is the light, scaring darkness away. I'm so in love with you. Purge the soul, make love your goal. The power of love, a force from above, cleaning my soul. © SIGNATURE BY ANAËLLE.
Flowers, bodies and smiles
guilty ♒ we swear to give our all to the x clan. we let go of each other we walked lonely paths and fought endlessly to find the x clan and at the end of the fight, we met again. © endlesslove.
THE CHOSEN ONE.Tragedy blows through your life like a tornado (..) Because after disaster strikes, the important thing is that you move on. But if you're like me, you just keep chasing the storm. ✰ try again, fail better. @vmars


text: Mr.Puddlez was a Stray Kitten & about 4 weeks old when he found us. I was walking Magnum & Pebblez my fairly large dogs & he ran straight out to us from under a car and tried crawling up the leg of my pants showing no fear. The lil guy was so malnourished & flea covered i brought him home,cleaned him up, & he became a part of the family. He is a Spunky little Gentleman with the loudest set of lungs I've ever heard. He is rambunctious & stealthy. He often sneaks around. He loves playing "fetch" & using peoples legs as his personal scratching post T_T


text:
Quick Links
- Online QME Form 106 Panel Request
- DWC Physician Education
- Search for a workers comp case
- Know my rights
- What to do if you get hurt on the job
- Find a fact sheet or I&A guide
- Forms
- Reports, publications & schedules
- File a complaint
- Pay my bill online
About DWC
DWC forums - Physician Fee Schedule
For this forum, comments must be sent by email to email@example.com. All other forum rules apply to submitting comments.
The forum closes on Feb. 8, 2013
You may also mail in-depth comments to:
Division of Workers' Compensation
P.O. Box 420603
San Francisco, CA 94142
Attn: DWC forums
Please review the documents posted here:
- Physician fee schedule payment ground rule: A comparision of the OMFS and medicareversion
- Official Medical Fee Schedule RBRVS-Based Physician Fee Schedule Development "Ground Rules"version
Please review forum comments here
January 2013


text:
My name is Brennan and I am about a year and a half old. I am an all-natural Dobie boy with the full tail that is quite expressive. I was picked up as a stray and my family never came to claim me but I don't hold grudges, I move on.
I am a very nice boy and I do have some manners. I like other dogs and people. Obedience school would still be a great thing for me because I am young and need to learn many things. School is always a good thing!
I am eager to please and eager to find a forever home and start over. More will be posted about me as the volunteers get to know me better.
Brennan is a boy wanting to please in order to earn your lap for cuddle time. He is a great walker on a leash, he knows sit, lay down, and come. Brennan is crate trained and has nice kennel manners as he doesn't destroy his blankies or toys. Since he is young he has lots of energy, but with a walk a day he has been good in the house mainly wanting to snuggle up and take a nap. Brennan is great with other dogs and has been tested and determined to be cat safe, although he is NOT A FAN OF KIDS.
Brennan is a lover and eager to find his forever home!
Please ask for me at www.doberescue-ne.org
All of our dogs are current with all shots, are on heart worm preventative monthly and are neutered/spayed. All dogs are tail docked. All of the above Dobes are pure breed Dobermans unless otherwise noted.
We hope you can find a place in your heart and your home for one of our rescue Dobes.
Please Note:
In most cases we require a fenced yard.
We do not place our rescue dogs in homes with very young children (under the age of 8 years). We set these limitations, not because of aggression issues with our dogs, but because Dobermans are generally large, active dogs and can easily knock down, run over or easily trip a small child, causing a serious fall. Also, we reserve the right to refuse adoption for any reason.
Our adoption area encompasses Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota.
Copyright © 2007 - Omaha Doberman Rescue
For more information or to fill out an adoption request please visit
Thank You!
Your message has been sent to Doberman Rescue of Nebraska.
You'll receive a copy, too, at to help you keep track of which pets you've inquired about, and which shelters and rescues you've emailed.
NOTE: Some shelters have physical locations you can visit; some of these shelters may only have pets for a limited time, so please do not wait for a reply—just go visit the shelter! Other organizations are rescue groups run by busy volunteers who may take a while to reply. You can find information about the shelter or rescue group caring for this pet, and their adoption procedures, on the pet's details page on Adopt-a-Pet.com.


text:
Sign in to retrieve a saved callback list.
All rubbish and waste removal. Please click here for further details.
Recycling, All Types Of Rubbish & Waste Clearance, House Clearance, Garage Clearance, Office Clearance, Groundworks, Demolition, Salvage/Scrap/Cars, Scrap Metal, Waste Clearance etc.
Real Man and Van Ltd. is a SW London-based removal company specialising in home removals, office removals, packing and unpacking for private and business customers within London and the UK.
Unbeatable on the spot price!!!
Honest, reliable, professional waste recycling service. Let us do the hard work for you and create the space you need by removing the items you don't. We ethically recycle materials.
PML have been established within the maintenance and handyman services industry since 1995. So please feel free to call your Reliable,flexible and friendly local handyman service.
Our house clearance crews can clear the rubbish, junk and waste from anywhere on your property.
Affordable rubbish clearance is a family run business with years of experience in waste disposal.We offer a fast, reliable service where your every need will be met. Nothing is to much...
D.n.T wasteWe are based in mitcham Surrey but under take work in most areas. We are a family run business. We will go that extra mile to keep our customers happy
Clearances, Removals & Storage Solution Services Offered.
R&T Clearance And Removals Ltd is South West London based domestic and commercial removals and property clearance company. Main services:House ClearanceOffice ClearanceRemovalsMan &...
We are a family run business who for 22 years have specialized in residential and commercial removals in Epsom Ewell and surrounding areas and also provide long distance removals throughout
MAN&VANS is a family run business operating in the removal industry sector. We have over a decade of experience and offer competitive rates on all local, nationwide and international
Man and van services, all types of House CLEARANCE / Waste / RUBBISH clearances, Removals ,Piano moving - From single items to full van loads
KG Waste Disposal cover Surrey, South West London and surrounding areas. We undertake all forms of rubbish clearance including household, garden and general waste disposal.
Rubbish and Waste and Clearance , Recycling , Aggregate Supplier, House Clearance, Salvage, Waste Clearance.
Tony Van 24hr was founded in 2008 and have been a very successful company with a strong client base. I am very punctual and reliable with a flexible 24hour service.
Rubbish and Waste and Clearance , Asbestos Services, Recycling , House Clearance, Scrap Metal, Waste Clearance, Asbestos Removal - Non License, Asbestos Surveys, Asbestos Testing.
Friendly & Reliable Rubbish & Waste clearance service. We clear all household waste incl. lofts/cellars. Office/commercial. All aspects of garden maintenance undertaken
Kwik Sweep is a London based professional on demand House clearance, Junk removal and waste collection service.
Customer feedback and scores for all to see
No registration required to view and contact our members
nationwide to choose from


text:
DescriptionEntertain in grand style one bedroom apartment in Laguna Tower has a built-up area of 1,040 sq.ft. The unit has one en suite bathroom with walk-in closet and a toilet for guests. The kitchen has a 4-person breakfast bar and is made with high quality cabinetry. The property has also allocated one parking for the resident.
Built in a prestine location at the head of Jumeirah Lakes Towers, the stylish 42-storey Laguna Tower is superbly located on a waterfront pinnacle within the development, ensuring that the majority of apartments enjoy spectacular lake or sea views. Providing all the comforts and amenities that you would expect of an IFA Hotels & Resorts development, the ultra-modern Laguna Tower Dubai delivers cutting-edge design in a luxurious setting.
Amenities inlcude:
24-hour front desk and security
built-in white goods
conference facilities
swimming pool
For more details, please feel free to contact our office +97144533317
Fax: +97144435917
if the agent fails to answer kindly call +971527831138
Facebook: www.facebook.com/InvestmentSymposium
Website: www.armsmcgregor.com
See all our properties in video
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkEoPyRY2nD7eXoWDjX9ufw


text:
SCETV Teacher Recertification
Course Payment and Registration
Please see the General Structure and Course Site guide for specific information.
Fall Registration: CLOSED
Start course(s): September 26 Must complete work by December 8
Winter Registration: January 6 - February 6
Start Date: January 23 Must complete work by March 21
57 One-hour/20 Renewal Credit Courses offered
Cost: $75.00 per course
These courses are for recertification or certificate renewal credit ONLY. NO graduate credit available for these courses. Click here for course structure.
All courses are professional development courses only and may be used for certificate renewal credit. These courses cannot be used to satisfy undergraduate or graduate degree program requirements. It is the EDUCATOR'S RESPONSIBILITY to contact your professional development coordinator PRIOR TO REGISTRATION to determine if these SCETV offerings meet your professional development plan and/or certificate renewal requirements.
For course descriptons go to the ETV Teacher Recertification page.
Credit/debit cards as well as checks are accepted. Mail checks to 1041 George Rogers Blvd, Columbia, SC 29201.
To begin your course(s), go to http://scetvlearn.org and login with the username and password listed on the email you will receive once you are registered.
Call etvLEARN Online Customer Service for assistance: 1-888-761-8132
Course Categories
|Science PD Courses
|Social Studies PD Courses
|SC Chronicles PD Courses
Sorry, but there are no products matching this criteria. Please try again.


text:
Part 1: The First Decade: The top 20 critical issues
Related Articles
- Cautious consumers, tight labor to shape Midwest's growth destiny in '99. Walkup, Carolyn // Nation's Restaurant News;01/04/99, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p70
Provides an outlook for restaurants in the Midwest of the United States in 1999. Views of some restaurant executives; Outlook for each state; Economic conditions of the states.
- Mid-Atlantic operators' optimism defies region's slow-growth forecast. Prewitt, Milford // Nation's Restaurant News;01/04/99, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p74
Provides an outlook for restaurants in Mid-Atlantic states of the United States in 1999. Sales projections; Comments from some restaurant executives; Economic conditions of the region.
- New England operators' hear hum of growth as labor blues sound sour note. Battaglia, Andy // Nation's Restaurant News;01/04/99, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p76
Provides an outlook for restaurant operators in New England in 1999. Foodservice sales projections; Comments from some operators; Concerns of operators.
- Casual segment strong, wary of second half. // Nation's Restaurant News;7/30/2001, Vol. 35 Issue 31, p46
Highlights the views of food service executives on the performance of casual dining establishments in the United States in the second half of 2001. Pricing flexibility; Barriers to going public; Free-cash-flow situation at Outback Steakhouse.
- Outlook 2000: Report projects $18B gain. Papiernik // Nation's Restaurant News;01/03/2000, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p1
Forecasts the increase of the sales revenues of United States restaurants in year 2000. Amount of the profits of the foodservice industry in 1999; Continuation of the positive growth of restaurants; Percentage increase of consumer spending.
- Industry's future looks bright, say analysts, operators. // Nation's Restaurant News;12/13/99, Vol. 33 Issue 50, p90
Reports on industry analysts and operators' optimism about the outlook on growth and performance in foodservice in the United States, as discussed at the fall session of the 1999 Foodservice Financial Forum held in Dallas, Texas. Economic forecasts; Strength of baby boomers earning money;...
- Industry experts: Focus on execution, profit. Papiernik, Richard L.; Hamstra, Mark // Nation's Restaurant News;11/16/98, Vol. 32 Issue 46, p1
Details foodservice operators and sector analysts' industry forecast during the second 1998 session of the `Nation's Restaurant News' Foodservice Forum. Analysts' confidence on the performance of the United States industry that can meet consumers' growing expectations; Caution on industry...
- Parting thoughts on pizza, zoo dining, Sino-Cuban cuisine. Martin, Richard // Nation's Restaurant News;01/04/99, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p106
Offers an outlook for restaurant business in 1999. Comments on home-cooked pizza; Observations on some restaurants.
- FULL SERVICE TAKES A BIGGER BITE! Sanson, Michael; Mariani, John // Restaurant Hospitality;Feb2003, Vol. 87 Issue 2, p29
Forecasts the market outlook of the restaurant industry in the U.S. for 2003. Sales growth posted by the industry from 1971 to 2003; Concerns raised by operators; Competition facing the industry; Trends in the food service industry. INSETS: IDINE'S TOP 10 DINING OUT TRENDS;MARIANI'S...


text:
Featured Others Suppliers
BULQ.com | Name Brands – Manifested Lots | All Product Categories from the USAs Largest Retailers View lots online or email firstname.lastname@example.com » Product Categories include Office Supplies, Consumer Electronics, Home and Garden, Apparel and Accessories, Toys, General Merchandise, and more. Source in 2 lot sizes: cases or pallets. BULQ.com Washington, DC, United States
Liquidation.com | Name Brands » All Categories & Conditions » Visit us at the ASD Show Booth SU2980 Thousands of daily auctions from 7 of the top 10 leading department stores. Branded apparel, electronics, housewares, tools and computers. Shop Home Depot, Sony, iPads and iPhones. Over 1 million businesses use Liquidation.com - register today, no cost. Liquidation.com: Surplus and Wholesale Auctions by Liquidators Washington, DC, United States
DirectLiquidation.com | Wholesale Auctions | Name Brands | Global Shipping | Cases, Pallets, LTL Wholesale auction marketplace for surplus inventory, customer returns, overstock and refurbished merchandise. We are the exclusive liquidator for several top US retailers stocking millions in inventory you can't find anywhere else. Free to register. Direct Liquidation LLP Hallandale, FL, United States
Rug Factory Plus Geo Collection Rug Factory Plus offers contemporary rugs, traditional rugs, transitional rugs, kids rugs, animal print rugs, outdoor rugs at wholesale and direct importer price. Rug Factory Plus Commerce, CA, United States


text:
Check in from 2:00 PM / Check out prior to 11:00 AM
La Casuccia Di Assisi: Find photos, reviews, information, amenities and compare prices for 3 stars hotels in Assisi, Italy.
La Casuccia Di Assisi provides rustic 3-star accommodation in Assisi. It is set amongst a variety of popular eateries and is minutes on foot from Assisi Railway Station.
Hotel description
Bed and Breakfast La Casuccia di Assisi provides comfortable accommodation, in addition to a terrace, luggage storage and parking.
Rooms at La Casuccia Di Assisi feature garden views, and provide all the essentials to ensure a comfortable stay. They offer a refrigerator, a kitchenette and an in-room dining area.
To start the day, guests can wake up to breakfast provided by Bed and Breakfast La Casuccia di Assisi before heading off to discover what the surrounding area has to offer.
The bed & breakfast is conveniently nestled in the Umbria Wine Region, allowing guests to easily try the region's specialities. Perugia and Foligno are located an easy car ride from the property.
Hotel features
Refrigerator, Coffee / Tea Maker, Hair Dryer, TV, Shower, En suite, Private Bathroom, Bidet
Desk, Luggage Storage
Private Toilet
Availability and Prices
Booking Site
Room Type
Per room
Per night
Per night
Users who viewed La Casuccia Di Assisi also viewed these 3 stars Assisi hotels:
Albergo Terra Natia
Via Enrico Berlinguer 5, Assisi
Via Enrico Berlinguer 5, Assisi
San Francesco
Via San Francesco 48, Assisi
Via San Francesco 48, Assisi
La Terrazza del Subasio Bed&breakfast
Via Costa di Trex 20, Assisi
Via Costa di Trex 20, Assisi
Search hotels
based on
34 reviews
Nearest hotels
- Porziuncola Hotel Assisi
0.1 miles
- Dal Moro Gallery Hotel
0.1 miles
- Camere La Basilica
0.1 miles


text:
Enter your Email address:
Wolters Kluwer Health may email you for journal alerts and information, but is committed
to maintaining your privacy and will not share your personal information without
your express consent. For more information, please refer to our Privacy Policy.
Fernando Abib, MD, PhDCuritiba, Brazil
Pablo Argüeso, PhDBoston, MA
Alejandro Babayan, MD Mexico City, Mexico
Stefano Barabino, MD, PhDGenoa, Italy
Carolyn Begley, OD Bloomington, IN
Michael Belin, MDMarana, AZ
Carlos Belmonte, MD Alicante, Spain
William J. Benjamin, OD, PhD Birmingham, AL
Roger Beuerman, PhD Singapore
Perry S. Binder, MDSan Diego, CA
Caroline Blackie, OD, PhD Boston, MA
Mark Bullimore, PhDBoulder, CO
Barbara Caffery, OD, PhD Toronto, Canada
H. Dwight Cavanagh, MD, PhDDallas, TX
Joseph Ciolino, MDBoston, MA
Kathryn Colby, MD, PhD Chicago, IL
Soledad Cortina, MD Chicago, IL
Deepinder K. Dhaliwal, MD, L.AcPittsburgh, PA
Darlene Dartt, PhDBoston, MA
Murat Dogru, MDTokyo, Japan
Michael Doughty, PhDGlasgow, Scotland
William T. Driebe, MDGainesville, FL
Nathan Efron, PhD, DScQueensland, Australia
William Ehlers, MDFarmington, CT
Arthur B. Epstein, ODPhoenix, AZ
David Evans, PhDBerkeley, CA
Malvina Eydelman, MDRockville, MD
Gary Foulks, MD Wilmington, NC
William Gleason, OD Wilmington, MA
Karsten Gronert, PhD Berkeley, CA
Michel Guillon, OD, PhD London, England
Koray Gumus, MD Kayseri, Turkey
Pedram Hamrah, MD Boston, MA
Danielle Harvey, PhD Davis, CA
David Huang MD, PhD Portland, OR
Jing-Feng Huang, PhD San Diego, CA
Deborah S. Jacobs, MD Needham, MA
James V. Jester, PhD Irvine, CA
Newton Kara José, MD San Paolo, Brazil
Charlotte Joslin, OD, PhD Chicago, IL
Stephen Kaufman, MD, PhD Brooklyn/Manhattan, NY
Shigeru Kinoshita, MD, PhD Kyoto, Japan
Stephen Klyce, PhD Port Washington, NY
Pete Kollbaum, OD, PhD Bloomington, IN
Carina Koppen, MD, PhD Antwerp, Belgium
Donald R. Korb, OD Boston, MA
Carol Lakkis, OD, PhD Jacksonville, FL
Gordon Laurie, PhD Charlottesville, VA
Maureen Maguire, PhD Philadelphia, PA
Francis Mah, MD San Diego, CA
Thomas Mauger, MD Columbus, OH
James McCulley, MD Dallas, TX
Alison McDermott, PhD Houston, TX
Timothy McMahon, ODChicago, IL
John J. McNally, ODOakland, CA
Jodhbir Mehta, MDSingapore
Thomas Miller, MSSeattle, WA
William L. Miller, OD, MS, PhD San Antonio, TX
Gary Novack, PhDSan Rafael, CA
Eric Papas, PhDSydney, Australia
Victor Perez, MDMiami, FL
Kenneth Polse, OD, MSBerkeley, CA
Christopher J. Rapuano, MDPhiladelphia, PA
Danielle Robertson, OD, PhDDallas, TX
Linda Rose, MDAlbuquerque, NM
Muriel Schornack, ODRochester, MN
John Sheppard, MDNorfolk, VA
Fiona J. Stapleton, PhDSydney, Australia
Thomas Steinemann, MDCleveland, OH
Ralph Stone, PhDFort Worth, TX
Deborah F. Sweeney, PhDSydney, Australia
Joseph Tauber, MDKansas City, MO
Ebru Toker, MDIstanbul, Turkey
Alan Tomlinson, OD, PhD, DScGlasgow, Scotland
Kazuo Tsubota, MDTokyo, Japan
Elmer Tu, MDChicago, IL
Ira Udell, MDGreat Neck, NY
Richard Weisbarth, ODFort Worth, TX
Barry A. Weissman, OD, PhDFullerton, CA
Craig Woods, PhDWaurn Ponds, Australia


text:
Автор: Toye Richard
Раздел: Oxford University Press
|Поступление на склад 25.12.2016
Rhetoric is often seen as a synonym for shallow, deceptive language, and therefore as something negative. But if we view rhetoric in more neutral terms, as the art of persuasion, it is clear that we are all forced to engage with it at some level, if only because we are constantly exposed to the rhetoric of others. In this Very Short Introduction, Richard Toye explores the purpose of rhetoric. Rather than presenting a defence of it, he considers it as the foundation-stone of civil society, and an essential part of any democratic process. Using wide-ranging examples from Ancient Greece, medieval Islamic preaching, and modern cinema, Toye considers why we should all have an appreciation of the art of rhetoric.
Цена 3 585 тг. за 1 штКоличество


text:
Scottish Oatcakes
Total Time
Prep 10 mins
Cook 15 mins
Recipe by request. Found this one and haven't tried it " .....Oatcake cookies may be prepared as directed above except add 1/3 cup sugar with the flour."
Ingredients Nutrition
- 1⁄2 cup shortening
- 1 cup oats or 1 cup quick-cooking oats
- 1 cup all-purpose flour
- 1⁄2 teaspoon baking soda
- 1⁄4 teaspoon salt
- 2 -3 tablespoons cold water
- Cut shortening into oats, flour, baking soda and salt until mixture resembles fine crumbs.
- Add water, 1 tablespoon at a time, until mixture forms a stiff dough.
- Roll until 1/8 inch thick on lightly floured surface.
- Cut into 2 1/2 inch rounds or squares.
- Place on ungreased cookie sheet.
- Bake in oven at 375 degrees F until oatcakes start to brown, 12 to 15 minutes.
- Cool on wire rack.
- Serve plain or with honey, butter, jam or cheese at breakfast or as a snack.
Most Helpful
So yummy and easy to make! I used vegetable oil instead of shortening, and I added whole yoghurt in place of water (I had lots of yoghurt at home). My boyfriend ate them with chocolate Easter egg pieces on top! Thank you for posting a great recipe, and I will certainly make them again soon!!!
Pretty good, though they were a little crumbly as mentioned below! I added another tablespoon of water which seemed to help some, if I try this again I may add more shortening though. Then again I don't know much about cooking, that's just my guess!
I thought they were too crumbly and didn't even taste good.


text:
How to Set Up Your Voice Mail on a Verizon Phone
Your Verizon wireless cell phone lets you send and receive calls from cell phones and landlines. If you happen to miss one of these calls, however, the caller on the other end can leave a message on your voice mail service. Before callers can leave messages on your voice mail, though, you must first set up the voice mail service for your phone number. This can be done from either your cell phone or any other phone number.
Things You'll Need
- Phone (cell or landline)
Step 1
Turn your Verizon phone on.
Step 2
Press the star or "*" button on the phone and then enter "86" on the phone. It should appear as "*86" on your phone screen. If you are calling from a home or landline phone or another cell phone, simply dial your Verizon cell phone number.
Step 3
Press "Send" on the phone to dial the phone number.
Step 4
Select the pound ("#") button on the phone to enter into the voice mail service.
Step 5
Type in the desired password for your Verizon voice mail and then press pound ("#").
Step 6
Press "3" on the phone to get into the greetings portion of the phone if you wish to set a personal greeting. Move to the next step to choose a greeting or disconnect the call if you want to use the default Verizon voice mail greeting.
Step 7
Press "1" to add a personal greeting to your Verizon voice mail or press "3" if you simply want to have your recorded name in the Verizon voice mail greeting.
Step 8
Speak into the phone when prompted to by the voice mail service. What you say and how long you speak will be determined by which option you selected in the previous step.
Step 9
Press "*" to exit the greeting portion of the voice mail service. Disconnect the call to complete the process.


text:
Location, Location, location - Panoramic views of the Tomhannock Reservoir. Well and Septic in and partial foundation ready for your country retreat home. Enjoy the quite surroundings while only being 20 minutes from Albany and Bennington. For the fisherman, fishing is permitted in the Tomhannock as well as ice fishing! Beautiful quiet country community! This 7.2 acre beauty offers abundant wildlife, views, and privacy! Welcome to your country retreat!
Listing information
- Status: Active
- County: Rensselaer
- Property ID: 103915133
- New Construction: No
- School District: Hoosic Valley
- Style: Lot/Land
- Lot Area: 7.20
Documents Available Approved Building Lot, Approved Septic, Site Plan, Survey, Water Test
Lot Description Cleared, Slope, Treed, View, Water View
Other Possession - Tbd, Tax Id Section - 52, Tax Identification Block - 5, Tax Identification Lot - 6.214, Village - Pittstown
Sign Yes
Total Taxes Description Estimated
Utilities Electric At Road, Gas Line At Road
Water Description Existing
Listed by Chandra Veino of Coldwell Banker Prime Properties 518-477-1000


text:
NBA Home
NBA Schedule
NBA Standings
NBA Rankings
NBA Streaks
NBA Tips
NBA Players
NBA Teams
Atlanta Hawks
Boston Celtics
Charlotte Bobcats
Chicago Bulls
Cleveland Cavaliers
Dallas Mavericks
Denver Nuggets
Detroit Pistons
Golden State Warriors
Houston Rockets
Indiana Pacers
Los Angeles Clippers
Los Angeles Lakers
Memphis Grizzlies
Miami Heat
Milwaukee Bucks
Minnesota Timberwolves
New Jersey Nets
New Orleans Hornets
New York Knicks
Orlando Magic
Philadelphia 76ers
Phoenix Suns
Portland Trail Blazers
Sacramento Kings
San Antonio Spurs
Seattle Supersonics
Toronto Raptors
Utah Jazz
Washington Wizards
NBA Standings
Conference Standings
Division Standings
Overall Standings
Home Standings
Road Standings
NBA Team Stats
Top Teams
Top Backcourts
Top Frontcourts
Top In-The-Paints
Top Out-Of-Paints
Top Starting lineups
Top Benches
Top in SF Position
Top in PF Position
Top in C Position
Top in SG Position
Top in PG Position
NBA Player Stats
Top NBA players
Top Point-Guards
Top Shooting-Guards
Top Small-Forwards
Top Power-Forwards
Top Centers
Top Rookies
Top Sophomores
Top European Players
NBA Opponent Stats
Top Teams
Top Backcourts
Top Frontcourts
Top In-The-Paints
Top Out-Of-Paints
Top Starting lineups
Top Benches
Top in SF Position
Top in PF Position
Top in C Position
Top in SG Position
Top in PG Position
NBA Trends
Most Improved Teams
Most Improved Players
Most Improved Point-Guards
Most Improved Shooting-Guards
Most Improved Small-Forwards
Most Improved Power-Forwards
Most Improved Centers
Betting Stats
Indiana Pacers News
Record : 36 - 46
East Rank : 9th
Pacers Profile
Team Profile
Backcourt Profile
Frontcourt Profile
In-The-Paint Profile
Out-Of-Paint Profile
Starters Profile
Bench Profile
Small-Forward Profile
Power-Forward Profile
Center Profile
Shooting-Guard Profile
Point-Guard Profile
Choose Player
Marquis Daniels
Travis Diener
Ike Diogu
Mike Dunleavy
Jeff Foster
Stephen Graham
Danny Granger
David Harrison
Troy Murphy
Ronald Murray
Andre Owens
Jermaine O'Neal
Kareem Rush
Courtney Sims
Jamaal Tinsley
Shawne Williams
Player Stats
By Quarter
Indiana Pacers News 2007-2008
Stats Glossary
Greatness of Both Daniels, McGinnis Remains Underappreciated
On Saturday night, the Pacers will honor two of the greatest stars in franchise history.
The Story Behind All Three of the Pacers' ABA Championships
The Seventies were awfully good to the Pacers. The first half, anyway.
Game Rewind: Pacers 109, Suns 94
Pacers Assign Georges Niang to Mad Ants
The Indiana Pacers announced Tuesday they have assigned forward Georges Niang to their affiliate in the NBA's Development League, the For
Game Preview: Pacers at Suns
Game Rewind: Pacers 106, Warriors 142
Infographic: The 1970s - Relive the Decade of Pacers Basketball
At His Best, George McGinnis Was the Best
Offer nominees for the greatest Pacers player over the past 50 seasons, and the legitimate candidates can be counted on one hand.
Game Preview: Pacers at Warriors
Game Rewind: Pacers 111, Clippers 102
2003 © 2015 |
Indiana Pacers Sitemap
NBA Resources
Contact Me


text:
Boies, Schiller & Flexner Partner Wendy Miles to take Silk
January 14, 2015
Download: Press Release (PDF, 244.05 K)
Boies, Schiller & Flexner is delighted to announce the appointment of London arbitration partner Wendy Miles to Queen's Counsel. She is one of only five English solicitor-advocates named in the roll call this year, which included the appointment of 88 barristers. Ms. Miles will be formally appointed at a ceremony in London on February 16, 2015.
A limited number of senior barristers and solicitor-advocates are made Queen's Counsel as a mark of outstanding ability. The process is merit-based, in accordance with a rigorous framework of skills, experience and competencies in the field of advocacy.
"Wendy's appointment brings honour to her in her career, and to our firm, in which she plays an important role," said Boies, Schiller & Flexner Managing Partner Jonathan Schiller.
Ms. Miles, who heads the firm's international arbitration practice, joined litigation powerhouse Boies, Schiller & Flexner in London in September of 2014. She adds further depth to the firm's first international office, which acts for clients in their most important international disputes.
"Wendy is a talented lawyer who has repeatedly been recognized as one of the top lawyers in the field of international arbitration," said London Managing Partner Natasha Harrison. "Her appointment to Queen's Counsel recognizes her outstanding advocacy skills and is a reflection of the best-in-class trial lawyers serving the clients of the firm."
Candidates for Queen's Counsel are assessed by members of the judiciary, peers and clients and interviewed by an independent panel in London. The Lord Chancellor makes his recommendation to the Queen who, in turn, approves the appointments.
"It is a real honour to be appointed Queen's Counsel and to have had the opportunity to work with such great clients, lawyers, firms, judges and arbitrators and institutions over the years," said Ms. Miles. "So many people have provided so much encouragement and support along the way."
Ms. Miles is an experienced barrister and solicitor qualified in England and New Zealand. She represents clients in major international commercial arbitration and public international law and litigation proceedings in the financial services, manufacturing, licensing, telecommunications, insurance, construction, and energy sectors. She was lead co-counsel for South Sudan in the Abyei Arbitration, a major boundary delimitation proceeding conducted under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.
She has acted as advisor and advocate for a number of international companies and states or state parties in arbitration proceedings conducted in various jurisdictions, including the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration, the London Court of International Arbitration, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Court, the Singapore International Arbitration Court, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, ICSID and UNCITRAL. She also represents clients in ad hoc arbitration and public international law.
Ms. Miles is a member of the ICC Court of Arbitration and Chair of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Board of Trustees. She regularly sits as an arbitrator in commercial disputes and teaches in the field of arbitration, including as a founding member of the Executive Committee for the Geneva-based Foundation for International Arbitration Advocacy.
Related Lawyer: Wendy J. Miles QC
Download: Press Release (PDF, 244.05 K)


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.
United States District Court, S.D. New York
March 6, 2014
HYMAN BRODT, Plaintiff,v.CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LEE DICKE and MICHAEL BIMONTE, individually, Defendants
Page 563
Hyman Brodt, Plaintiff, Pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
For City of New York, Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications, Lee Dicke, individually, Michael Bimonte, individually, Defendants: Laura C. Rowntree, LEAD ATTORNEY, New York City Law Department, New York, NY.
Page 564
P. Kevin Castel, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Hyman Brodt, who represents himself pro se, brings thirteen claims of religious discrimination and retaliation against the City of New York (the " City" ), its Department of Information Technology
Page 565
& Telecommunications (the " IT Department" ) and two individual defendants, Lee Dicke and Michael Bimonte.
Brodt alleges that he was terminated and denied promotions under the pretext of budget limitations, when, in reality, the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his Jewish faith. Plaintiff brings claims of retaliation and religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. McKinney's Executive Law § 296, and the New York City Human Rights Law, New York City Administrative Code § 8-107. Plaintiff also asserts that the defendants violated the protection of free exercise of religion enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the New York Constitution, and equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the New York Constitution.
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. For the reasons explained below, the Complaint fails to state a federal claim against the defendants. First, the IT Department is not an entity capable of being sued, and Brodt has agreed to voluntarily withdraw all claims against it. Second, Title VII does not permit Brodt's claims against two individual supervisors, Lee Dicke and Michael Bimonte. Third, the Complaint fails to state claims of discrimination or retaliation under Title VII against the City or any other defendant, and does not plausibly allege violations of the United States Constitution. The Complaint therefore fails to state a federal claim for relief. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brodt's remaining claims brought under New York law.
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts all non-conclusory factual allegations as true, and draws every reasonable inference in favor of the plaintiff as the non-movant. See In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
In February 1999, the IT Department hired Brodt as a computer specialist. (Compl't ¶ 28.) He passed a civil service exam for the computer specialist position in March 2001. (Compl't ¶ 29.) In May 2003, the IT Department terminated him from the computer specialist position. (Compl't ¶ 30.) Brodt was told that his termination was due to budget cuts, but, believing that this explanation was a pretext for discrimination, on May 23, 2003, he filed " an internal EEO complaint of an unlawful employment discrimination against [the IT Department]." (Compl't ¶ ¶ 30-31.) On July 3, 2003, he withdrew the complaint after accepting a new IT Department position as associate staff analyst. (Compl't ¶ 32.) The associate staff analyst position did not have permanent employee status, which could be earned by passing a civil service exam. (Compl't ¶ ¶ 33-34.)
In June 2004, Brodt took a civil service exam for the staff analyst position. (Compl't ¶ 33.) Brodt states that from June 2007 to January 2009, he repeatedly applied for a position that would grant him permanent status as a staff analyst, but that the IT Department informed him that it was " not picking anybody off the list at that time." (Compl't ¶ 34.) Plaintiff claims that " [t]his was not true as others on the list were picked up (i.e., hired)." (Compl't ¶ 34.) He asserts that defendant Bimonte, whom the Complaint identifies as a deputy commissioner in the IT Department, had authority to make hiring decisions. (Compl't ¶ 34.)
Page 566
Defendant Dicke became the Brodt's immediate supervisor in October 2010. (Compl't ¶ 35.) The two had " worked closely" together since 2003, but Dicke did not previously have a supervisory role as to Brodt. (Compl't ¶ 35.) According to Brodt, during the course of his association with Dicke, Dicke made derogatory statements about Brodt's religious faith. (Compl't ¶ 36.) Specifically, Brodt alleges that Dicke " constantly mocked" him " for having 9 children," and that when Brodt went to daily prayer service, Dicke " made derisive comments saying that he should not forget to pray for him also." (Compl't ¶ 37.) According to the Complaint, " What was most annoying was Mr. Dicke's constant touching and rubbing of Mr. Brodt's yarmulke." (Compl't ¶ 38.) Brodt states that he did not complain about Dicke's conduct at the time because Dicke " promised that he would use his influence" with defendant Bimonte to get Brodt a permanent position. (Compl't ¶ 38.)
Brodt states that beginning in June 2009, he took the first in a series of five additional civil service exams in hopes of being hired for a permanent position. (Compl't ¶ 39.) In November 2012, the IT Department was notified that Brodt had passed relevant exams and was eligible for a permanent position. (Compl't ¶ 40.) The Complaint alleges that Brodt still was not hired permanently. (Compl't ¶ 40.)
According to the Complaint, in January 2012, Brodt received his first negative performance review, which was delivered by Dicke. (Compl't ¶ 41.) Brodt also was told that, due to budget cuts, he would be terminated in April 2012. (Compl't ¶ 42.)
As described in the Complaint, " [o]n January 24, 2012, Mr. Brodt filed an internal EEO complaint against Mr. Dicke for religious discrimination and religious harassment." (Compl't ¶ 43.) In March 2012, the " EEO concluded that Mr. Dick should attend [the IT Department's] Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for Managers and should be counseled about personal space and workplace comments." (Compl't ¶ 44.) Brodt was terminated on April 17, 2012. (Compl't ¶ 45.)
On or about May 23, 2012, Brodt filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the " EEOC" ). (Compl't ¶ 4.) According to the Complaint, on July 12, 2012, the EEOC referred the matter to the New York State Division of Human Rights (the " NYSDHR" ) for review. (Compl't ¶ 5.) Separately, on May 30, 2012, Brodt filed a charge of discrimination with the NYSDHR. (Rowntree Dec. Ex. B.) In a written decision of November 20, 2012, the NYSDHR concluded that there was no probable cause to believe that the IT Department engaged in unlawful discrimination. (Rowntree Dec. Ex. D.) According to the Complaint, on February 22, 2013, the United States Department of Justice issued a right to sue letter. (Compl't ¶ 6.) Separately, the defendants have submitted a Decision and Order from an Article 78 proceeding that Brodt commenced in the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, which dismissed Brodt's claim that the IT Department unlawfully terminated him and refused to employ him in a permanent staff position in violation of Section 61 of the New York Civil Service Law. See Brodt v. New York City Dep't of Info. & Telecomms., Index No. 4658/2012; Rowntree Dec. Ex. C.
The Complaint asserts thirteen separate counts of religious discrimination. Counts one (" Employment Discrimination" ), four (" Unlawful Discrimination" ), five (" Disparate Treatment" ), six (" Disparate Impact" ), seven (" Retaliation" ) and thirteen (" Discriminatory Discharge" ) allege violations of Title VII, along with claims brought under New York law. Plaintiff alleges that he was unlawfully terminated
Page 567
" based on his religion and religious appearance" and discriminated against based on " his status as " an observant JEW." (Compl't ¶ ¶ 60, 71.) Counts eleven and twelve assert violations of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, " a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). " '[L]abels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A plaintiff must plead " factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.
" [A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Courts continue to afford special solicitude to pro se complaints after Iqbal and Twombly. See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). Plaintiffs' pro se pleadings " must be read liberally and should be interpreted 'to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.'" Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)).
I. The IT Department Is Not a Suable Entity and All Claims Against It Are Dismissed.
Section 396 of the New York City Charter requires claims against the City's agencies to be brought against the City itself, and not against its agencies. Section 396 states in full:
All actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.
This provision has been repeatedly been applied to require claims to be brought against the City, as opposed to its departments and agencies. See, e.g., Ximines v. George Wingate High Sch., 516 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2008) (" Section 396 of the Charter has been construed to mean that New York City departments, as distinct from the City itself, lack the capacity to be sued." ); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007) (" the NYPD is a non-suable agency of the City." ); Funt v. Human Resources Admin. of the City of New York, 68 A.D.3d 490, 490, 890 N.Y.S.2d 55 (1st Dep't 2009) (under Section 396, the City's Human Resources Administration is a non-suable entity).
In his opposition memo, Brodt states that, in light of Section 396, he voluntarily withdraws all claims against the IT Department. (Docket # 26 at 5.) Brodt's claims against the IT Department are therefore dismissed.
II. Plaintiff's Title VII Claims against Dicke and Bimonte Are Dismissed.
Title VII does not provide for personal liability on the part of an employer's agents, and permits claims only against the employer itself. See, e.g., Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2010); Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313-14 (2d Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds, Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth.
Page 568
524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). The Complaint therefore fails plausibly allege Title VII claims against defendants Dicke and Bimonte, and all Title VII claims against them are dismissed.
III. The Complaint Does Not Plausibly Allege a Title VII Violation against the City or Any Other Defendant.
A. The Complaint Fails to Allege Discrimination on the Basis of Religion.
1. The Conduct Attributed to Dicke Fails to Allege Discriminatory Animus.
An employee bringing a Title VII discrimination claim need not allege facts that make out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), but the complaint must nevertheless set forth allegations that support a plausible claim of discrimination. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); see also Hedges v. Town of Madison, 456 F.Appx. 22,23 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (describing post-Iqbal pleading standards in Title VII actions as " somewhat of an open question" in the Second Circuit, but observing that, " at a minimum, employment discrimination claims must meet the standard of pleading set forth in Twombly and Iqbal, even if pleading a prima facie case is not required." ). Under Iqbal, a claim of intentional discrimination must include " factual content" sufficient " to 'nudg[e]'" a " claim of purposeful discrimination 'across the line from conceivable to plausible.'" 556 U.S. at 683 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint's allegations, a plaintiff's " feelings and perceptions of being discriminated against are not evidence of discrimination." Bickerstaff v. Vassar Coll., 196 F.3d 435, 456 (2d Cir. 1999) (alterations and quotation marks omitted); see also Williams v. Wellness Medical Care, P.C., 2013 WL 5420985, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2013) (Karas, J.) (" without sufficient facts, even the most sincerely held beliefs [of discrimination] do not comprise a sufficient basis for withstanding a 12(b)(6) attack." ). A complaint " must specifically allege the events claimed to constitute intentional discrimination as well as circumstances giving rise to a plausible inference of . . . discriminatory intent." Corbett v. City of New York. 2013 WL 5366397, at *21 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2013) (Amon, C.J.).
In this instance, the Complaint does not set forth allegations sufficient to allege that Brodt was discharged or denied permanent position based on discriminatory animus. In plaintiff's 114-paragraph, 22-page complaint, only two paragraphs discuss conduct that was alleged to reflect discriminatory motivation. (Compl't ¶ ¶ 37-38.) They do not include facts that plausibly allege discriminatory animus. Plaintiff himself characterizes the conduct as merely " annoying," and adds that he never complained about Dicke's behavior because Dicke " promised that he would use his influence" with Bimonte to secure Brodt a permanent position. (Compl't ¶ 38.)
Dicke's remarks that Brodt " should not forget to pray for [Dicke] also" are self-deprecating toward Dicke himself and do not evince hostility toward Brodt's religion, (Compl't ¶ 37.) Although it was a comment that referenced a religious practice and Brodt's devotion to that practice, it is devoid of a negative implication. Reading an element of animus to such a
Page 569
comment would chill the workplace, and make virtually any comment on the subject of prayer or religious practice unlawful.
Similarly, although they may have made Brodt uncomfortable, Dicke's remarks concerning Brodt's nine children do not reflect negatively on Brodt's religious practices or beliefs. (Compl't ¶ 37.) Dicke's comments, rude though they may have been, focused on the apparently accurate fact that Brodt has nine children. The Complaint does not allege that discriminatory terms were used to link Brodt's religion with the size of his family. Without more, Brodt's claim that " Mr. Dicke constantly mocked Mr. Brodt for having 9 children" (Compl't ¶ 37) does not raise an inference of discrimination.
Brodt's allegation that Dicke was " constant[ly] touching and rubbing" Brodt's yarmulke potentially stands on a different footing because Dicke's actions were both derisive and directed to an object associated with Brodt's religion. (Compl't ¶ 38.) The Complaint does not allege any other details as to these occurrences, including whether they were accompanied by discriminatory comments, and Brodt himself characterizes this conduct as merely " annoying." (Compl't ¶ 38.) However, conduct that is merely " rude and derogatory" does not necessarily state a claim under Title VII, which is not a " 'general civility code.'" Bickerstaff, 196 F.3d at 452 (quoting Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998)); cf. Tessler v. KHOW Radio. Inc., 1997 WL 458489, at *8 (D. Colo. Apr. 21, 1997) (comments that mocked plaintiff's yarmulke as a " beanie" were insufficient to support a hostile work environment claim); Cohen v. Austin. 901 F.Supp. 945, 950 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (concluding after a bench trial that a description of plaintiff's yarmulke as a " beanie" " merely reflect a certain insensitivity" and not discriminatory animus). Brodt may have found Dicke's behavior upsetting and uncomfortable.
Taken in their totality, Brodt has not alleged discriminatory motivation in defendants' failure to offer a permanent position or his later discharge. Courts in this District have dismissed claims when a plaintiff's allegations of discriminatory motive reflected an uncomfortable workplace environment, as opposed to discriminatory animus. See, e.g., Humphries v. City University of New York, 2013 WL 6196561, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2013) (Engelmayer, J.) (a supervisor's utterance of " critical but facially non-discriminatory terms" does not, without more, plausibly allege animus); Edwards v. New York State Unified Court System, 2012 WL 6101984 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2012) (Pauley, J.) (allegation that supervisors " yelled at" plaintiff and " displayed [her] as a personal black joke in front of the staff" did not allege discrimination); Ortiz v. Standard & Poor's, 2011 WL 4056901, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2011) (Buchwald, J.) (supervisor statement that " she wants 'the old Doug who laughs back'" was not plausibly discriminatory). Courts also dismiss religious discrimination claims when the allegations are too vague to plausibly allege animus. Harris v. NYU Langone Medical Center, 2013 WL 3487032, at *15 n.19 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2013) (Colt, M.J.) (assertion that plaintiff " spoke a prayer at work in the presence of her supervisor . . . resulting in inhumane discipline and discharge" was insufficient to allege religious discrimination); Munoz-Nagel v. Guess, Inc., 2013 WL 1809772, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2013) (Ramos, J.) (allegation that plaintiff suffered religious discrimination because " she was not available to work on Sundays" did not raise inference of discrimination).
Brodt's allegations, taken as a whole, do not " nudge" his " claim of purposeful discrimination
Page 570
'across the line from conceivable to plausible.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 683 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). His Title VII discrimination claims are therefore dismissed.
2. The Complaint Fails to State a Failure-to-Promote Claim.
Brodt separately has failed to allege circumstances that raise an inference of discrimination specific to his failure-to-promote claims. A failure-to-promote claim may be supported by evidence that, despite an employee's qualifications, he or she is passed over for promotion while the employer continues to seek applicants for the open position. See generally Aulicino v. New York City Dep't of Homeless Servs., 580 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir. 2009). A plaintiff still must plausibly allege that he " was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination." Id. (quotation marks omitted).
For the reasons explained, the Complaint does not plausibly allege that Dicke's conduct was motivated by discriminatory animus. Even if it did, the Complaint does not allege that Dicke had direct authority over hiring decisions, and instead alleges that Bimonte had hiring authority. (Compl't ¶ 18.) The Complaint does not attribute any discriminatory utterance, behavior or motivation to Bimonte.
In a failure-to-promote claim, an inference of discrimination also may be raised when a plaintiff plausibly alleges that similarly situated employees outside of plaintiff's protected class received more favorable treatment. See generally Norville v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 196 F.3d 89, 95-96 (2d Cir. 1999). To support such an inference, a complaint " must compare" the plaintiff to employees who are " similarly situated in all material respects." Id. at 95 (quotation marks omitted). While the religion of a colleague may be less readily discernible than other classifications recognized under Title VII, the Complaint makes no effort to allege whether employees granted permanent staff analyst positions were similarly situated to Brodt or whether they also practiced the Jewish religion. Because the Complaint makes no allegations as to whether Brodt was treated differently than similarly situated employees, it fails to raise an inference of discrimination as to any failure-to-promote claim.
B. The Complaint Does Not Plausibly Allege a Hostile Work Environment Claim Under Title VII.
To state a claim that a plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment, a complaint must plausibly allege a workplace setting " permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [plaintiff's] employment and create an abusive working environment." Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). " Simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents of offensive conduct (unless extremely serious) will not support a claim of discriminatory harassment." Petrosino v. Bell Atl., 385 F.3d 210, 223 (2d Cir. 2004).
For the reasons largely explained, the Complaint does not allege workplace behavior that plausibly amounts to a hostile work environment, The Complaint alleges that " [d]uring the entire period of Mr. Brodt's association with Mr. Dicke he was subject to religious harassment and was in a hostile work environment." (Compl't ¶ 36.) This allegation, standing alone, is a legal conclusion not afforded the presumption of truth under Twombly and Iqbal. As evidence of the hostile work
Page 571
environment, the Complaint cites only Dicke's comments concerning plaintiff's nine children, Dicke's request that plaintiff pray for him and Dicke's " constant touching and rubbing" of Brodt yarmulke. (Compl't ¶ ¶ 37-38.) In his own words, Brodt alleges that Dicke's conduct was " annoying," and says that the conduct resulted in " humiliation, embarrassment, [and] emotional distress." (Compl't ¶ ¶ 38, 62.)
Accepting the truth of Brodt's allegations and drawing every reasonable inference in his behavior, the Complaint alleges the type of " [s]imple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents of offensive conduct" that do not give rise to an actionable hostile work environment claim. Petrosino, 385 F.3d at 223. Brodt's hostile work environment claims are therefore dismissed.
C. The Complaint Fails to Allege Retaliation under Title VII.
Title VII makes it unlawful " for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). A plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of retaliation in a Title VII case by coming forward with evidence of " 1) 'participation in a protected activity'; 2) the defendant's knowledge of the protected activity; 3) 'an adverse employment action'; and 4) 'a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.'" Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834, 844 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166, 173 (2d Cir. 2005)). As with a discrimination claim, a plaintiff alleging retaliation under Title VII does not need to make out a prima facie case in order to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Williams v. N.Y. Housing Auth., 458 F.3d 67, 71 (2d Cir. 2006). A plaintiff " must nonetheless allege facts that state a plausible retaliation claim." McAllister v. Metro. Transit Auth., 2013 WL 4519795, at *7 (E.D.N.Y, Aug. 26, 2013) (Gleeson, J.) (quotation marks omitted).
The Complaint fails to plausibly allege any nexus between protected activity and the adverse employment action. Brodt asserts that he suffered retaliation for " making good faith claims and/or complaints of religious discrimination to Defendants and appropriate authorities, including the EEO." (Compl't ¶ 76.) He asserts that his termination arose " [a]s a proximate result of' his claims of religious discrimination. (Compl't ¶ 78.)
The first incident of protected activity identified in the Complaint is an internal discrimination complaint that Brodt filed on May 23, 2003. (Compl't ¶ 31.) On July 3, 2003, while his complaint was pending, Brodt was offered a position of associate staff analyst, after which he withdrew the complaint. (Compl't ¶ 32.) The earliest that Brodt alleges to have suffered retaliation for this complaint is sometime after June 2007 -- more than four years later -- when he unsuccessfully began to apply for a permanent position as staff analyst. (Compl't ¶ 34.)
The four-year gap between Brodt's May 2003 discrimination complaint and the alleged acts of retaliation does not plausibly allege Title VII retaliation. The Second Circuit has observed in a summary order that an eighteen-month gap is " too temporally removed to support the inference" of retaliation. Woodworth v. Shinseki, 447 F.Appx. 255, 258 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (citing Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 274, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d 509 (2001) (" Action taken (as here) 20 months later suggests, by itself, no causality at all." )); see also Van Dyke v. Partners of Debevoise Plimpton LLP, 2013 WL 5375542, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2013) (five-year gap between protected
Page 572
activity and alleged retaliation " demonstrates that there can be no plausible connection between them" ) (Daniels, J.); Jones v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 2012 WL 1116906, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2012) (" District courts in this circuit consistently have found that an intervening period of more than two to three months is insufficient to establish a causal connection through temporal proximity alone." ) (Sweet, J.). Plaintiff's claim of retaliation under Title VII is therefore dismissed.
Separately, in his opposition memo, plaintiff argues that his termination was retaliatory and arose at least in part due to " a causal connection between the disciplinary action of Mr. Dicke . . . ." (Opp. Mem. at 12.) According to the Complaint, however, Brodt was told in January 2012 that he would be terminated the following April. (Compl't ¶ 42.) On January 24, he filed an internal complaint against Dicke asserting religious discrimination and harassment. (Compl't ¶ 43.) According to the Complaint, " [i]n March 2012, EEO concluded that Mr. Dicke should attend [the IT Department's] Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for Managers and should be counseled about personal space and workplace comments." (Compl't ¶ 44.) Brodt was terminated on April 17, 2012. (Compl't ¶ 45.) Assuming that Dicke's sexual harassment training arose out of plaintiff's January complaint -- a connection that is not alleged and is not self-evident -- Brodt had already been informed of his own pending termination prior to filing his discrimination complaint. Announcement of the adverse employment action predated any protected activity by Brodt. The Complaint therefore does not plausibly allege a causal connection between Brodt's internal complaint of January 24, 2012 and his previously announced termination.
Plaintiff's retaliation claim made pursuant to Title VII is therefore dismissed.
IV. Plaintiff's Section 1983 Claims Are Dismissed.
Brodt asserts that the defendants " acted with wanton and reckless disregard for Plaintiff's civil rights, religious appearance and belief, under the First Amendment . . . ." (Compl't ¶ 101.) He also asserts that he was denied " equal protection of the laws because of his religion, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . ." (Compl't ¶ 105.)
Constitutional claims alleging religious discrimination brought under section 1983 are evaluated under the same standard as Title VII claims. See generally Sorlucco v. N.Y. City Police Dep't, 888 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir. 1989); see also Chick v. County of Suffolk, 546 F.Appx. 58, 2013 WL 6332682, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2013) (summary order) (applying Title VII standard to section 1983 claim at Rule 12(b)(6) stage). For the reasons explained as to plaintiff's Title VII claims, his section 1983 claims also fails to allege religious discrimination in violation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.[1]
V. The Court Declines to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Remaining State-Law Claims.
Brodt's remaining claims are brought under the New York State Human
Page 573
Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law and the New York Constitution. Brodt, who identifies himself as a resident of Brooklyn, does not invoke complete diversity of citizenship as a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. (Compl't ¶ ¶ 7, 10.)
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining claims under New York law. Section 1367 of title 28 of the United States Code governs the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction and states in relevant part:
[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Section 1367(c)(3) states that a district court " may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . ." Although section 1367(c)(3) is couched in permissive terms, the Second Circuit has made clear that the Court's discretion " is not boundless." Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 305 (2d Cir. 2003). " In deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state-law claims, district courts should balance the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity -- the 'Cohill factors.'" Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Bd. of Trade of City of N.Y., 464 F.3d 255, 262 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988)). " [I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine -- judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity -- will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350 n.7.
Here, plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed and none of the Cohill factors supports the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining claims. Those remaining claims solely implicate New York state laws concerning religious discrimination. All parties appear to be located in New York City, and the interests of convenience, fairness and comity do not weigh in favor of retaining supplemental jurisdiction. At this early stage of the litigation, there would be little to no judicial economy in retaining jurisdiction. I therefore decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims.
The defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's federal claims is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion. (Docket # 16.)
Counsel for defendants is hereby ordered to provide copies of all unpublished authorities cited herein to the plaintiff.
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:
The Style Gallery is a great new way for you to view, love, and share outfit photos. It's meant to showcase
all the expressive, creative, and inspirational personalities of our community!
Your Beauteous Best Lace Dress
Delightful Drama Floral Dress in Midnight Garden
Event of the Age Midi Dress
Advances in Elegance Floral Dress
3 left!


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.
Court of Appeals of Columbia District
August 29, 2013
Timothy Sparrow, Appellant,v.District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, and R.B. Properties, Inc., Appellees.
Submitted June 6, 2013
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CAP-8024-11) (Hon. Todd E. Edelman, Reviewing Judge) (
Denise M. Clark was on the brief for appellant.
Jonathan W. Greenbaum was on the brief for appellee, R.B. Properties, Inc.
Before Blackburne-Rigsby and McLeese, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge.
Blackburne-Rigsby, Associate Judge
After conducting a preliminary investigation, the District of Columbia Office of Human Rights (OHR) found that there was no probable cause to support appellant Timothy Sparrow's allegations that appellee R.B. Properties: (1) failed to provide him with a reasonable accommodation for his disability; and (2) terminated him in retaliation for requesting a reasonable accommodation. Upon reconsideration at Sparrow's request, OHR affirmed its initial determination that there was no probable cause. Mr. Sparrow appealed OHR's decision to the District of Columbia Superior Court, where it was affirmed in a written order. We now consider Mr. Sparrow's appeal of the trial court's decision to uphold OHR's probable cause finding, in which Mr. Sparrow contends that: (1) OHR erroneously concluded that R.B. Properties engaged in an interactive process with him to identify a reasonable accommodation; (2) there was not substantial evidence to support OHR's finding that R.B. Properties' offer to demote Mr. Sparrow and reduce his salary and weekly hours was a reasonable accommodation; and (3) OHR placed an overly onerous burden on Mr. Sparrow to rebut R.B. Properties' allegation that Mr. Sparrow was terminated for poor performance. We remand to OHR for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Mr. Sparrow's OHR complaint challenged his demotion and subsequent dismissal from his employment at the Sea Catch Restaurant in Washington, D.C. His complaint alleged the following sequence of events. While working as the "Director of Restaurant/Catering" at the restaurant, Mr. Sparrow was diagnosed with "an extreme case of degenerative joint disease in his left hip" on February 26, 2009. The next day, Mr. Sparrow informed R.B. Properties of his condition, which required him to use a cane until he was able to get a hip replacement. Pursuant to his doctor's recommendation, he requested to reduce his usual 65-hour work week by 10-15 hours and to spend less time on his feet while at work. Mr. Sparrow claimed that after his limp became noticeable, Tom Whitney, the Director of Quality Assurance, expressed concern about how the limp appeared to the restaurant patrons and told Mr. Sparrow that he wanted the condition "addressed as soon as possible." Mr. Sparrow further claimed that when Mr. Whitney called Mr. Sparrow to a meeting and Mr. Sparrow requested to move the meeting to his office rather than Mr. Whitney's upstairs office, to accommodate Mr. Sparrow's difficulty with the stairs, Mr. Whitney told Mr. Sparrow to "hobble up the stairs." Then, during a March 9, 2009, meeting, Mr. Sparrow was told that his position was being eliminated and that he had "the day to consider the offer" for a part-time position with a $13, 000 salary reduction and fewer responsibilities. There is no indication that Mr. Sparrow's request for an accommodation was discussed at this meeting. Mr. Sparrow accepted the demotion, his pay was cut, his hours were reduced to twenty hours per week, he was removed "from working the floor, " and he was told to "concentrate on booking catering events." Then, on March 17, 2009, R.B. Properties terminated Mr. Sparrow for "poor performance." Mr. Sparrow filed his complaint with OHR on March 5, 2010.
During OHR's initial investigation to determine whether there was probable cause to support Mr. Sparrow's allegations of disability-based discrimination, Mr. Sparrow submitted affidavits from his colleagues at Sea Catch Restaurant and copies of emails that he sent to R.B. Properties' management.[1] These documents supported his claims that R.B. Properties discriminated against Mr. Sparrow by failing to accommodate his disability and terminated his employment in retaliation of his request for a reasonable accommodation. Each witness expressed surprise and dismay at how R.B. Properties treated Mr. Sparrow. They discussed, inter alia, Mr. Sparrow's strong work ethic, his effectiveness as a bar supervisor, his heavy workload, the frequent praise he publicly received from members of R.B. Properties' upper management, and the affiants' perceptions that he was fired in response to his request for a reasonable accommodation.[2]
R.B. Properties responded to Mr. Sparrow's claims of discrimination by claiming that it had accommodated Mr. Sparrow's disabling condition by reducing his hours and reducing his responsibilities. R.B. Properties further argued that Mr. Sparrow was terminated because of his poor performance — not his disability. To support these claims, R.B. Properties produced affidavits from Mr. Whitney; Lisa Hornstein, Vice President of Sales and Marketing; and James Martens, Executive Vice President/CFO. These affidavits, which were identical apart from the affiants' names and titles, provided examples of Mr. Sparrow's poor performance over the course of the eight months that Mr. Sparrow worked at the Sea Catch Restaurant.[3] Furthermore, the affiants asserted that although Mr. Sparrow "did not claim to have a disability, " his "request for a reduced schedule was granted. His hours were reduced as requested and he was to concentrate on booking banquets while he was working. At no time did [Mr. Sparrow] request for a change in the accommodations made[, ] nor did he suggest other accommodations be made." The affiants averred that Mr. Sparrow "was terminated for [p]oor performance." R.B. Properties also submitted a negative customer evaluation; emails from Mr. Whitney to Mr. Sparrow and Mr. Sgro; and a document dated June 12, 2010, entitled "Recap of Sea Catch Catering Issues, " which outlined several examples of Mr. Sparrow's poor performance.[4] In these emails, Mr. Whitney detailed service problems at the restaurant. Finally, R.B. Properties provided financial data from the fourth quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 indicating that "Net Operating Income was down 38 percent from the previous year, " and that catering sales in particular were down significantly.
Based on the evidence it received during its preliminary investigation — and without conducting a hearing — OHR determined that there was no probable cause to support Mr. Sparrow's allegations that R.B. Properties failed to provide a reasonable accommodation and terminated his employment in retaliation for his reasonable accommodation request. Mr. Sparrow filed a "Request for
Reconsideration" to OHR in which he alleged that OHR's "no probable cause" findings misstated a material fact by finding that Mr. Sparrow's demotion amounted to a reasonable accommodation. Mr. Sparrow further alleged that OHR misapplied the law by: (1) not considering whether R.B. Properties engaged in an interactive process with Mr. Sparrow to provide a reasonable accommodation; (2) not finding that R.B. Properties "acted in bad faith when it failed to engage in an interactive process"; and (3) imposing an overly onerous evidentiary burden on Mr. Sparrow to rebut the legitimate reason proffered by R.B. Properties to support its decision to terminate Mr. Sparrow.
Without conducting a hearing, OHR addressed Mr. Sparrow's request for reconsideration in a written "Determination on Complainant's Request for Reconsideration." OHR explained that Mr. Sparrow had not refuted the evidence presented by R.B. Properties, which showed that it accommodated Mr. Sparrow by reducing his hours and responsibilities, and that Mr. Sparrow failed to refute the legitimate reason that R.B. Properties offered for Mr. Sparrow's termination. Accordingly, OHR affirmed its initial determination.
Mr. Sparrow appealed OHR's decision to the D.C. Superior Court. Judge Todd E. Edelman issued a written opinion affirming OHR's findings. Mr. Sparrow filed a timely appeal of the trial court's judgment, challenging OHR's conclusions that (1) R.B. Properties engaged in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation; (2) R.B. Properties' offer to demote Mr. Sparrow and reduce his salary and weekly hours was a reasonable accommodation; and (3) Mr. Sparrow had failed to rebut R.B. Properties' allegation that he was terminated for poor performance, rather than his request for a reasonable accommodation.
"We review a Superior Court ruling on an agency decision in the same fashion in which we would review an agency decision if it were appealable directly to us."[5] District of Columbia Office of Human Rights v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corr., 40 A.3d 917, 923 (D.C. 2012) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). We "must affirm [OHR's] action if it is supported by substantial evidence and otherwise in accordance with law." Vogel v. District of Columbia Office of Planning, 944 A.2d 456, 462 n.10 (D.C. 2008) (citation omitted) (articulating the standard of review used to evaluate OHR's decision that there was no probable cause for an age discrimination claim). Substantial evidence is "relevant evidence [that] a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 827 A.2d 35, 39 (D.C. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If, however, an agency decision "ignores material evidence in the record, " the agency "fails to base its decision on substantial evidence in the record." Darden v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 911 A.2d 410, 416 (D.C. 2006) (citation omitted). Thus, if OHR "ignore[d] material evidence in the record" in making its finding that Mr. Sparrow failed to establish probable cause to support his claims, we will conclude that OHR's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 417 (remanding for further proceedings because "the Board ignored substantial evidence on the record" when it failed to consider statements that were material to determining an appropriate amount of compensation for petitioner (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
At the outset, we emphasize that the role of OHR's preliminary investigation is limited. In an employment discrimination case brought under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, OHR conducts an initial investigation to determine whether there is probable cause to credit the complainant's allegations.[6] 4 DCMR § 715.1 (2013). "A finding of probable cause shall be based upon credible, probative, and substantial evidence which demonstrates a nexus between the harm complained of and the protected characteristic or activity of the complainant." 4 DCMR § 716.1 (2013); cf. Ammerman v. Newman, 384 A.2d 637, 639-40 (D.C. 1978) ("Probable cause does not mean sufficient cause. According to the generally accepted view, probable cause depends not on the actual state of the case in point of fact, but upon [facts and circumstances that warrant an] honest belief . . . . It may flow from a belief that turns out to be unfounded as long as it is not unreasonable." (citations omitted)). A determination that no probable cause exists to support a complainant's allegations, which, as in the present case, is made without conducting a hearing, can be appealed for reconsideration by OHR on three bases: (1) there is new evidence; (2) there was a misapplication of the law; or (3) a misstatement of material fact. Id. at 1479 (citation omitted).
To determine whether OHR properly concluded that there was no probable cause to support Mr. Sparrow's allegations of disability-based discrimination, we address his challenges to three aspects of OHR's findings. First, we consider whether substantial evidence supported OHR's finding that R.B. Properties did engage Mr. Sparrow in interactive dialogue to identify a reasonable accommodation. We then consider Mr. Sparrow's claim that OHR failed to consider "credible, probative and substantial evidence that R.B. Properties failed to provide Mr. Sparrow with an accommodation . . . ." Finally, we consider whether substantial evidence supported OHR's finding that Mr. Sparrow failed to show that R.B. Properties' proffered reasons for terminating him were mere pretext. To resolve these issues, we note that we "effectively incorporate judicial construction of related anti-discrimination provisions of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) . . . ." Hunt v. District of Columbia, 66 A.3d 987, 990 (D.C. 2013) (citations omitted).
The interactive process serves "to identify potential accommodations that could overcome the employee's limitations." Id. at 992 (citation omitted). After an employee requests an accommodation, the employer engages in the interactive process by communicating with the employee to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation. Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 312-13 (3rd Cir. 1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Employers participate in an interactive process by "meeting with the employee who requests accommodation, requesting information about the condition and what limitations the employee has, asking the employee what he or she specifically wants, showing some sign of having considered the employee's request, and offering and discussing available alternatives when the employee's request is too burdensome."[7] Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944, 953 n.7 (8th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). "Although there is no per se liability under the ADA if an employer fails to engage in an interactive process, "[8] the failure to do so is "prima facie evidence that the employer may be acting in bad faith." Cravens v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 214 F.3d 1011, 1021 (8th Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, if an employer has not engaged in an interactive process, "a factual question exists as to whether the employer has attempted to provide reasonable accommodation . . . ." Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
OHR determined that there was no probable cause to find that R.B. Properties did not engage Mr. Sparrow in an interactive process because R.B. Properties' "witnesses maintain[ed] in their affidavits that . . . [R.B. Properties] worked with [Mr. Sparrow] to meet his request" for accommodation and Mr. Sparrow failed "to provide further evidence to support his assertions." However, in making this finding, OHR ignored other evidence undermining R.B. Properties' claim that it engaged in dialogue with Mr. Sparrow before offering to reduce his pay by $13, 000 and demote him. Indeed, both Mr. Sparrow's and R.B. Properties' version of events suggest that the parties' only communications related to accommodating Mr. Sparrow's disability were limited to: (1) Mr. Sparrow's initial request for an accommodation; and (2) R.B. Properties' offer of a position that provided reduced pay and fewer responsibilities. Therefore, the record reveals that the only effort R.B. Properties undertook to address Mr. Sparrow's accommodation request was a "take it or leave it" offer of a demotion. That is compelling evidence that R.B. Properties did not engage in an interactive dialogue. See Taylor, supra, 184 F.3d at 311 ("[The interactive process] should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations." (citation omitted)). Because OHR misconstrued R.B.'s offer as evidence that R.B. Properties engaged Mr. Sparrow in an interactive process and "ignored material evidence in the record" indicating that no meaningful dialogue between Mr. Sparrow and R.B. Properties occurred, its finding that R.B. Properties engaged in the interactive process was not supported by substantial evidence. Darden, supra, 911 A.2d at 416.
We next consider OHR's finding that R.B. Properties' decision to demote Mr. Sparrow was a reasonable accommodation — as argued by R.B. Properties — rather than an adverse employment action — as argued by Mr. Sparrow. R.B. Properties argues that its decision to demote Mr. Sparrow was a reasonable accommodation because, pursuant to his request, it reduced the number of hours Mr. Sparrow worked and limited the time that he would spend on his feet.[9] Conversely, Mr. Sparrow argues that "the demotion was not an accommodation, but rather [it was] demonstrative of R.B. Properties' disfavor of Mr. Sparrow's appearance in the restaurant because of the physical effects of his disability — his very apparent limping." Furthermore, Mr. Sparrow asserts that his demotion was not a reasonable accommodation because it was "accompanied with a penalty — a salary cut . . . ." Mr. Sparrow substantiates his characterization of the demotion as an adverse employment action with the evidence that: (1) Mr. Whitney told Mr. Sparrow that he wanted his limp addressed as soon as possible because of how it might appear to restaurant customers; (2) Mr. Whitney told Mr. Sparrow to "hobble up the stairs" in response to Mr. Sparrow's request to hold a meeting in his office to avoid traversing the stairs to Mr. Whitney's office; and (3) affidavits from his colleagues expressing their opinions that Mr. Sparrow experienced an adverse employment action in response to his request for accommodation and that his treatment was unfair.
OHR found that R.B. Properties provided Mr. Sparrow with a reasonable accommodation because, per Mr. Sparrow's request, the demotion served to reduce Mr. Sparrow's hours and limited the time he spent on his feet. Yet, in light of the extent and implications of the reduction of hours, this action was not necessarily a reasonable accommodation. See Jay v. Internet Wagner, Inc., 233 F.3d 1014, 1017 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted) (recognizing that while the ADA's definition of reasonable accommodation includes "reassignment to a vacant position, " due to the employer's 20-month delay in reassigning employee, the reasonableness of the reassignment was contingent upon its timeliness). R.B. Properties' reduction of Mr. Sparrow's hours, responsibilities, and pay falls within a spectrum that ranges from, on one end, a reasonable accommodation and, on the other end, an adverse employment action. See Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 361 (D.C. 1979) (discussing how a fact-finder "exercising discretion has the ability to choose from a range of permissible conclusions . . . [and] can rely largely upon his own judgment in choosing among the alternatives." (citations omitted)). OHR's finding of no probable cause ignored the evidence Mr. Sparrow produced supporting his claim that R.B. Properties "imposed an adverse employment action upon [Mr. Sparrow], and then called it an accommodation . . . ." By doing so, OHR misapplied the probable cause standard, which requires consideration of whether Sparrow's version of events was reasonable, not whether he failed to disprove R.B. Properties' version of events. Therefore, remand is necessary so that OHR can consider all the evidence, and determine whether there is probative, credible, and substantial evidence that a reasonable accommodation was not given.[10]
Finally, we consider OHR's finding that Mr. Sparrow failed to show that the legitimate reason that R.B. Properties cited for terminating Mr. Sparrow was mere pretext. Under the burden-shifting scheme that we apply to evaluate retaliation claims, the employee must proffer credible, probative, and substantial evidence that "the employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason [for the termination] was not the actual reason [for termination] and that the employer intentionally discriminated against [the employee] . . . ." Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 380 U.S.App.D.C. 283, 290, 520 F.3d 490, 497 (2008).
Here, R.B. Properties informed OHR that Mr. Sparrow's "poor performance" was the reason for his termination. OHR found that "in detailing the reasons for his failure to consistently improve catering sales or bookings, [Mr. Sparrow] qualifies his performance, " but ultimately "does not succeed in proving that [R.B. Properties'] other reasons for demoting him and subsequently terminating his employment amount to pretext . . . ." In making this finding, OHR improperly placed an overly onerous burden on Mr. Sparrow to prove that any evidence suggesting poor performance was false. Instead, during the investigative phase, Mr. Sparrow's burden was to provide credible, substantial, and probative evidence that "the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason was not the actual reason [for termination] and that [R.B. Properties] intentionally discriminated against [him] . . . ." Brady, supra, 380 U.S.App.D.C. at 290, 520 F.3d at 497. By qualifying his performance with the affidavits from his colleagues stating that management believed Mr. Sparrow was a good employee and the email Mr. Sparrow sent to management detailing several problems in the restaurant that R.B. Properties claimed he had failed to bring to management's attention, Mr. Sparrow offered evidence that R.B. Properties did not truly believe that Mr. Sparrow's performance was poor and that its stated reasons were pretext for its decision to terminate him. Remand is therefore necessary so that OHR can evaluate whether there was probative, credible, and substantial evidence that R.B. Properties did not terminate Mr. Sparrow because of his poor performance, but rather discriminated against him based on his disability.
Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the trial court with instructions to remand to OHR for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
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:
How to Create an Unsubcribe Email Hyperlink
When maintaining a mailing list, it is always advisable to give the recipients an easy way to opt out of the mailing list at a future date. You should include in every email a link that users can click on so that they can inform you that they no longer wish to receive the emails you are sending them.
Things You'll Need
- Computer
- Template for the mailing list emails
Step 1
Set up a mechanism for unsubscribing recipients. If the mailing list is personally maintained, this can just be an email sent to you. If the list is maintained by a program, how this is done will depend on the program. You can create a program that automatically receives email and updates the list, or a website that encodes the recipient's email in the URL and uses that to remove them.
Step 2
Prepare an email template. Each email you send to the list should follow a specific format, so that your unsubscribe link is always in the same place.
Step 3
Add the unsubscribe link. If you will be maintaining the list, or if a program will update it upon receipt of unsubscribe emails, use the HTML code:Unsubscribe
Tips & Warnings
- If you use a third-party program for sending out mass emails, they likely already have a mechanism in place for unsubscribing. Find out what that is, and adjust the link you include as necessary.


text:
Is this a juice / smoothie bar?
Is this restaurant appropriate for Kids?
Is this an American restaurant?
Is this primarily a bakery?
Is this restaurant good for dining on a budget?
Is this primarily a coffee shop?
Are the prices at this restaurant mid-range / moderate?
Is this restaurant family-friendly?
Is this restaurant good for lunch?
Does this restaurant offer outdoor seating?
Thanks for helping!
I've been to this cafe two times to get cakes and it was perfect both times. If you want to have a good cake, you can definitely try this place. They do not have much choice but the quality is there.
We stopped here for a coffee and a cake after a long walk through the town. Ordinarily I wouldn't of ordered a hot drink on such a hot day but the smell of the coffee was so good we decided to get two. The guy serving us was so friendly and the cakes we had were amazing! Definitely worth a...
Delicious coffee and breakfast. Muffins look great:) Fair prices. Nice staff and interior. Will come again.
Average for coffee. Good for cakes. Nice atmosphere, good selection of juices and wifi make it a pleasant environment.
I dropped in for a late breakfast of Eggs Benedict with salmon, asparagus and salad. Lots of other goodies on the menu to choose from. Friendly staff, fast service, nice surrounding with air-conditioning inside and a small table outside. Boutique is probably the best word to describe this cool little place in Phuket Town's old town road. I have been...
This cafe is in the heart of Phuket old town area. Lovely style of decor and the staff was so nice and Cakes were so unique.i really love their cheesecake brownie with iced caffe latte. They also provide breakfast and lunch.
I warmly recommend this café! Great coffee (one of the best I've had in Thailand) and delicious cakes along with a very cozy atmosphere.
We went there and ask if they have lunch or not.
They have all day breakfast and brunch menu.
My sandwich was very big with vegetable and chicken.
My friend's pasta was very spicy but good taste with lots of small tomatos.
People there are very nice and friendly.
I will visit again for breakfast within this week.
Shop is in the heart of Phuket old town area. Lovely style of decor and the staff was so nice and Cakes were so unique.
Feel warm with very nice decorations they do iced mocha very delicious which I strongly recommend plus the cheese cake brownies must try..
Own or manage this property? Claim your listing for free to respond to reviews, update your profile and much more.