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, Northern District of Illinois
July 29, 2003
SHIRLEY STALLINGS-DANIEL, PLAINTIFF,v.THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff, Shirley Stallings-Daniel, has sued her employer, The Northern Trust Company ("TNT") for violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et. seq. ("Title VII") and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of her race by not promoting her as quickly as similarly situated Caucasian employees, and that she was unfairly removed from a management position and otherwise retaliated against because she complained of discrimination. Defendant has moved for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we grant in part and deny in part defendant's motion.
Each party submitted a statement of undisputed material facts, and a response to the other party's facts, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.1. While both parties' statements and corresponding exhibits are well organized, they also suffer from certain flaws, and defendant has moved to strike both portions of plaintiff's response to defendant's [ Page 2]
statement as well as two affidavits she submitted in support of her statement of facts.*fn1 Before setting forth the facts that are not in dispute, we must address a few of these issues.
Defendant has filed three motions to strike. The first two ask that we strike portions of plaintiff's affidavit and the entire affidavit of her subordinate, Alex Razumovich, which she submitted in support of her opposition to the motion for summary judgment and her Rule 56.1 statements. Defendant argues that the affidavits are deficient because they, 1) contain hearsay statements for which there is no exception; 2) contain statements for which the affiant lacks personal knowledge or a proper factual foundation; and 3) contain statements which are argumentative or legal conclusions. District Courts have the discretion to enforce their local rules (or excuse transgressions), such as those governing the filing of summary judgment motions. See, e.g., Little v. Cox's Supermarkets, 71 F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 1995).
In response to the hearsay argument, the plaintiff admits that a few paragraphs of her affidavit should correctly be stricken,*fn2 and contends that others are admissible either because they consist of party admissions (paragraphs 3, 5, and 23 of plaintiff's affidavit), or are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted (paragraphs 61 and 62). As to paragraphs 3, 5, and 23, plaintiff has been unable, even when directly asked, to identify any manager or agent of defendant who made these statements. Thus, they are not [ Page 3]
proper admissions of a party opponent and will be stricken. Fed.R.Ev. 801(d)(2) Paragraphs 61 and 62 relate that plaintiff learned from an unnamed individual that another co-worker allegedly made certain statements about her. This "hearsay inside of hearsay" is offered for the truth of the matter asserted, and thus is stricken. However, to the extent that plaintiff can prove the event through other means, such as an e-mail from the speaker, she is still allowed to do so.
In response to defendant's other arguments, plaintiff argues generally that the Court can easily glean from the statements made and other evidence adduced that plaintiff and her subordinate Razumovich have personal knowledge about the matters to which they aver. Plaintiff also contends that with regard to defendant's "no foundation" argument, defendant's own e-mails and business documents properly substantiate the statements. In support of this contention, plaintiff cross references some of her affidavit statements with evidence provided by defendant.
Defendant's third motion asks that we strike portions of plaintiff's Rule 56.1 response to defendant's Rule 56.1 statement of undisputed facts based on similar alleged deficiencies. Specifically, defendant contends that many of plaintiff's numbered paragraphs contain argument or speculation, fail to identify evidence that provides an adequate basis to deny defendant's statement, or consist of additional facts which properly belong in plaintiff's own 56.1 statement.
We have reviewed all of the parties' 56.1 statements and responses, along with the evidence cited. We agree with the defendant that the affidavit of plaintiff's subordinate should be stricken because it does not contain first-hand knowledge about material facts, and thus is ineffective as proof. Additionally, some parts of plaintiff's own affidavit, as well [ Page 4]
as portions of her Rule 56.1 response contain material that should not be considered when we determine whether there is a dispute of material fact, primarily because they contain statements that demonstrate either a lack of personal knowledge or unsubstantiated speculation.*fn3 However, as plaintiff points out, some of defendant's arguments in support of striking actually go to the weight we assign to a particular fact rather than its admissibility per se. Also, a large number of the statements propounded by both parties are not material to our analysis anyway, and thus, it is unnecessary to review each paragraph in defendant's motion individually. Instead, when our determination of a particular fact depends on discounting a statement or piece of evidence propounded by the plaintiff (or, for that matter, the defendant), we will say so explicitly. Therefore, defendant's motion to strike the affidavit of Alex Razumovich is granted and its motions to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit portions of plaintiff's Rule 56.1 response are granted in part and denied in part as stated further below.
Following is a statement of the undisputed material facts in this case, which we set forth subject to our holding above.*fn4 The events about which plaintiff complains occurred in 1998 and 1999. However, a little background of her employment with TNT and defendant's [ Page 5]
organizational structure*fn5 is necessary to understand the scope of her allegations. Shirley Stallings-Daniel began working for TNT in 1990 as an Associate Programmer. When she was hired, she participated in a programmer training class with other newly hired employees. At some point prior to 1993, Plaintiff began working in the Trust Systems Department ("TSD") of defendant's World-Wide Operations and Technology business unit ("WWOT"). The WWOT had two Units, Operations and Technology; TSD was part of the Technology Unit, which was responsible for building and maintaining the computer systems for TNT. From at least April, 1995 to June, 1999, plaintiff was employed in a division of TSD known as Trust Accounting.
Plaintiff alleges that as early as 1992, her promotions began to trail those of her non-African-American peers.*fn6 However, she never adequately identifies who these peers are. At one point, she indicates that her peers are those individuals with whom she participated in her original programmer training class. However, of the individuals who were still employed by defendant at the time of their promotions, some were not working in the TSD, and all had different supervisors than the plaintiff. Further, there is absolutely no evidence to support plaintiff's "understanding" that, absent performance problems, all members of a training class were promoted together.*fn7 Thus, to the extent that it is relevant to her claims [ Page 6]
of later discrimination, we make no finding regarding plaintiff's allegation that her early promotions were delayed because of her race.
By January, 1995, plaintiff was working on the Valuations Team in the Trust Accounting Division.*fn8 Sharon Alexander became plaintiff's supervisor in mid-1995; Brian Palmer was her second-level supervisor. In June, 1996, plaintiff was promoted to the official title of "Officer". She continued to hold functional titles that described her position as well. Plaintiff contends that in early 1996 (presumably, prior to plaintiff's promotion in June), TNT had promoted all of plaintiff's "Caucasian class peers in the TSD" to the title of Officer. However, plaintiff again fails to identify who these individuals are or establish their promotion dates. At the time, only three individuals from plaintiff's training class were still employed at TNT, Rory Ross, Lisa Weller, and Wing Chark. Neither Weller nor Chark worked in the TSD.*fn9 It is unclear whether Ross worked in the TSD, but it is undisputed that he had different supervisors than the plaintiff. Defendant denies any implication that these three individuals were plaintiff's peers merely because they had trained together, and also denies any implication that there were not other individuals who might have been more properly considered plaintiff's peers. [ Page 7]
Defendant's Promotion Process
In the WWOT, the planning for promotions to occur in a particular year takes place in the fourth quarter of the previous year. From 1997 through at least 1999, Peter Magrini was the Department Head of the TSD. He, along with the TSD's Division Managers reviewed the planning lists for official promotions throughout the year; managers could add or delete employees from the list, or change their date of promotion.*fn10
With regard to official (as opposed to functional) promotions, the parties dispute whether the WWOT had a requirement that employees hold the title Officer for at least three years before becoming eligible to be promoted to Second Vice President ("2VP"). There are two documents which discuss the promotion process. Plaintiff relies on a general TNT document that states that an employee may be promoted to 2VP after two-to-four years as an Officer, assuming other conditions are met. Defendant admits the two-to-four year guideline, but relies as well on a second document specific to the WWOT, which states that there are two tracks for promotion, a management track and a technical track. Both tracks require at least three years as an Officer before promotion to 2VP. Plaintiff argues that this document refers only to the Operations Unit of the WWOT, as both tracks refer to operations and client contact, which are not present in the Technical Unit, and thus denies that the three year requirement is applicable to her. However, defendant explains, — without contradiction — that the promotion requirements for the Technology Unit, although not reduced to writing, are based off those of the Operations Unit, including the three-year [ Page 8]
guideline.*fn11 The parties agree that outstanding performance and/or a proven track record as a manager are relevant to promotion; since we find no question of fact that the TSD, as part of the WWOT Technology Unit, had a general three-year wait between promotion to Office and promotion to 2VP, we accept defendant's additional contention that outstanding performance and/or management experience could make someone eligible for promotion in a shorter amount of time, but an earlier promotion was not required.
Plaintiff Becomes a Team Leader
In January, 1998, Kay Vicino became the Division Manager for the Accounting Division, taking over the position from Palmer. In this role, Vicino directly supervised Accounting Team Leader Sharon Alexander, who was plaintiff's direct supervisor. Alexander's duties subsequently increased, and she planned to create one or more team leader positions, who would report to her. Each team leader would be responsible for managing a particular computer application assigned to Alexander's overall Accounting Team. At some point in early 1998, Alexander decided to make an individual named Employee A the team leader over the Application 1 computer application. She also made plaintiff a team leader, over the Valuations application. Plaintiff took over this role in June, 1998.*fn12 [ Page 9]
September, 1998 Promotions
Planning for promotions scheduled to occur in 1998 began in November and December, 1997. At the time, plaintiff's second-level supervisor, who would have been responsible for recommending her for a 1998 promotion, was Brian Palmer. Palmer had consistently rated plaintiff's performance as having met the majority of her expectations and exceeding the rest, and considered her 1997 performance to be outstanding; Plaintiff highlights large portions of Palmer's deposition testimony about her work as evidence that any criticism of her performance by other managers was unjustified.*fn13 In February, 1997, plaintiff asked Palmer about her promotion future and specifically compared herself to Rory Ross, who had been in her training class. At that time, Palmer told plaintiff that if her work continued at the same level, she would be promoted at the same time as Ross. In December, 1997, Palmer did not recommend plaintiff for a promotion in 1998 because she had not been an Officer for three years and because she did not have any management experience.*fn14 Ross was promoted to 2VP in September, 1998, after two years, ten months [ Page 10]
as an Officer.*fn15 At the time, plaintiff had been an Officer for two years, three months.
Promotion History of Alleged "Comparable" Employees
Plaintiff points to two overlapping categories of TNT employees that she considers her "peers" for the purpose of demonstrating that non-African-American employees were promoted from Officer to 2VP more quickly than she was. However, an analysis of these individuals is somewhat complicated by the existence at TNT of two separate "tracks" toward promotion, the management track for those employees who supervise other employees, and the technical track, for employees who do not supervise anyone else, and who instead focus on the building, installation, and running of computer systems and applications. As we explained above, both tracks require at least three years as an Officer before promotion to 2VP. What makes things complicated is that in June, 1998 — three months prior to the date plaintiff contends she should have been promoted — she became a team leader, which effectively switched her from the technical track (where she had been since the start of her employment) to the management track, and part of defendant's explanation for not promoting her in less than three years is her lack of management experience in September, 1998. We will explain how we address these facts below.
The first group of alleged comparables consists of those individuals from plaintiff's — [ Page 11]
training class, Ross, Chark and Weller, whom we discussed earlier. As we explained, none of the three were working in the TSD at the time of their promotions, nor did they have the same supervisors as the plaintiff. Further, there is no evidence regarding what these employees' duties were or whether they were on the "technical track" or "management track" at the time of their promotions.
In February, 1999, plaintiff identified for defendant a group of employees on the technical track whom she believed were promoted to 2VP in less than three years, and whom plaintiff contends are her comparables. The individuals she identified were Employee E, Employee D, Thomas Zak, Employee C, Rory Ross and Wing Chark. Of these individuals, Employee E was promoted to 2VP in three years and three months, the same time frame as plaintiff's promotion. According to defendant, Employee D and Employee C were both outstanding performers; Employee D was promoted in two years, eleven months and had extensive management experience and Employee C was promoted in two years, four months.*fn16 Neither Zak nor Chark were employed in the TSD at the time of their promotions. Further, plaintiff also questioned whether employees Employee A and John Snyder, to whom she compared herself, would be promoted in less than three years even though they were on the same "track" as she was. In fact, Employee A was promoted in three years, two months and Snyder left defendant's employ prior to receiving a [ Page 12]
promotion.*fn17 Of all the employees plaintiff identifies, we find Employee A to be the most similarly situated to plaintiff. Not only did he also report to Sharon Alexander, but like plaintiff, he switched from the technical track to the management track with his appointment to team leader in 1998, right in the middle of his tenure as Officer.
Plaintiff's Belief that She was Qualified for an Early Promotion
Many of plaintiff's reasons for believing that she was qualified to be promoted to 2VP in September, 1998 stem from her own personal assessment of her performance. She notes that she worked long hours and that in 1998, the TSD had more deadlines than any other year. Further, she points to the fact that the Valuations team was involved in three of the five largest TSD projects at the time. There is little dispute that the Valuations team was busy working on important projects in 1998. However, this, along with plaintiff's self evaluation, does not amount to the undisputed fact that she was qualified for promotion at that time. Indeed, the evidence shows that all the teams in the TSD were busy in 1998 because the TSD was busy and because the entire bank was simultaneously trying to prepare for Y2K. Defendant does not deny plaintiff's beliefs, but explains that not every hard working employee who received good performance reviews was automatically entitled to an early promotion. And a plaintiff's self-serving opinion about her qualifications, unsupported by other proof, is insufficient to create a question of fact. See, Schultz v. General Elec. Corp., 37 F.3d 329, 334 (7th Cir. 1994). [ Page 13]
Plaintiff's Complaints of Discrimination
Plaintiff met with Alexander and Vicino on September 28, 1998 to discuss the reasons she had not been promoted to 2VP. All three individuals documented the issues discussed at the meeting in memoranda. It is undisputed that Alexander and Vicino told the plaintiff that she needed to gain more management experience, since she had only recently undertaken her first management role. They also agreed that she was on the right track to receive a promotion. On September 22, 1998, plaintiff asked defendant's Human Resources Consultant, Terri Reed, if plaintiff's failure to be promoted was because of her race. Reed informed both Magrini and Vicino that plaintiff had mentioned her race at this time. In November, 1998, plaintiff again met with Reed to discuss her promotion history and Reed told plaintiff to meet with defendant's EEO officer, Richard Bordelon. Plaintiff met with Bordelon in December, 1998 to discuss why she had not been promoted and to complain that she thought it was because of her race. There was apparently no resolution of plaintiff's concerns at this time, but Bordelon planned to convene a meeting with plaintiff, Magrini, Alexander and Vicino for early 1999 to continue discussing the issue.
Plaintiff's Removal as Team Leader
In April, 1999, Vicino had plaintiff begin reporting directly to her, instead of Alexander, and in June, 1999, plaintiff was removed from her position as team leader. During the summer of 1999, plaintiff searched for a new position within defendant; eventually, in October, 1999, she began reporting directly to Palmer. Plaintiff contends that from September, 1998 — when she first asked Reed if her failure to be promoted might be related to race — until her removal as team leader, defendant pursued a course retaliation against her [ Page 14]
In her Rule 56.1 statement of additional undisputed facts, plaintiff painstakingly details various events she contends prove that defendant was setting her up to fail as a team leader in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination. Many of these events are set forth via e-mail conversations between plaintiff's supervisors and other employees of TNT; plaintiff also relies on her performance reviews and those of several other employees as evidence for her claims. As we explain below, some of plaintiff's allegations rely on her own speculation about the meaning or interpretation of various documents, which are not supported by the evidence. However, there is a dispute of material fact regarding the ultimate reason plaintiff was removed from her team leader position and the efforts defendant made to find her another position, and for this reason, we must deny defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to plaintiff's claim of retaliation.
In order to narrow the remaining issues, however, we will first set forth those allegations for which plaintiff's speculations are not supported.
a. Staffing
First, plaintiff contends that during November and December, 1998, defendant failed to provide her team with adequate staffing to complete the projects assigned to it. What the evidence shows is that plaintiff herself did not believe she had enough staff, but defendant felt that the team was adequately staffed. It is true that, although both plaintiff and Employee A were given project leaders when they acted as team leaders, plaintiff's project leader, Employee B, was removed from her team at some point and plaintiff acted as her own project leader.*fn18 [ Page 15]
b. Recognition of plaintiff as team leader
Next, plaintiff complains that defendant did not do enough to "advertise" the fact that she had been made team leader, so other employees failed to go to her for help on Valuations issues. The evidence shows that on one occasion, an employee asked Alexander a Valuations question instead of plaintiff, and plaintiff complained. Alexander sent out a memorandum instructing employees to consult with plaintiff instead. On the same day plaintiff complained to Alexander, another employee (not a manager or supervisor) sent out a memorandum which failed to include plaintiff's name as a contact regarding a particular installation. Plaintiff responded by sending that employee an e-mail in which she "complained bitterly" about being excluded. Plaintiff contends that this incident demonstrates that other employees did not recognize plaintiff as a team leader, and that the lack of recognition was caused by her supervisors' retaliatory behavior towards her. However, none of the evidence she presents supports this speculation.*fn19
c. Holiday scheduling problems
Another incident which plaintiff contends demonstrates retaliation concerns holiday scheduling, which involved, inter alia, the Valuations team and several Operations teams. [ Page 16]
Plaintiff devotes sixteen paragraphs of alleged facts to a situation regarding scheduling in November, 1998 (for the Veteran's Day holiday). Apparently, there was an error in one application that ran during the holiday, and five hours of work were lost.*fn20 After this incident, Vicino and plaintiff had a meeting, during which Vicino noted that the error had been made by a problem contractor whose contract plaintiff had terminated. Vicino told the plaintiff that she should have mitigated the risk of having the problem contractor perform the installation.*fn21
Also in November, 1998, Joe Wilson, the leader of an Operations team informed Alexander and Vicino via e-mail that, in his opinion, plaintiff had failed to respond to certain requests "either promptly or without coercion." The memo also noted that Operations team members had complained to Wilson that the plaintiff had behaved in an argumentative and unprofessional manner on more than one occasion.*fn22 Several weeks later, the head of the Operations staff sent an e-mail to Alexander asking that the Operations team be assigned a contact other than plaintiff. Defendant admits that it did not show these specific e-mails to the plaintiff, but the evidence shows that on more than one occasion, Vicino and Alexander discussed with the plaintiff her need to watch the tone and tenor of her communications.*fn23 [ Page 17]
There are other incidents to which the plaintiff cites, but they all follow a format similar to those presented above: plaintiff identifies a series of e-mail conversations and alleges that they prove defendant was criticizing her work or performance unfairly, or generating negative comments about her without allowing her to respond. Without having to detail each of them, we note that, unless otherwise stated, we find that the evidence merely shows that in late 1998 and early 1999, plaintiff's supervisors (Vicino, Alexander and Magrini) and several other employees in the TSD and Operations groups had e-mail conversations that at times discussed problems one or more employees was having working with the plaintiff.*fn24 In so finding, we do not accept as true any of the allegations in the email, we only note that they represent the communications about plaintiff received by or sent by her managers. In summary, we do not find any evidence to support plaintiff's contention that defendant purposely tried to discredit her in front of her peers or superiors. At most, there are differences of interpretation regarding various events.
However, as we stated above, there are certain other events surrounding plaintiff's removal from the team leader position for which there is a genuine dispute of fact. It is these events that prevent us from granting summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim. [ Page 18]
In February, 1999, Alexander gave plaintiff her performance review, first orally, and then by providing a written document. Both the plaintiff and Alexander wrote a memorandum setting forth their own version of the matters discussed at plaintiff's oral review; Vicino asked plaintiff to re-write her summary to reflect several counseling items Alexander had discussed, but plaintiff refused, as she believed her own version of the discussion was accurate. It is undisputed that although plaintiff had several meetings with Vicino and Alexander concerning the review, the three never came to a complete agreement regarding Vicino's and Alexander's assessment of plaintiff. In this review, plaintiff was graded as having met the majority of her expectations and exceeding the remainder, the same overall assessment as she had received the previous year. Plaintiff's objections with the review stemmed from the fact that she believed she should have been rated as exceeding the majority of her expectations. The review also noted that plaintiff needed to continue to progress on her team leader/management skills, as was to be expected for someone who had recently moved into a management position. Further, the review stated that "[n]oted improvement needs to be seen in six months otherwise a role reassessment will need to take place."
In June, 1999, plaintiff was removed from her team leader position. The parties dispute many of the material facts that led to the removal, including the importance of the six-month improvement plan described above. Most importantly, the parties disagree as to whether plaintiff requested that she be removed from the team leader role or instead, defendant took the step because of continued problems with plaintiff's leadership abilities.*fn25 [ Page 19]
For example, plaintiff contends that after she refused to re-write her February, 1999 summary of her review, Vicino told her they could no longer work together and that plaintiff would have to find another position at the bank. Additionally, Vicino sent a memorandum to Reed in March, 1998, that refers to Vicino's request from December, 1998, that they let plaintiff "move on".
Defendant disputes the characterization that it removed plaintiff from her team leader role because of her performance, and the evidence does not completely support either parties' version.*fn26 Defendant alleges that it only began looking to remove plaintiff from her team leader position after she herself requested a change to a non-management role, and that Magrini agreed to let her remain as team leader until she found a different position in the bank. According to defendant, by June, 1999, Vicino had become sufficiently concerned about plaintiff's management skills that Magrini decided to take plaintiff out of the team leader position then, even though she did not have another position. Plaintiff's version of the facts is that she only agreed to leave her team leader role and look for another technical track position after it became clear that defendant was not going to let her stay a manager, despite her desire to do so. It is undisputed that Magrini told plaintiff in June, 1999 that she would no longer be a team leader and that she was expected to help in the transition of the new team leader, Andrea Ford (Caucasian), who had been working [ Page 20]
with the Valuations team for several months.
In any event, during the Summer of 1999, plaintiff looked for another position within defendant and took various training classes that she needed to help her get a new job at TNT.*fn27 Although defendant contends that it offered her several viable options for new positions at this time, there is a question of fact about the viability of all of them as positions that would help plaintiff grow in her career.*fn28 It is undisputed that plaintiff had no substantive work to perform during the summer of 1999. It is also undisputed that when plaintiff was removed as team leader, defendant moved her to a new cubicle that was identical to her old one, except for the fact that it did not have a window. Plaintiff was not allowed to take her phone or computer with her (she got new ones), but the evidence shows that other employees moved without taking their old equipment with them, including Ford, who took over plaintiff's team leader position.
Another dispute concerns defendant's contention that at the same time as plaintiff was removed from her team leader position, defendant removed Employee A, because he was also having problems working in a management role. The evidence does not support this contention. Instead, the evidence shows that Employee A received positive performance reviews (and no six-month improvement plan) and that although he left his role as team leader for the Application 1 application, he first moved to another team leader [ Page 21]
position that interacted with more senior employees at defendant. When Employee A did eventually leave this team leader role to take on a more technical architect position again, the impetus for the move appears to come solely from Employee A himself.
Finally, plaintiff argues that after she was removed from her team leader position, other employees shunned her, specifically, she alleges that Vicino, Reed, Alexander and Ford refused to talk to her. The evidence is conflicting, as the named individuals deny shunning plaintiff, and she contends that they did. Thus, there is a dispute, but as we explain below, its not material.
Plaintiff was promoted to 2VP in September, 1999, when she had been an Officer for three years, three months. She contends that her promotion had originally been scheduled to occur in early 1999, but that Vicino had moved it back out of retaliation for plaintiff's complaints. The evidence does suggest that there may have been discussions about whether to time plaintiff's promotion in the Spring of 1999 instead of in September, but no evidence shows that an earlier time was ever decided upon and then changed later. Further, the undisputed evidence shows that it was not unusual for defendant to change the timing of an employee's promotion. Exactly three years later, in September, 2002, defendant promoted plaintiff to Vice President, the title she holds currently.
Legal Analysis
Summary judgment is appropriate when the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We must evaluate the admissible evidence supporting the motion in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, [ Page 22]
Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). "Rule 56(c) mandates summary judgment when the nonmoving party fails to establish the existence of an element essential to its case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Jefferson v. City of Chicago, No. 97 C 4895, 2000 WL 1368036 (N.D.III., Sept. 15, 2000) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252). Stallings-Daniel may use either direct or indirect evidence to demonstrate that the defendant discriminated against her on the basis of his race. See Simmons v. Chicago Bd. of Ed., 289 F.3d 488, 492 (7th Cir., 2002). In this case, as in most employment discrimination matters, there is no direct, or "smoking gun" evidence, so plaintiff must proceed under the indirect method first set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under the McDonnell Douglas method, plaintiff must first make a prima facie case of discrimination. In a failure to promote case, this involves demonstrating that: 1) she was a member of a protected class; 2) she was qualified for the position sought; 3) she failed to receive the position; and 4) the employee promoted was not a member of the protected group and was less qualified than the plaintiff. See Johnson v. Nordstrom, Inc., 260 F.3d 727, 732 (7th Cir., 2001).
Once the plaintiff makes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action. After the defendant satisfies its burden, it is up to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant's reason is pretextual, that is, a lie, or not the real reason for its action. To prove pretext, the plaintiff must show: 1) defendant's explanation for its actions had no basis in fact; 2) the explanation was not the real reason; or 3) the reason given was insufficient to support the action. See, Hoffman-Dombrowski v. Arlington International Racecourse, Inc., 254 F.3d 644, [ Page 23]
652 (7th Cir. 2001).
We grant summary judgment for the defendant on plaintiff's failure to promote claim because, even assuming plaintiff can make a prima facie case of discrimination, there is no evidence that defendant's reasons for not promoting her prior to September, 1999 are pretextual.*fn29
Although we find that plaintiff was not qualified to be promoted to 2VP in September, 1998, we must evaluate her qualifications in a rolling time frame up to the date of her promotion a year later. As we explained above, we find no dispute that defendant had a general guideline that an employee have two-to-four years as an Officer before becoming eligible for promotion to 2VP, and that the Technology Unit generally required three years. Further, we find that in September, 1998, the plaintiff had been an Officer for only two years, three months. Even assuming that promotions in the Technology Unit could sometimes occur in less than three years, we have not found a single employee who was promoted in as little as two years, three months. One employee was promoted in two years, four months, but the majority of employees promoted in less than three years were promoted just several months shy of that mark. Thus, we find that for the purposes of making a prima-facie case, plaintiff was qualified for promotion, at the earliest, around April or May, 1999, when she had been an Officer for two years, ten months.
Defendant also argues that plaintiff fails to show that a similarly situated, non-African-American [ Page 24]
employee with less qualifications than the plaintiff was promoted in fewer than three years, and thus, she cannot fulfill the fourth factor for making a prima facie case. Its true that the evidence shows that all individuals promoted in less than three years were considered stellar employees, and that many of them were not similarly situated to plaintiff because they worked outside the TSD and had different supervisors. However, making all inferences in favor of the plaintiff, we will find that she just manages to prove that she was at least as qualified as some of the promoted individuals, since it is undisputed that Palmer considered her work (through December, 1997), to be outstanding. There is no evidence, however, that plaintiff was more qualified or had more management experience than any of the individuals promoted in less than three years.
So we find that plaintiff succeeds in making a prima facie case of discrimination, which transfers the burden to defendant to provide a non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Defendant's explanation for not promoting plaintiff earlier than September, 1999 is twofold. First, it explains that plaintiff did not have three years experience as an Officer to make her generally eligible for promotion in 1998. Second, none of plaintiff's supervisors — even Palmer, who considered her outstanding — believed that she was ready or qualified to be promoted in less than three years. Particularly, defendant noted that plaintiff did not have enough management experience to be promoted earlier, a relevant consideration since she had recently transferred from the technical track to the management track.
Plaintiff contends that defendant's reasons for not promoting her were pretextual because, in her opinion, she was more than qualified to receive a promotion in September, [ Page 25]
1998, and also because defendant's explanation for not promoting her changed overtime.*fn30 First of all, plaintiff's subjective opinion of her performance is not adequate evidence to support her argument that she should have been promoted earlier. Schultz, 37 F.3d at 334. Further, plaintiff's allegations do not even create a question of fact regarding whether defendant should have promoted her earlier. It is true that Palmer considered her work to be outstanding. However, its also true that Palmer was also the individual who would have recommended plaintiff for a promotion in 1998, and he did not do so. Contrary to plaintiff's allegation that there is at least a question of fact about whether her performance was outstanding enough to merit an early promotion, the undisputed evidence shows that defendant merely had the discretion to promote employees in less than three years, but nothing in its guidelines or regulations required it to do so.
So, even if we accept plaintiff's own characterization of her performance, she fails to show that defendant did not legitimately believe that she was not ready to be promoted in 1998. And plaintiff does not adduce any evidence to call into question the promotions of individuals promoted in less than three years, especially since many of them worked in different divisions from plaintiff, and none had the same supervisors. *fn31
Next, instead of defendant's two reasons for not promoting plaintiff (length of time [ Page 26]
as Officer and lack of experience) contradicting each other, as plaintiff argues, they are actually consistent. First, the evidence supports defendant's general adherence to the three year guideline for promotion; even most employees promoted in less time were only earlier by a few months. And although plaintiff doesn't mention it, the defendant provides evidence of several non-African-American employees whose promotions took even longer than the plaintiffs. Thus, there is no evidence that defendant was lying about the three year rule, or that it did not believe it to be the real reason plaintiff was not promoted earlier.*fn32
Second, defendant's explanation that plaintiff was not qualified to be promoted earlier because lack of management experience is consistent with the general three year rule. Indeed, the evidence shows that as soon as plaintiff began questioning her failure to be promoted, Vicino explained that defendant's guidelines for promotions differed somewhat depending on whether an employee was in a management or non-management (i.e., technical) position. In September, 1998, plaintiff had recently switched from the technical track to a management position. Thus, there is nothing suspicious about defendant justifying its failure to promote her earlier by noting her lack of management experience. Vicino and Alexander assured plaintiff that she was "on track" for a promotion to 2VP, which is basically the same explanation given to her later, in early 1999, that she had not been an Officer for three years. Finally, although plaintiff protests that we should give greater weight to defendant's general promotion guidelines, which call for promotion from Officer to 2VP [ Page 27]
in two-to-four years, the existence of these guidelines do not demonstrate that defendant's reasoning is pretextual. By promoting plaintiff in three years, three months, defendant was explicitly complying with these general guidelines as well.*fn33
Thus, we grant summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's Title VII and § 1981 discrimination claims.*fn34 Because there is no evidence to support plaintiff's theory that defendant failed to promote her to 2VP prior to September, 1999 because of her race.
Retaliation Claim
The Seventh Circuit has recently clarified that the standards for proving a claim of retaliation mimic those set forth in McDonnell Douglas. That is, a plaintiff can prove retaliation by showing that 1) she engaged in a protected activity (such as complaining of discrimination); 2) defendant subjected her to an adverse employment action; 3) other similarly situated employees who did not complain were not subject to retaliation, and 4) she was performing her job satisfactorily. Stone v. Indianapolis Public Utilities Div., 281 F.3d 640, 644 (7th Cir. 2002). The defendant must then articulate a non-discriminatory reason for its actions which the plaintiff may then try to rebut. Id. at 644. The plaintiff no longer needs to prove that there is a causal link between the protected action and the adverse employment action. Id. [ Page 28]
In this case, there are several disputes of material fact that prevent us from granting summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's retaliation claim. Although defendant attempts to downplay plaintiff's early complaints of discrimination, making all inferences in her favor, we find that by the end of September, 1998, plaintiff had sufficiently raised the issue of race and her failure to be promoted to 2VP to satisfy the requirement that she had engaged in a protected action.
The questions of fact arise when we examine whether and to what extent plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action after she complained, whether a similarly situated non-complaining employee was treated differently, and whether defendant's reasons for its actions are honest.
Despite plaintiff's statement that the notion of an adverse employment action must be defined broadly, its also true that an adverse action must consist of "more than a `mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities'" to be actionable. Oest v. Illinois Dept. [ Page 29]
of Corrections 240 F.3d 605, 612 (7th Cir. 2001) cited in Thomas v. The Habitat Co. 213 F. Supp.2d 887, 896 (N.D.III. 2002). For our purposes, the Seventh Circuit has included within the realm of materially adverse actions such things as "a less distinguished title", "significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other things that might be unique to a particular situation." Id. at 612. Further, the Seventh Circuit will look to a number of alleged adverse actions in the aggregate to determine if together, they rise to the level of materiality. Thomas, 213 F. Supp. at 897. Certain actions, however, are not considered materially adverse, such as shunning by other employees, Parkins v. Civil Constructors of III., Inc., 163 F.3d 1027, 1029 (7th Cir. 1998), or minor alterations in work location, Stutler v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 263 F.3d 698, 704 (7th Cir. 2001).
We agree that plaintiff's loss of her team leader position, and the fact that she had no duties or responsibilities for nearly four months are sufficient to show that she suffered an adverse employment action. Even though plaintiff never lost her salary or title, we find that her removal from a management position, especially because she was given no other job responsibilities in return, is sufficiently adverse. However, we find that any alleged shunning by employees, plaintiff's move to another location, and defendant's refusal to let her take her own computer and phone, are not adverse. We must deny summary judgment because there are questions of fact regarding both defendant's reasons for its adverse actions as well as its contention that it treated Employee A the same as plaintiff when it removed him from his team leader position despite the fact that he had never complained of discrimination.
Defendant contends that it only began thinking about removing plaintiff from her team leader position after she requested it; plaintiff flatly denies this allegation and the evidence shows that as far as she was concerned, she would accept a non-management role only to save her job at TNT. And there are similar discrepancies with respect to Employee A's move back to a non-managerial architect role. Defendant argues that its removal of plaintiff could not be retaliatory because it treated Employee A the same way. In his case, however, the impetus for the move seems to have come from Employee A himself, and conspicuously absent is any six-month improvement plan like that given to the plaintiff.
And other facts surrounding plaintiff's loss of her team leader position and defendant's attempt to find her new work are similarly contradicted. Although defendant contends that it offered plaintiff several viable options for work during the summer of 1999, [ Page 30]
a jury is entitled to determine whether defendant really believed the opportunities were legitimate and would help advance plaintiff's career.
Plaintiff has provided a sufficient rebuttal to defendant's explanations for removing her from her team leader role to defeat summary judgment on her retaliation claim. Defendant argues that any inference that plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action is belied by the fact that plaintiff has continued to work at defendant, and has even received two promotions since being removed from her team leader role. However, in this case, defendant's contentions relate only to plaintiff's damages, not the question of whether she was retaliated against at all.
For the reasons stated above, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to plaintiff's claim of race discrimination and denied with respect to her claim of retaliation. It is 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:
Crawl Map
Live Music for College Kids
By Laura Marrich and Jessica Cassyle Carr
Music Magnified
Silver Board Skate Jam '05
with A La Faderz, Black Maria, Garbage Pail Kidz, Moksha Jehannum, Mystic Vision, Skull Control, 2Bers, With These Weapons, UHF B-Boy Crew
By Laura Marrich
Saturday, August 20; Silver between Harvard and Yale (all-ages): Warped Tour was a blast and all, but something was missing down in Las Cruces this year. Sure, there were all the requisite alternative rock bands. Sure, every conceivable faction of teenage subculture was in full force and, yeah, merch tents dotted the landscape with cheap, colorful geegaws as far as the eye could see. But where were the half-pipes? Where were the funboxes? The helmets, kneepads and ramps? In other words, where had all the skateboarders gone? Warped Tour was founded to promote skateboard culture, yet, except for a random Bad News Bears batting cage, there wasn't any to speak of this time around. Well, screw those guys! Let's start our own damn skate festival—a totally local one with a makeshift outdoor skate park. We can have good local music with everything from hip-hop to reggae to hardcore to metal. Let's shut down Silver Avenue right here in Albuquerque and do this thing right. We'll call it the First Annual Silver Skate Jam '05, and we'll make it happen from noon to 8 p.m. this very Saturday. And here's the best part—we'll get the Silver Board Shop to do all the work for us! Doesn't that sound like a magnificent pipe dream?
Music Magnified
Your Name In Lights
with Run Run Run and Redfield
By Jessica Cassyle Carr
Friday, August 19; The Launchpad (all-ages), $8: While the band claims to harkin from the city of Compton, I'm pretty suspicious. They say they sound like NWA meets Metallica, but why would they insult themselves by saying they sound like Metallica? On top of it all, they say "we rock your face off or we shoot you," and that sounds pretty thug, but how are they going to get people to listen to them if it will only result in getting your face rocked off or shot? And are thugs even interested in rocking? I don't think so. This is what I think is going on here: they're frontin', yo. Your Name In Lights is actually a local emo-y band that contains Mario, formerly of Left Unsaid, Lucas Spider, formerly of Oh, Ranger! and Gabe, formerly of Jet Black Summer and a couple other guys I'm unfamiliar with. These guys aren't thug at all, but they do know how to rock your face off, and along with Tempe rock elders, Redfield, this show just may pop a cap in your ass.
Show Up!
Felonious Groove Foundation
By Simon McCormack
If you're in search of soulful funk and R&B in New Mexico, Felonious Groove Foundation is the best game in town.
Flyer on the Wall
Jocko Agency, Obscene Jesters, Unorthodox and Killing Gracy will play a rather eclectic set this Saturday, August 20, at Puccini's Golden West Saloon. The show starts at 9 p.m. and costs $5, but you've got to be at least 21 to get in. Sorry, children.
EVENT HORIZON (Saturday, Dec 17)
Make it a Merry Christmas
Big Holiday Bash • First Annual Toy Drive • Native Remedies • rap • 2 Evil • Seenloc • Illnickell & Badshit
By Megan Reneau
Envision a happy Christmas morning: Kids waking up across the world and running with wide eyes to a collection of presents just for them. Here's the catch: Some kids can't have that. Not just the presents, but even just being home could be impossible. Pleasantly Offensive Productions is hosting the Big Holiday Bash: First Annual Toy Drive at The Jam Spot this Saturday, Dec. 17. Native Remedies, 2 Evil, Seenloc, IllNickell & Badshit, Acetone Boogie & Izzo, Big Jubes and many more local musicians will be performing to raise funds for kids who can't make it home because they're in the hospital. This all-ages show begins at 7:30pm, and entry is free with a donation of a toy.
EVENT HORIZON (Saturday, Dec 17)
Ugly Sweater Dance Party • Gabriel Jaureguiberry • funk • David Hartshorne
By Desiree Garcia
The best time to wear an ugly sweater is this Saturday, Dec. 17, at Boese Brothers Brewery from 6pm to 1am. Show off that bad boy with a Christmas tree made from macaroni or even that ugly sweater you've had stuffed away somewhere that you got as a gift from that relative you only see once a year. Make sure to strut your stuff and capture the moment in the taproom and use the hashtag #veryboesechristmas on Facebook or Instagram to win some prizes. If that doesn't sound like enough of a good time, there will also be live entertainment by Gabriel Jaureuiberry and David Hartshorne along with catering by Karue's Mexican Food!
EVENT HORIZON (Sunday, Dec 18)
Tilting to the Left, Nudging to the Right
Pinball Tournament • arcade games • Food Drive
By Maggie Grimason
As my friends in Rudest Priest say, "I may not get the high score, but then again I might/ I just wanna play a little pinball tonight." And this Sunday, Dec. 18, it doesn't really matter if you get the high score, everybody wins because at this Pinball Tournament—sponsored by and held at Sister—is also a food drive. All pinball machines on site will be set to free to play from 4pm onward, so get there early and warm up your fingers. There's a $10 buy-in for the tournament, and while non-perishable food donations aren't required, I'm just going to say this: Don't be an asshole. You're not going to eat that canned corn.
NEWSLETTERS Great Alibi stories, events and deals delivered to your inbox each week. No fooling!
Today's Events
Steve Vai • rock at Historic El Rey Theater
Westin Lee McDowell • old time jazz • The Shiners Jazz at Mine Shaft Tavern
Slo Pain • Statik G • hip-hop • Spunky Killa • rap • Bizirk Tha Zia Demon • horrorcore • BukkShot at The Jam SpotMore Recommended Events ››
home | feature | news | film | music | art | food | classifieds | personals | staff | lo-fi | search
© 1996-2016 Weekly Alibi email@example.com
View mobile version

subset: commoncrawl


text:
WhatSale Thailand
by: Ligar App • 2K
All Android applications categories
All Android games categories
by: Ligar App • 2K
WhatSale is the ultimate lifestyle app designed for those who are passionate about finding the latest and greatest deals. No need to waste your time searching. Never miss out on special sale. Instantly get notified on promotions customized to your needs and interests. Share your findings with your friends through Facebook, Line, Google+, and Twitter.
Tags: whatsale , whatsale thailand
Users review
from 1.998 reviews
Download WhatSale Thailand
Free - V4.1.1 - 15M
More actions


text:
- Worldwide Rank #130,753,404
- Follower/Following Ratio 0.01
- Daily New Followers 0
sinan korkunç Twitter Stats
@007_casus - Tracking sinan korkunç Twitter profile since June 5, 2013
sinan korkunç Tweets
@007_casus has posted 289 tweets in the last 4 days, which translates to an average of 72.3 tweets per day.
sinan korkunç Twitter Followers
@007_casus has 1 followers on Twitter.
This account is #130,753,404 in the worldwide rank of the most popular Twitter users.
sinan korkunç Following on Twitter
@007_casus is following 147 Twitter accounts.
Last month this account followed no users.
sinan korkunç Predictions & Milestones
@007_casus will hit 0 followers in the next 3 months, and -2 in one year.
You are on sinan korkunç's Twitter stats page
We track these Twitter stats since June 5, 2013 . You can see how many followers sinan korkunç lost or gained and what the prediction is for tomorrow or the next 15 days, together with all kinds of other stats like rank compared to all Twitter users, tweets etc.
Why don't you give it a try and compare sinan korkunç to yourself ? Or if you are sinan korkunç get even more feature rich & up-to-date stats with our premium Twitter Stats.
Twitter Counter is the #1 Twitter stats site powered by Twitter. It all started in June 12, 2008 and we grew rather rapidly because of our Twitter Counter badge. The button is a nice small image that shows your visitors how many followers you have on Twitter. Within a year the button was on many many blogs around the world and we displayed more than 100 million buttons in one month. We track follower stats for over 180 million users now.


text:
Luck is not in favour of Miller, Holden and other crew members of the Rocinante as they try to escape Eros and find a way out of the space station in the upcoming episode titled "Critical Mass" of "The Expanse" Season 1.
CLICK HERE to watch why Miller, Holden and others want to escape Eros and whether they will manage to get out of the station or not.
The synopsis of the episode states: "Miller, Holden and his crew struggle to escape Eros, but they're trapped when the entire station is put on lock-down. On Earth, Avasarala comes to a stunning realisation about the origin of the mystery ships."
The moment the crew of Rocinante landed on Eros, all they experienced was only trouble. First, they were hunted by a UN black ops team, and now, someone has locked them inside the space station.
Though Miller was suspicious for a while and warned Holden that someone was looking forward to kill all of them, Holden denied it and told Miller that it was just his fear of strange places and nothing else.
However, when they were attacked several times, Holden also eventually believed in Miller's suspicions and told the rest of the crew to be extra cautious.
Elsewhere, Avasarala discovers some stunning evidences that might lead her to Mao's trail and might also answer the mystery behind strange ships that she saw earlier.
Whether Miller and Holden will make it out of Eros or not and continue their journey to find Mao, will be seen in "Critical Mass" on Syfy.
In the previous episode titled "Salvage," the Rocinante examined the asteroid at the coordinates given by Fred Johnson before moving to Eros to find a survivor of the Scopuli codenamed Lionel Polanski.
Miller was also tracking down Polanski by himself and soon identified her as Julie Mao. In the meanwhile, Holden and his team were ambushed at the hotel where Polanski was staying by a UN black ops team (signalled by the spy Kenzo, and authorised by Errinwright), but were saved by the arriving Miller.
After joining up, Holden's team and Miller continued their journey to meet Julie Mao.


text:
Realistic feather detail
Lifelike motion of feeding goose
Add some motion to your spread with the Canada Goose Feeder Butts by Hard Core. Fully-painted and enhanced with realistic feather detail that look like the real thing even before they move. These Feeder Butts produce lifelike motion in the water to resemble a feeding goose and entice those big honkers. Comes in a pack of two.


text:
Event: Ranbir Kapoor and Priyanka Chopra were present at a suburban multiplex to promote ANJAANA ANJAANI.
Guest List: Priyanka Chopra, Ranbir Kapoor
Venue: Fame Inorbit, Malad, Mumbai
Date: 01-Oct-2010
Bollywood celebs Hrithik Roshan, Athiya Shetty, Kanika Kapoor among others were seen at Anandita De's blog launch.
Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty Kundra was snapped at the inaugurationof jewellery showroom of Varti Jewells.
Bollywood celebs Deepika Padukone, Anushka Sharma, Yami Gautam, Sonam Kapoor, Arpita Khan Sharma, Vijay Krishna Acharya, Arjun Kapoor among others were seen at the special screening of BEFIKRE.
Bollywood celebs Irrfan Khan snapped at the launch of Johnston & Murphy store.
Bollywood celebs Sunny Deol and Madhurima Tuli were snapped at the airport.


text:
Constructed for lightweight wear, these streamlined winter boots have a seam sealed design for optimal waterproofing. The removable EVA footbed offers a more versatile fit, while the rugged vulcanized rubber shell outsole provides superior traction. With a rubber midsole, these Sorel Winter Fancy Lace boots are supportive and comfortable.
NOTE: Find in Store Inventory levels are continuously changing. Please contact store to confirm availability is as shown.
- Seam sealed waterproofing for a dry comfort fit
- Removable molded EVA footbed for versatility
- Vulcanized rubber midsole for superior support
- Hardy vulcanized rubber shell outsole for optimal traction and waterproofing
- Weight: 18.8 oz/ 534 grams
- Shaft height: 7"
Shipping Info:
- Leaves the warehouse in 1-7 business days depending on order volume.
- Items may be returned within 60 days of the order date to an Atmosphere retail store or an Atmosphere warehouse. Items must be returned unused/unworn and electronics unopened. See Online Return Policy and Return Instructions for more information.
- Note: Shipping restrictions may apply based on location and product size.


text:
Your Mortgage Broker in Melbourne CBD, Southbank, Docklands, East Melbourne, Point Cook, Altona and Surrounding Suburbs
I'm highly motivated, determined and hands on with each loan from start to finish. I've always had a passion for the business and with that now comes a dedication to my clients. I'm keen on handling any loans, regardless of the property type or price point. I have a broad range of clients, from first home buyers to large property developers and investors, which means more experience for you to leverage from.
Whether you are a first-time investor or are looking to build on your existing portfolio, you will want to make sure you remain organised and find the right financial products to suit your needs. This is where I can provide valuable support.
Self Employed
Home Loans
There are so many home loans available. I will help you compare home loans, loan features including fees and charges involved and to help you find the most competitive loan for your lifestyle and finance needs.
Latest News
How Healthy is your home loan?
Attention First Home Buyers!
Splitting up? Act now to avoid surprises later on
Whether you see it coming or not, divorce usually ranks as one of the most devastating events in a person's life. It's an emotional time but also one when important financial decisions have to be made.


text:
Little Marc Jacobs
Boys Blue 2 Piece Babygrow & Cardigan Set
$178.24Only 1 left! Only 1 left!
Boys two piece sleeveless babygrow and cardigan set by Little Marc Jacobs, featuring a fun blue hedgehog print. Made in a soft cotton jersey, the babygrow has poppers to fasten on the shoulder straps, sides and between the legs for easy dressing. The grey marl and blue long-sleeved cardigan is reversible and has light padding with a button at the front to fasten.
- Product number 132266
- 100% cotton (soft jersey)
- Machine wash (30*C)
- Reversible cardigan
- Popper fastening sides & between legs on babygrow
- Popper fastening shoulder straps on babygrow
- 2 piece set
View More


text:
Me from the back
Tags: gays
Tags: emo gays
Pound me from the back
Tags: amateur brunettes
Tags: amateur bbw big ass ebony
Cheat On Me And Ill Get You Back So Says The Dominant Boyfriend
Tags: big cock bondage boyfriend deep throat doggy orgasm rough
dudes get ass slammed from the back hard
Tags: ass
Asian babe get fuck hard from the back pov
Tags: asian babes big ass doggystyle hardcore pov rough
Twinks ass get to be fucked from the back
Tags: ass twink
his ass get to be fucked hard from the back
Homemade Bitch likes to get hit hard from the back
Tags: amateur bitch homemade
A Girl At The Gym Took Me Into The Back Room And Fucked Me
Tags: babes blowjobs boobs gym hardcore indian
Help Me Get My Car Back
Tags: brunettes car couple hardcore hd massage
Hot gay Next, I had the dudes stand up for me back to back,
Tags: amateur blowjobs gays twink
Medina U Get Back To Me Asap;
Tags: blowjobs teens
Mila from dates25.com - Bbw from the back
Tags: amateur ass bbw butt fat homemade tits
Friend cant get enough fucking me from behind
Tags: from behind mature amateur matures
Fuck me in the back
Tags: big cock gays
Dream was a long way from home and had no coin to get back.
Tags: amateur brunettes homemade outdoor public voyeur
Smutty babes bite back moaning in the club where get get roughly fucked in random
Tags: babes big tits club glamour moaning party reality
Avril lavinge happy to get another load from me
Tags: celebrities cumshots masturbation
Throwing the pussy back at me
Tags: amateur black doggy ebony milf pussy
Mature granny visits back in her old days and get a brutal nailing from two devoted lads
Tags: brutal granny matures
Hot twink To get me stiff the Doc was going to give me an oral
Tags: doctor gays medical oral twink
Two Asian teens kneel back to back and get their mouths fuc
Tags: asian babes blowjobs group sex japanese teens
TrafficHolder.com - Buy and Sell Adult Traffic|Trafficshop.com - Let your business grow|Contact Us|Webmaster
All content, including images, text, graphics, video and audio content contained in the website is protected under the laws of copyright, owned or under license to company or its designees,and represents proprietary and valuable intellectual property.
Contact Webmaster 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Powered by Stream Rotator


text:
Doctor insights on:
Drug Addict
How can I get through to a drug addict? With love?
Alanon: People who are in love with a drug addict commonly have a hard time "getting through" . Until someone admits that they have a problem, options for helping are very limited and feelings of helplessness, anger and sadness are common al-anon is a support group for family and friends of addicts who use alcohol and drugs. (not group therapy) http://www.Al-anon.Alateen.Org. ...Read moreSee 2 more doctor answers
Drug Addiction (Definition)
Drug addiction is a dangerous condition where people are addicted to, or dependent on, illicit or other ...Read more
Why do they say that tough love and kicking a drug addict out is one of the worst things you can do for the person.You'd think it'd teach a lesson no?
It depends.: Kicking out can be the worst thing or the best thing. When it is necessary, hopefully other treatments, programs, interventions have been tried, and the situation is deemed dire. It is a last resort. Even then it should be presented in a caring matter. "Tough love" otherwise? It depends on what you mean, but it may be sensible, provided that biological aspects of addiction are not lost sight of. ...Read moreSee 1 more doctor answer
I want to know what is the difference between a stoner and a drug addict or junkie?
Addiction =addiction: These are all terms for people affected by addiction. Some of them sound "cuter" than others, but they all mean the same thing. I once know someone who preferred to call him self a pothead rather than a marijuana addict, but he was just that, a marijuana addict. ...Read moreSee 1 more doctor answer
How do I know if i'm a drug addict or not?
Stop and see: Stop your habit and see whether you can go on with your life. ...Read moreSee 1 more doctor answer
If a drug addict were to lose their memory, would they still be addicted?
Depends on access : If there is an access to medications yes. I have seen in nursing home elderly who has issues of addiction inspite of being dependent on others. ...Read more
Why do they say tough love and kicking a drug addict out is one of the worst ways to handle it? Doesn't it teach them a lesson?
Drug use disorder: People affected by substance use disorder can be burdensome to family and friends. It is difficult to understand their persistence and narrowing of the repertoire, and this might trigger anger and rejection. However, there are ways to help them look and sustain some care. For example, intervention by the family and sponsors such as AA/NA. There are some walk in clinics or centers as well. ...Read moreSee 1 more doctor answer
Can a drug addict can sincerely love someone?
Addict in love: Sure, if judgement is not affected by the illicit drugs. ...Read moreSee 1 more doctor answer
What can you do when you are in love with a drug addict?
In love: Schedule a session for both of you with a counselor that works with codependency issues. ...Read more
How to deal with a drug addict?
See below: Coming face-to-face with reality means accepting that parts of your life may be out of control as a result of loving someone who is engaging in addictive behaviours. The only person you have any control over is yourself. You do not have control over anything the addicted person does. ...Read more
Will a drug addict drop a drug entirely for another drug?
Sometimes a: Person does trade one addiction for another. ...Read more
- Talk to a doctor live online for free
- Why do drug addicts drink orange juice when going through withdrawl?
- How to counsel a drug addict?
- Do drug addicts have nose bleeds lsd?
- Ask a doctor a question free online
- Drug addicts are selfish
- Things to say to a drug addict
- Daily devotions for drug addicts
- Having a baby with the father being a drug addict
- Talk to an addiction specialist online for free


text: Nautel Team Applies Wave Theory Oct 10 Paul McLane 10/10/2011 4:13:00 PM Nautel sent along this photo of their design team saying thanks for the recent award they got from the Society of Broadcast Engineers. The award was for the company's Advanced User Interface (AUI) and associated productivity technologies. The award itself recently arrived in Nova Scotia.


text:
Whitman: HP Has Better Hand Than EMC Or Cisco
HP CEO Meg Whitman said HP's robust storage and networking offerings, combined with the HP split, puts HP "ahead of the curve" to do battle with EMC and Cisco in a market moving at lightning speed.
5 Companies That Had A Rough Week
For the week ending Dec. 9, CRN looks at IT companies that were unfortunate, unsuccessful or just didn't make good decisions.
The 10 Biggest Apple Stories Of 2016
The introduction of new products, the elimination of older ones and an added emphasis on enterprise marked the year of change for Apple.
SimpliVity CEO Kempel On Huawei Deal, Courting HPE And How Solution Providers Can Manage The Transition To Hyper-Convergence
Doron Kempel says selling hyper-convergence can be challenging for solution providers, but success will come from taking business from competitors that are unprepared or hesitant to embrace the technology.
The 2016 Internet Of Things 50
The IoT market is quickly moving beyond smart homes and automated cars to the enterprise and verticals where solution providers play a big role.


text:
Forex Opportunities – Strategies for Forex Trading › Forums › Trading Q&A › Trading strategies › Maximal Strategy questions › Reply To: Maximal Strategy questions
Yes I agree it's better to understand the background, using these methods without that is very risky.
If you are interested I recommend taking a look at some of the papers at Duke (e.g. this one) – they have a lot of resources there on this subject.


text:
Select a category
Convene 5 PC Outdoor Arm Chair Set | Espresso/Peridot
Customers also view...
Get possibility to create fully functional and comfortable area in your patio or pool yard with use of this compact and stylish set. This collection is made using resistant to abrasion, sun and water synthetic rattan and durable aluminium foundation.
- Synthetic Rattan Weave
- Powder Coated Aluminum Frame
- Water & UV Resistant
- Machine Washable Cushion Covers
- Easy To Clean Tempered Glass Top
- Ships Pre-Assembled
One - Convene Outdoor Patio Side Table Section
Two - Convene Outdoor Patio Armchair Section
Two - Convene Outdoor Patio Ottoman Section
Overall Product Dimensions: 70"L x 92.5"W x 33"H
Overall Armchair Dimensions: 35"L x 37.5"W x 25.5 - 33"H
Seat Dimensions: 22.5"L x 25"W x 17.5"H
Armrest Dimensions: 6"W x 25.5"H
Cushion Thickness: 5"H
Overall Side Table Dimensions: 17.5"L x 17.5"W x 18"H
Floor to Underside of Table: 17.5"H
Base Dimensions: 17.5"L x 17.5"W
Overall Ottoman Dimensions: 25"L x 25"W x 12 - 17.5"H
Base Dimensions: 25"L x 25"W
We provide Free Drop Off Service in 5 boroughs of New York (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and Staten Island) and parts of New Jersey, Long Island, Westchester, CT, PA * (depending on shipping ZIP code)


text:
Writers Profile
Screen Name: Dillon Zim
Dillon Zim has published 1 item on The Spoof.
Check out Dillon Zim's:
Latest Spoof News Story: Tuesday 15th May 2007
Spoofing since: Monday 23rd April 2007
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Profile: Just keeping them honest.
Dillon Zim hasn't written anything in a while, so his/her news feed is seriously out of date!
If you want the latest up-to-the-minute spoof news, check out all our rss feeds.
While you're here, why not check our other Top Writers?
And if you've still got time on your hands, consider joining us as a writer, and make up your very own news stories!
Trump Names Sarah Palin as Chief of Staff of......the Upstairs Maid Crew for the White House!
Mailing List
Get Spoof News in your email inbox!


text:
Everything Compliance-Episode 3
Compliance into the Weeds-Episode 21-the DOJ and Congressional Legislation in the Trump Era
FCPA Compliance Report-Episode 293, Saskia Zandieh on the new French Anti-Corruption law, Sapin II
The Bribery Act: To Disclose or Not To Disclose?
This Week in FCPA-Episode 31, the Government Speaks edition
Compliance into the Weeds-Episode 20-transaction monitoring
FCPA Compliance Report-Episode 292-Jared Connors on FARs and DFARs
Corruption Risk in Pharma and Medical Device Markets
Everything Compliance-Episode 2
This Week in FCPA-Episode 30, the Thanksgiving Edition
Sales Incentives: How To Tame This Potential Ethical Foe
FCPA Compliance Report-Episode 291-Sara Kropf on white collar defense in an internal investigation
This Week in FCPA-Episode 29-Episode 29, the Brave New World Edition
Compliance into the Weeds-Episode 18, the (first) post-election edition
Everything Compliance-Episode 1
Meritas Capability Webinar - Brexit The Constitutional Legal Hurdles to leaving the EU
Unfair and Unbalanced-Episode 12 SCCE 2016 CEI, Part II
This Week in FCPA-Episode 28 (Part II), the High Anxiety edition
Compliance into the Weeds-Episode 17-budgeting for compliance
FCPA Compliance Report-Episode 290, Professor Samuel Buell on Capital Offenses
Companies operating in Asia should take heed of five areas the US president-elect has said he will act on in his first 100 days, which could provide potential opportunities and challenges for Asian businesses—including the...more
- A President Trump will have authority to reinstate sanctions lifted by the Iran Nuclear Deal as well as revoke certain authorizations provided for business with Iran.
- Several economic and geopolitical factors may...more
On November 14 and 17, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published initiation notices for anti-circumvention inquiries on the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on corrosion-resistant steel and cold-rolled...more
1 Policy and law -
What is the government policy and legislative framework for
the electricity sector?
Government policy -
Following the EU Referendum held on 23 June 2016, a new prime minister was appointed...more
In this episode Jared Connors and I discuss:
1. What is a FAR?
2. What's the differences with DFARs?
3. What types of companies should be concerned?
4. What are some examples of covered with these regulations?
5. What...more
Risk factors related to uncertainties resulting from possible policies that may be implemented by President-elect Trump have begun to appear in SEC filings...more
Against a backdrop of persistently soft oil prices, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is pivoting away from the direct procurement of generation capacity and re-invigorating the privately-financed IPP model. As input costs fall and...more
The U.S. International Trade Commission recently heard testimony that global markets for aluminum and aluminum products are being distorted by Chinese subsidies. On September 29, 2016, the Commission held a public hearing in...more
This article was originally published in October 2014 by Michael Polkinghorne and has been amended to reflect additions and subsequent changes to the law.
Take-or-pay provisions are now fairly common in long-term offtake...more
Against the background of UK policy moving towards a more nationally-led trade and investment policy following this summer's referendum, the new UK government is still in the process of establishing its policies regarding...more
Durante el mes de Octubre destacan los siguientes temas: Comercio Internacional, Aduanero, Competencia, Normalización Telecom, Prácticas Desleales, Arbitraje ISDS....more
At a time of uncertainty for the long-term prospects of oil prices, midstream infrastructure divestments in the North Sea could help oil and gas companies maintain the viability of UKCS oil and gas production.
The North...more
The WTO Appellate Body has delivered a mixed verdict in Argentina's challenge to EU anti-dumping measures on biodiesel. The Appellate Body rejected Argentina's claims that part of the EU Basic Regulation on...more
Centro Nacional de Control de Gas Natural (CENAGAS) has received authorization from the Comisión Reguladora de Energía (CRE) to conduct its first open season for the assignment of available capacity on a firm basis in the...more
With fewer than 100 days left in office, President Obama is not slowing down on his efforts to normalize relations between the United States and Cuba. Today, several changes to the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) and...more
Investor confidence rebounded in the third quarter immediately following Brexit, driving the S&P 500 to new highs. Comments by the Fed in early September stirred up some volatility and share prices slipped backwards. Not...more
What the Next President Should Do About U.S. Manufacturing -
Top industry executives, political leaders, small business and trade union leaders, researchers and policymakers are offering a blueprint for maintaining the...more
Financial Industry Developments -
The CFPB Publishes Final Rule for Prepaid Accounts -
On October 5, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") finalized comprehensive consumer protections for...more
Negotiating an In-Project Construction Dispute -
Many thorny and competing interests are implicated when an ongoing major construction project experiences an unanticipated event that impacts the project schedule or...more
DOJ's FCPA Pilot Program was panned when it was announced in April 2016. Critics contended that the incentive for voluntary disclosure of FCPA violations to DOJ was inadequate....more
Last week there were two declinations issued by Department of Justice (DOJ) for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) matters. The matters involved two Texas based, privately held companies. The first was HMT LLC (HMT) which...more
Since 2012, the major opponent of new large-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects has been the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club has adopted a two-pronged approach in its opposition to LNG exports projects, opposing...more
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region has recently seen a surge of interest in developing renewable energy, in particular solar energy projects. Led by Morocco and Jordan which have successfully implemented numerous...more
New rules issued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that require resource extraction issuers to disclose payments made to U.S. and foreign governments for the commercial development of oil, natural gas or...more
Canada's signaled an interest in joining the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank—often seen as China's answer to the World Bank. The bid is controversial at home for new PM Justin Trudeau, but it reflects the...more
Find an International Trade Author »
Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*
JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.
JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.
The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.
JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.
If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.
Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.
JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.
If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at firstname.lastname@example.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.
Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.
In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.
This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.
We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.
If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.com.
Already signed up? Log in here
Back to Top
Explore 2016 Readers' Choice Awards
Copyright ©


text: January 25, 2013 SPL USA Online Store Opens Its Doors in February German audio technology manufacturer SPL will open up its USA Online Store February 1, 2013 to address the growing demand of high-quality Made-in-Germany gear in North, Central and South America. The SPL Online store will serve the whole continent from its central warehouse located in Corona, California, but SPL will also have dedicated Service Centers in L.A., Las Vegas, New York City, and Canada. According to the German manufacturer, its current distribution network will remain in place. The online store will only reinforce its presence and supply capabilities throughout the Americas in order to serve better SPL owners and fans in the region. This means, they will benefit from better access to the innovative handmade analog units and Analog Code® plug-ins SPL has to offer, including the Vitalizer® sound enhancers and Transient Designer envelope shapers, which have thrilled tens of thousands of audio enthusiast around the globe, or their unique 120V mastering series. The virtual doors of the SPL Online Store (http://www.spl-usa.com) will open on February 1, 2013 at 0:00 Pacific Time. To celebrate this remarkable event, SPL will offer a US$50 coupon on any purchase over US$500 through April 1, 2013. For more information visit SPL.info, Facebook SPL, Twitter SPL


text:
Welcome to Tacoma World!You are currently viewing as a guest! To get full-access, you need to register for a FREE account.
As a registered member, you'll be able to:
Quick Links: TRD 16" wheels and a lift What's out there right now on the market for the 2.7L 05+ Tacos? Changing spark plugs on my 2008 for the first time, help. AFE stage 2 intake for 59.84 Looking for 2tr 5spd Manual trans oil capacity. Fan clutch - how long can I run without fan clutch engaging on 2RZE
- Participate in all Tacoma discussion topics
- Communicate privately with other Tacoma owners from around the world
- Post your own photos in our Members Gallery
- Access all special features of the site
Jardine exhaust 1.5 years later
Discussion in '4 Cylinder' started by Who Dat Popcorn, Nov 25, 2009.
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2


text:
Crock Pot Salsa/Mexican Chicken
Total Time
Prep 5 mins
Cook 7 hrs
this is SO easy and SO yummy! i put the chicken in burritos the first time, taco salad the second time, and it would be great in any mexican recipe!
Ingredients Nutrition
- 1 1⁄2 lbs boneless skinless chicken breasts
- 12 -16 ounces salsa
- 1 (1 ounce) packet taco seasoning
- 1 cup sour cream
- 1 (12 ounce) can sweet corn (optional)
- 1 (12 ounce) can black beans (optional)
- season chicken on both sides with taco seasoning and put it in the crock pot.
- pour salsa over it.
- cook on low 7-8 hours.
- shred chicken in the crock with a fork and stir in the corn, beans and sour cream.
- cook 30 more minutes.
- serve in tortillas, over rice, over chips, salad, or use in your favorite mexican recipe!
Most Helpful
I am a vegetarian, so I did not taste this dish. However, it was a breeze to make and smelled wonderful. My husband and sons LOVED it. This one is a keeper for our family.
I love this stuff -- though I did not add the sour cream to the cooking process (family preference when half loves it and half can't stand it). Very easy to throw in -- even using frozen chicken breasts and sprinkling the seasoning over. Easy to dress up with some cheese, black olives, etc.