text:
WORCESTER — The small charter school that collapsed last week amid a cascade of financial and organizational problems had long struggled with a deadly hole in its budget.
Three years ago, the Spirit of Knowledge school's founder and former chairman of its board of trustees handed over $185,000 to a father-and-son real estate development team as a down payment on a lease for new quarters in an up-and-coming industrial district.
The century-old building at 35 Arctic St. that was intended for the school, now owned by Framingham developer Ding On "Tony" Kwan, was never renovated by the company the school gave the money to, though Mr. Kwan is now moving forward to rehab the building for residential units.
The school, and the taxpayers who funded it, never saw a penny of its money again, even though the school won a court judgment and lien against Columbus Realty LLC, the now defunct company run by Colombian immigrant Francisco Escobar and his son, Edwin Escobar.
The company lost the building to foreclosure. The school consummated the lease agreement without the protection of an escrow account and had no practical recourse to recoup money that some school officials said could have helped ensure the school's survival.
Court papers also do not show that lawyers drew up the agreement, which could have offered more protection for the school.
"If we had that money, we would have had a building, and that would have resulted in a much different course of events," said Barrington Henry, a longtime trustee who became chairman of the charter school's board just before the school surrendered its charter last week.
The school founder, Julia Sigalovsky, and former board chairman, Richard Langevin, did not return calls seeking comment for this story.
As it turns out, the Spirit of Knowledge, which was housed in the same downtown church offices where the elder Escobar is a longtime deacon, was not the only investor or creditor whom the Escobars did not pay back in recent years, according to court documents.
The Escobars, operating under the name Escobar Enterprises, and, in one case, with Edwin Escobar's younger brother, Lawrence Escobar — a former Worcester housing department employee — also never repaid more than $350,000 they received from a number of other lenders and investors, court documents filed by the plaintiffs allege.
According to court records, in recent years, they took $230,000 from a Worcester police officer and his wife, Albert and Mary Cosenza of Paxton; $65,000 from Edwin Escobar's first cousin and Francisco Escobar's nephew, District 2 City Council candidate Jennithan Cortes; $25,000 from a Worcester police sergeant, Miguel Lopez; and $25,000 from the sergeant's brother-in-law, Francis Medina, a physician in Connecticut.
"The entire transaction was a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs," Howard J. Potash, the Worcester lawyer who represented the Cosenzas and Sgt. Lopez and Dr. Medina, wrote in a Feb. 14, 2012 complaint against the Escobars.
In 2008, court filings show the Cosenzas gave the Escobars payments of $150,000 and $80,000 and were promised to receive the principal plus 10 percent interest from the sale of 36 condos to be built at 45 Arctic St., the long brick former industrial building that was also to house the charter school.
In the charter school's lawsuit to attempt to recover its money, lawyer Anatoly Darov of Boston, noted that 45 Arctic St. already had a $3 million-plus mortgage as well as a "mechanic's lien" of $115,000 by an Agawam company that cleaned up part of the building's interior.
"The whole deal made no sense," Mr. Potash said in an interview, referring to the Arctic Street property.
"There's no way they're going to recover the money because the individuals have filed petitions for bankruptcy," Mr. Potash added.
Mr. Potash said the Cosenzas got involved with the deal because Lawrence Escobar — who is only listed as a defendant in Mr. Cortes' suit — lives on the same street in Paxton as the Cosenzas, and apparently told the couple about it.
Lawrence Escobar worked for the city as a $51,000-a-year lead paint removal specialist from 2008 to 2012, when the federal grant that paid for his job changed, according to city records. He did not return several messages left on his home voice mail.
The Escobars, Mr. Potash alleged, "don't pay anybody."
Mr. Lopez and Dr. Medina, whose money was put down toward a rental property at 11 Wilson St., are listed as creditors in Edwin Escobar's 2011 $1.3 million bankruptcy filing.
Edwin Escobar's creditors range from large companies such as Wells Fargo Bank and East-West Federal Bank of California, and ones owed smaller amounts such as the state Department of Revenue and the City of Worcester.
Francisco Escobar also filed for bankruptcy in 2012 with $616,000 in debt, including several large mortgages and $39,834 in unpaid water and sewer bills to the city.
Edwin and Francisco Escobar filed bankruptcies under Chapter 13, a form of debt consolidation that offers faster financial rehabilitation to the filer.
Francisco Escobar did not respond to requests for interviews left at the deacon's office at the Cathedral of St. Paul in downtown Worcester, and at his home near Lake Quinsigamond.
Edwin Escobar declined to answer questions about the charter school deal when a reporter went to his home in Leicester last week. Mr. Escobar, in the midst of installing a roof to a Corinthian column portico at the front door of his family's $367,400 2004 Colonial, shouted: "It's all public record."
"That's all I've got for you," he said, before going inside the house.
Lawrence Escobar, meanwhile, declared a Chapter 7 bankruptcy — in which all debts are erased — in 2012, with about $800,000 in debt.
The suit with which he was involved was brought by the 44-year-old council candidate, Mr. Cortes.
In an interview, Mr. Cortes noted that he did not invest in any real estate project with his uncle and cousin. He said he simply loaned close family members some money.
"What they did with it, I don't know," Mr. Cortes said.
Rather than any intent to defraud, Mr. Cortes attributed his relatives' financial problems to other factors.
"I think their lack of management skills and business savvy probably hurt them in the overall scheme of things," he said.
Meanwhile, while Francisco and Edwin Escobar's bankruptcy petitions are pending, their company, Escobar Enterprises, is still a going concern with properties valued at more than $1 million.
According to city records, Escobar Enterprises owns a multifamily building at 47 Eastern Ave., assessed at $258,000; a multifamily at 10 Normal St. worth $253,500; the six-unit home at 11 Wilson St. valued at $284,400; a multifamily at 8 Seward St. assessed at $186,800; and a three-family at 16 Reservoir St. worth $175,100.
Some of the buildings have had city liens placed against them over the years, and the city has threatened to foreclose several times. But the threatened tax takings have always been withdrawn after the company has come up with overdue property tax payments at the last minute, according to Registry of Deeds records.
As for Francisco Escobar's involvement with the failed charter school and the deal for the building that went bad, some of those involved were surprised that Francisco Escobar, who has long been a Roman Catholic deacon and a notable figure in the Latino immigrant community, had a role.
"In my mind he was someone who was working for the well-being of the community," said Abel Molina, a trustee of the former charter school.
Mr. Molina said he was "shocked" to hear Francisco Escobar was involved.
Contact Shaun Sutner at firstname.lastname@example.com. Follow him on Twitter @ssutner.


text:
Monday's High School Baseball Roundup
The Poteau Pirates split their home three-way Monday at Town Creek Park, blasting the Idabel Warriors 12-2 but falling 8-7 to the Sallisaw Black Diamonds.In the win over the Warriors, the Pirates jumped out to an 11-0 lead in the opening inning as Poteau sent 16 batters to the plate.In the loss to the Black Diamonds, Sallisaw's Derek Nation hit a sacrifice fly in the seventh inning to break a 7-7 tie to lift the visitors from Sequoyah County to victory.The Pirates tied the game in the fifth inning at 7-7 on an RBI single by Didway and an RBI double by Stephen Smith.Talihina 13, Howe 1; Talihina 7, Haileyville 2; Haileyville 8, Howe 6: In Talihina, the Golden Tigers got a pair of wins on their home field on Monday's three-way.In the win over Howe, Hunter Johnson scored the lone run for the Lions on a Talihina error in the first inning for a 1-0 lead.The Golden Tigers came back with a four-run first inning, highlighted by Andrew Young's fourth home run of the season, a three-run shot, to take a 4-1 lead after an inning.In the victory over Haileyville, the Golden Tigers used a six-run sixth inning to rally from a 2-1 deficit for the win.In Howe's loss to Haileyville, the Warriors scored all eight runs in the first inning on two hits, six walks a hit batter and a Howe error.The Lions mounted a comeback, but in the fifth inning the rally ended with the tying runner striking out.Whitesboro 7, Clayton 4: In Whitesboro, in a battle of Bulldogs, Whitesboro jumped out to a 5-0 lead by the fifth inning, but had to hold on for dear life as Clayton tried to mount a seventh-inning, game-tying threat. However, Nick Wallen got his first save of the season to preserve the win for Quintin Ludlow.Wilburton 5, Heavener 1: In Wilburton, the Diggers broke a scoreless tie with a five-run fourth inning.The lone run for the Wolves scored in the seventh inning when Colby McGee singled home Noah Davis.Stigler 8, Spiro 6: In Stigler, the Panthers scored three runs in the sixth inning to snatch the win away from the Bulldogs.Spiro took a 3-0 lead in the opening inning and had a 6-5 lead after the top of the fifth inning.Editor's Note — Wister's home game with Smithville was canceled by the Braves, and will likely not be rescheduled. Also, nothing was reported on Leflore's home game with Crowder by press time.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Phailin shifts to Jharkhand, leaves 2.5 lakh marooned in Odisha
Accurate predictions and the largest evacuation in the past 23 years restricted the casualties to 21, most of them caused by falling trees and collapsing walls, but Phailin left behind a trail of destruction.india Updated: Oct 15, 2013 16:40 IST
More than 2.50 lakh people were marooned in four northern Odisha district - Balasore, Mayurbhanj, Jajpur and Bhadrak - on Monday after heavy rains triggered by waning cyclone Phailin swelled Budhabalanga river.
At least four persons were killed due to floods in Balasore and Mayurbhanj.
The state government, which has just begun relief and rehabilitation in cyclone ravaged districts, had to rush teams of Odisha Disaster Rapid Action Force (ODRAF), National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), army and navy to rescue the affected people in Balasore, the worst hit district.
"We have started air dropping food packets to the marooned people," Odisha revenue and disaster management minister SN Patro said, adding the flood waters have started ebbing.
At least four of the total 12 blocks of Balasore were worst hit, as flood waters inundated low lying areas and crop fields. About 70,000 people were evacuated.
The floods that started on Sunday night caught Balasore administration off guard, cutting off four blocks as flood water spilled over two national highways.
Thousands of people had to take shelter on roofs of their houses and schools.
"This is the worst flood I have seen in my life so far. The government was clearly unprepared as no official came to our rescue despite our repeated pleas," said Rama Majhi of Kantabania village.
Disaster management minister SN Patro, however, contested the claims, saying the situation was under control. The flood waters, he said, have started receding. Four IAF helicopters were deputed since the early hours of Monday to airdrop food and relief material and evacuate the people.
The army is bracing for similar floods elsewhere in the state, given the incessant rains. "We would stay here for any further assistance that may be needed," said Ramesh Rana, officer in charge of the disaster operations in the state.
An integrated station of the army, navy and air force has been set up in Gopalpur. From there, troops are being deputed to clear roads, restore power and telecommunication lines and distribute relief material in remote areas.
After exhausting most of its fury on the state, Phailin finally left Odisha and shifted to neighbouring Jharkhand, leaving many districts flooded and a trail of destruction behind.
"The deep depression over north Chhattisgarh and adjoining areas of Odisha and Jharkhand moved north- northeastwards and weakened into a depression. It lay centered southwest of Daltonganj in Jharkhand," an official of Indian Meteorological Department said.
The system has already started showing its effects. Bihar put all its districts on flood alert after heavy rains lashed the state, while Met department warned of "very heavy rainfall" in Sikkim and Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri and Siliguri areas of West Bengal over the next 48 hours.
Four persons, including a 70-year-old man, were crushed alive under the debris of their thatched huts that collapsed due to heavy rains in various parts of Bihar.
Accurate predictions and the largest evacuation in the past 23 years restricted the casualties to 21, most of them caused by falling trees and collapsing walls. With four deaths caused by the floods, the total death toll in the state reached 25.
Meanwhile, many returned home on Monday to discover their homes, many flimsy mud and thatch dwellings, as well as their businesses, damaged or destroyed.
"I left everything behind and when I came back nothing was here," said Bhagwan, 50, a coconut seller from Gopalpur.
With the threat of Phailin dissipating, all relief camps in Srikakulam, Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam districts in north coastal Andhra Pradesh are being closed on Monday, while restoration works picked pace.
Food minister KV Thomas, meanwhile, said domestic supply of rice or its exports will not be affected by the widespread damage to standing crops in the two states.
"Our production is so high. We have ample stocks that show India's strength," he said.
(With inputs from agencies)
READ: Anger mounting over 'shoddy' Odisha relief
READ: Odisha turns to Centre for financial help
READ: Odisha's braveheart couple stays put, survives Phailin fury
READ: Prices of essential commodities spike in Ganjam local markets
First Published: Oct 14, 2013 12:11 IST


text:
We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. By agreeing, you consent to our use of cookies.Learn more
Visit Shipping & Returns and Terms of Use pages to learn about our policies
Mon-Fri 9am-12am EST
These matte black eyeglasses are straightforward and versatile. This timeless frame comes in a semi-transparent matte gray acetate finish throughout with trendy square shaped lenses. Clean lines and monochromatic styling create a look that is flattering for both men and women.
Anti-Scratch lens coating
Based on 609 reviews
Color: Matte Green; Size: L
I just recently got a prescription to wear glasses at an exam and I bought one pair for over $100.00 at the optometrists office. I didn't...Read full review
Color: Matte Navy; Size: S
You need to buy these frames. They are amazing! The navy frames are a matte shade. It looks elegant and expensive! This is the best purchase I have...
Read full review
Color: Frosted Clear; Size: L
I was nervous to buy glasses online without trying them on but these were so cheap I figured it wasn't much of a risk. They are great! I wish I...
Read full review
Color: Matte Gray; Size: S
My daughter and myself got this pair and it looks great on both of us! I can't believe I almost payed triple the price of these. I HIGHLY recommend...
Read full review
Color: Matte Black; Size: S
These are absolutely gorgeous and everything I wanted them to be! This was my first purchase and after receiving these it's only the beginning for me
Enjoy two weeks to try out our frames.
Send back for a free exchange or return.
Learn More
Full screen
Full screen
Full screen
Full screen
I'm new hereCreate my account
EyeBuyDirect offers 4 different frame sizes (XS, S, M, L) so choosing the right one is key to making sure your new glasses correctly fit your face. Each size group is based on frame width and lens height
Take your current frame and measure its total width (from temple screw to temple screw) and its lens height. Once you have both numbers, enter the results in the fields below to find your best fit
Frame width
Lens height
My frame width mminch
My lens height mminch
At EyeBuyDirect, we guarantee the quality of our eyewear. If you are not happy with your glasses, simply contact us for a refund or a replacement.
EBD has a 14-Day Fit & Style guarantee which allows customers to make an equal exchange or return with no questions asked.
Our 365-Day Product Guarantee means Customers are eligible for a one-time replacement pair within 12 months. A one-time replacement pair will be only issued if there are clear defects in material and workmanship.
*Product warranty does not cover damage caused by accidents, negligence, or improper care.


text:
Same day shipping on most statues directly from California Now accepting Bit Coin & Litecoin >>>
Garden Buddha Statues
Garden Buddha Statues
Turn any outdoor setting into a peaceful refuge or Zen meditation garden. Browse through our selection of large and small Buddha garden statues. If you do not see what you like, Lotus Sculpture can carve a custom Buddha statue to your specifications in any size or material. Please contact us if you have any questions at [email protected] or (760) 994-4455.


text:
Week of August 19, 2002
We hope that you had a restful summer and are looking forward
to the beginning of a new year. We are certainly excited
to have you back. Just a reminder, the Registrar's
Office is open from 8:30 am to 6:00 pm (Monday - Thursday)
and 8:30 am to 5:00 pm (Friday). If you have any questions
regarding your academic records, we will be happy to assist
you. You can call us at (312)906-5080 or stop by suite
220. Good luck with your fall classes!
Fall Registration - DEADLINE
New faculty policy: You may add an open course without
permission until the end of the first week of Fall classes
(August 30, 2002); during the second week, however, you
may add an open course only with permission of the instructor.
You may not add a course after the second week of the semester.
To find out what courses are open, check the Online Registration
You may withdraw from any course except a required course,
a clinical course, Law Review, Moot Court, or Intensive
Trial Advocacy at any time prior to the date of the final
exam or final paper (see § 3.10(c) of the Student Handbook.).
There is no tuition penalty if you drop a course during
the first two weeks of classes. You will not receive a tuition
refund, however, if you drop a course after the second week
of classes (September 6, 2002).
Continuing students who were enrolled in the university's
student health insurance program last year and who are currently
enrolled for 12 or more credit hours or new students enrolled
for 12 or more credit hours who have not otherwise waived
the health insurance plan will be automatically enrolled
in the BASIC health plan for the 2002-03 academic
year unless you elect to purchase the COMPREHENSIVE
plan by September 6, 2002.
To examine the differences in the two plans, please visit
the Health Services Office website at http://www.iit.edu/~chs/index2.htm
Students who do not meet the 12 credit hour threshold for
automatic enrollment, may elect to receive coverage by completing
the necessary documents and paying the insurance fee. To
enroll in the Comprehensive plan, please complete this
form and return it to the Registrar's Office no later
than September 6, 2002
To waive out of the plan, please complete this
form and return it to the Registrar's Office no later
than September 6, 2002
The 2002-03 health plan brochure and all relevant information
is available at the CHS
Office website or by contacting them at 312-808-7100.
An Adobe Acrobat version of the brochure can be viewed
and printed here.
Students who plan on graduating after the fall semester
must submit a graduation application to the Registrar's
Office no later than September 6, 2002. Please note:
The Registrar's Office does conduct graduation audits on
all applications, but it is your responsibility to make
certain all requirements for graduation are met. If
you have any questions, please stop by the office. You will
be charged a $75.00 graduation fee upon filing your application.
In an effort to make more administrative resources available
on-line, we have now made the submission process for Graduation
Applications available on the Chicago-Kent Web-For-Students.
In addtion to checking your fall schedule, grades, and class
ranks, you can also apply for graduation. Click here
https://webmail.kentlaw.edu/exchange/logon.asp to login.
If you intend on taking a course pass/fail, you must submit
a pass/fail election form to the Registrar's Office no later
than the end of the second week of classes (September 6,
2002). The two week deadline is firm. Any requests
recieved after that date will be void.
In an effort to make more administrative resources available
on-line, we have now made the submission process for pass/fail
forms available on the Chicago-Kent Web-For-Students. In
addtion to checking your fall schedule, grades, and class
ranks, you can also choose which courses you would like
to take pass/fail. Click here
https://webmail.kentlaw.edu/exchange/logon.asp to login.
Students who intend to make up an incomplete for the fall
semester must notify the Registrar's Office by the end of
the second week of classes. Students making up incompletes
should NOT register for the course. If you register
for the course, you will be billed. You can pick up
the incomplete make up notice in the Registrar's Office
or complete the form on-line at
For First-Year Students: (http://www.ibaby.org/law_student_registration.html)
First year students who plan to take the Illinois Bar exam
upon graduation should file a "Law Student Registration
Application" with the Illinois bar examiners by March
1, 2003. We strongly suggest that you download and complete
the application much earlier!!! This application is
very long and very detailed, so don't put it off. If you
start gathering the information now, you won't have to scramble
in February!
Applications are available on-line at http://www.ibaby.org/law_student_registration.html
For December Graduates: (http://www.ibaby.org/applying.html)
Students applying to take the February Bar Examination
must file the application by September 1, 2002. If you did
not fill out the first year registration application, you
must complete the full application at this time. If you
did complete the first year application, you should only
complete the update application now.
Both applications are available on-line at http://www.ibaby.org/forms.html
For May Graduates:
Students applying to take the July Bar Exam must complete
and submit the application by February 1, 2003. If you did
not fill out the first year registration application, you
must complete the full application at this time. If you
did complete the first year application, you should only
complete the update application now.
Applications will be available on-line in mid-September
at; http://www.ibaby.org/forms.html
The Chicago-Kent Student Handbook outlines the academic
and administrative regulations governing students at Chicago-Kent.
The following sections have been excerpted to provide information
on student rights and responsibilities regarding access
to educational records. You should read the full text
of the student
Chicago-Kent College of Law respects the rights of privacy
of its students and acknowledges the responsibility to maintain
confidentiality of personally identifiable educational records.
The law school will comply with The Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (FERPA) affords students certain rights
with respect to their education records. They are:
(1) The right to inspect and review the student's education
records within 45 days of the day the University received
a request for access. Students should
submit to the Registrar a written request that identifies
the records they wish to inspect. The Registrar will make
arrangements for access and notify the student when the
records may be inspected. If the records are not maintained
by the Registrar, the Registrar will advise the student
of the correct official to whom the request should be addressed.
(2) The right to request the amendment of the student's
education records that the student believes are inaccurate
or misleading. Students may ask
the law school to amend a record that they believe is inaccurate
or misleading. They should write the Assistant Dean for
Academic Administration and Student Affairs and identify
the part of the record they want changed, and specify why
it is inaccurate or misleading. If the Assistant Dean decides
not to amend the record as requested by the student, he
will notify the student of the decision and advise the student
of his or her right to a hearing regarding the request for
amendment. Additional information regarding the hearing
procedures will be provided to the student when notified
of the right to a hearing.
(3) The law school has adopted a policy of not disclosing
personally identifiable information, other than directory
information, from the educational records of a student without
his or her prior written consent, except in the following
instances permitted under FERPA:
(1) To school officials, including teachers, within the
educational institution who have a legitimate educational
interest. A school official is a person employed by the
University or the law school in an administrative, supervisory,
academic or research, or support staff position (including
law enforcement unit personnel and health staff); a person
or company with whom the University has contracted (such
as an attorney, auditor, or collection agent); a person
serving on the Board of Trustees; or a student serving on
an official committee, such as a disciplinary or grievance
committee, or assisting another school official in performing
his or her tasks.
(2) To officials of another school in which the student
seeks or intends to enroll, provided that a documented attempt
will be made to notify the student of intended disclosure,
prior to submission of such
(3) To certain authorized representatives of the United
States and state agencies who require such information to
carry out lawful functions;
(4) In connection with the student's application for, or
receipt of, financial aid;
(5) To organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf
of, educational agencies or institutions, if these studies
are conducted in a manner that will not permit the personal
identification of students and if the information will be
destroyed when no longer needed for the purpose for which
it is conducted;
(6) To accrediting organizations in order to carry out
their accrediting functions;
(7) To comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued
(8) To appropriate parties in health or safety emergencies;
(9) To parents of dependent Chicago-Kent students, as defined
in Section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Students' local addresses and telephone numbers are published
in a Student Directory. If a student does not want his/her
name, address, or phone number published, the student must
complete a privacy form available in the Registrar's office.
When a student has authorized the publication of his/her
address and phone number in the Student Directory, that
information may be provided to others over the phone.
Chicago-Kent reserves the right to release at its own discretion
the following information: name of student; date and place
or birth; local address, phone number and e-mail address
of student; home address and phone number of student; enrollment
status and dates of attendance at Chicago-Kent; positions
held, place of employment and extension number of students
employed by Chicago-Kent; memberships in officially recognized
campus organizations and on teams, including offices held
such organizations; degrees earned, special awards and recognition
given; and all information requested by the Illinois Board
of Admissions to the Bar and bar exam officials of other
states for all students and former students. Students who
do not want this information released may restrict this
information by completing the privacy forms on-line at https://webmail.kentlaw.edu/exchange/logon.asp
If you did not have your ID photo taken during Orientation,
you must do so immediately! The hours for ID card photos
are listed below. You will not be allowed access to the
library, shuttle bus, and many other resources without your
Most importantly, your professors won't
be able to add your picture to thier seating charts and
you may miss out on those all important class participation
If you need an ID or have lost your ID card you may stop
by the Registrar's office at the following times to have
your picture taken:
Main Chicago-Kent event
Academic calendar
CLE calendar
Alumnae/i event calendar
Admissions calendar


text:
Executive and Hand Strap Cases
We have Custom Executive and Hand Strap Cases for every popular device, and we know what works
Free Samples Available - Enquire Now for a Custom Quote
For 10 or 10,000 Custom Executive Cases we have a solution for you
If you're looking for cases that top-level executives at your company, staff at your school or administrators can use to help them protect their devices and maintain a professional images, custom executive cases are excellent options.
These luxurious, high-end cases come in a wide variety of styles, including keyboard cases and hand strap cases and are appealing to professionals, executives and key decision makers. As a result, custom executive cases are ideal promotional giveaway items for companies marketing to VIPs. They also make excellent wholesale cases for retailers to purchase and can be ideal to give as corporate gifts to prospects and clients.
What Are Custom Executive Cases?
Custom executive cases are tablet cases that are made from the finest quality materials like premium polyurethane leather and genuine leather. Like all tablet cases, custom executive cases provide protection to help keep tablets safe from damage; however, these cases are designed with style in mind as much as safety. The tablet cases give mobile devices a professional look that allows users to make an excellent impression on clients and customers, and they are finely crafted to stand the test of time.
What Types of Custom Executive Cases Are Available?
There are many types of custom executive cases that your company, school, store or organization can purchase, including:
- Keyboard Cases. Keyboard cases are tablet cases that have full QWERTY keyboards mounted on their covers. With the help of BlueTooth technology, the keyboard cases sync with Android tablets, iPad tablets, iPad Mini tablets and other tablets with BlueTooth connectivity. Once pairing is complete, the keyboard can be used to type on the tablet, turning it into a compact laptop. Many executives like keyboard cases because they make it easier to perform work on tablet computers on the go. The keyboard cases even include viewing stands that allow for tablets to be used hands free in an upright position.
- Hand Strap Cases. Hand strap custom executive cases are stylish tablet cases that have a handle attached to their covers. Magnetized to stay securely closed, hand strap cases make it easy to tote a tablet and cut down on the risk of a device being dropped while traveling. The straps also make it easier to lift and set up tablet computers.
The Best Prices on Custom Executive Cases and Hand Strap Cases
Custom executive cases are priced higher than other types of corporate, school and promotional tablet cases due to their luxurious nature and enhanced features; however, Custom Logo Cases makes purchasing them for any purpose affordable. We offer bulk pricing on all of our custom executive cases, including our keyboard cases, and we don't charge for printing. In addition, there is no extra charge for having your logo prepared for printing or even for having a logo or graphic custom designed for your cases. Shipping is free to anywhere in the world, and we back up the sale of our custom executive cases with a price beat guarantee.
For more pricing information, click on the Get Quote button.


text:
Car Review
2013 Rolls-Royce Ghost: Overview
Pros: Affordable, for a Rolls-Royce; far more nimble to drive than the enormous Phantom; excessive power for any situation
Cons: Still massively expensive, and depreciation won't help; hard to shake the feeling of a pricey 7-Series; still pretty big, just not by Rolls-Royce standards
What's new: The 2013 Rolls-Royce Ghost is largely unchanged for 2013. The V8-powered sedan went on sale for the 2010 model year.
The Rolls-Royce Ghost is a full-size luxury sedan intended to rival the best from such upscale brands as Bentley and Mercedes-Benz. Based on the 7-Series luxury sedan from parent company BMW, the Ghost comes in two versions. The Ghost debuted in 2010, while Rolls-Royce added an extended-length EWB model for 2012.
All Ghost models use a 6.6-liter V12 that makes 563 horsepower and 575 lb-ft of torque. Although that engine is unrelated to the V12 used by BMW's 760Li luxury sedan, the Ghost and the 760Li share an 8-speed automatic transmission. They also share BMW's iDrive interface for vehicle controls.
The 2013 Rolls-Royce Ghost starts at nearly $258,000. The stretched EWB version adds more than $30,000 to the price, starting at just under $300,000. Despite the high prices, the Ghost is still far less expensive than the larger Rolls-Royce Phantom. That model starts around $400,000 with shipping.


text:
When Michelle Kahn was five years old, she had a crush on Elvis. She can also remember watching The Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show and falling in love with them. She thinks about growing old, but says she doesn't want to retire from directing films, her passion since high school.
Kahn is only 23.
The Toronto-born filmmaker has old-fashioned sensibilities but keeps herself compulsively busy, jumping from gig to gig. When she is not making short films, Kahn teaches drama and produces and directs plays for Jewish day schools and community centres around Toronto. She says she could not see her life moving at any other speed.
"I'll get on a project like a play. I'll have just started producing it, and then my dad will turn around and say, 'I think you can also do this. Why don't you try that?'" she says. "So I'll have five or six things going at once, and I'll just do them. I'm like an Energizer bunny."
Kahn was not drawn to filmmaking by venturing out to the local cinema, which she seldom does, but by planning her life around the schedule of the cable channel, Turner Classic Movies. TCM first exposed her to silent films, which she quickly fell in love with – especially the films of Charlie Chaplin.
"I thought [silent film] was the coolest thing in the world," Kahn says. "I couldn't understand how they filmed it. I didn't understand how you got the words on the screen. So, I researched all about it."
She shuffled biography after biography of pioneering early Hollywood figures to her classes at the Anne and Max Tanenbaum Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto's Kimel campus. Many of the books focused on how the entertainers she revered never went to high school but started working on their passion in their teens.
"I was afraid I was going to be late in the game if I waited until after CHAT," she says.
Kahn wrote her first short film – a silent, Chaplin-inspired slapstick comedy called Sunset and Camden – in an hour, during a French class. She spent the next two years preparing the 10-minute film about two men vying for a young woman's affection at a bus stop.
Sunset and Camden was a family affair: Kahn played the female protagonist, her father, Trevor, held the camera, sister Orly did the makeup, brother Joseph starred as a paperboy, and mother Gracy provided the craft services – including pies that were thrown at the actors' faces.
When she entered the film in the Tanenbaum CHAT film festival, Kahn says she was the underdog. "Everyone told me I was going to lose because it was a silent movie and it was in black-and-white and it was a period piece. Nobody votes for that."
However, the presence of many parents and grandparents in the audience shifted support in Kahn's favour. She won with 70 per cent of the vote.
Inspired, she began submitting Sunset and Camden to different film festivals across North America. That film and a sophomore short, In the Army, were screened at Sprockets, a family-oriented film festival in Toronto. Kahn's shorts have also been screened at festivals in Idaho, Nova Scotia and California.
She says her early short films were silent because she didn't want to tackle sound mixing. Kahn produced her first "talkie" at her father's behest when she attended York University for film studies.
"[My family] wants me to be in movies. That's weird for a Jewish family," she says, noting that her parents would encourage her to skip class to follow up with festival organizers. "My parents were the ones who always said, 'Send them an email, send them a phone call… It's a business call. It's more important.'"
When she is not shouting orders behind the camera, Kahn is doing the same thing behind the curtain. She directs and produces musicals at several Jewish day schools, including the Associated Hebrew Schools' Danilack Middle School, where she is currently working on a version of Mamma Mia, cheekily titled Ima Oy! As the head of Oy-Oy Productions, she is also working on a production of A Chorus Line featuring adult performers. Both shows will be staged in March.
She also teaches drama at J Roots Supplementary Jewish School, which she says is her way to give back to the Jewish community by helping kids express themselves through acting, especially kids who are being bullied or who have low self-esteem. Even though she doesn't want to work as a teacher full time, Kahn hopes that putting on plays can help lift the children's spirits.
"I want to inspire them because when I was little, I was bullied really badly," she says. "I was the class loser." She says that other kids picked on her for being quiet and different, with her interest in classic movies and television, more attuned to The Beatles than The Backstreet Boys.
To distract herself from her peers' scorn, Kahn resorted to watching movies. "I'd like to think that if I wasn't bullied as bad as I was, I wouldn't be in movies right now," she says.
Kahn has plans to shoot another silent short film this spring and hopes to write a feature-length film. Later this year, she says she plans to shop around to festivals in North America a feature documentary she made about her grandfather, Wanted: The Joseph Esses Story. It chronicles her grandfather's difficult life growing up in Aleppo, Syria, where the Jewish community was often the target of harsh criticism and violence.
When Kahn screened the film in Toronto in January, she was thrilled to see her grandfather's glowing reaction. She says that watching his face was one of the proudest moments of her young career. That response, however, did not compare to her watching Sunset and Camden with an audience at Sprockets in Toronto, an experience that she says changed her life.
"There was this three-second or less shot of my face as I wait for a bus. I saw my face on the big screen and said, 'I want to make movies.'"


text:
Today I started repairing a hand made Tramp Art frame. This flea market find -15 euro's, a bargain- has real pine cone embellishments but not every cone survived the ravages of time. Splitting the replacement cones in half was less easy than I thought. The cone's core was too tough for my hand saw so I had to cut my way through it with pliers. After a few minutes cone scales were everywhere and stuck everywhere because of their gluey resin. Where's a squirrel when you need one?
The construction of the frame is a bit weak and I'll have to brace the backside with corner brackets. The wood of the frame -layers of pieces of cigar boxes- is delicate so I will need to pre-drill the screw holes to avoid it from splitting. I scored these two key like hand drills (about €2,50 each, another bargain). They are perfect for the task and I love their shape and simplicity.


text:
'Willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.' 2 Corinthians 5:8
Suggested Further Reading: Hebrews 11:8–16
You are a child: he is not a loving child that does not wish to see his father's face. How some of us used to long for the holidays! We used to make a little almanac, and put down the days, and mark them off one by one. Six weeks before the time we would begin to count how many days there were, and every morning we would say there was one day the less before we went home. Either he is a bad child, or he has got a bad father, that does not want to go home. Now, we have got a good and blessed Father, and I hope he has made us his true children, and we want to see his face; we long for the time when we shall no longer be under tutors and governors, but shall come home to enjoy the inheritance. Brethren, we are also labourers. It would be a strange thing if the labourer did not wish to achieve the end of his toils. It would indeed be a strange thing if, industrious though he be, he did not prefer the end of his toils to the beginning. It would be contrary to nature, and I think contrary to grace, if the husbandman did not long for the harvest, and if he that toils did not desire to receive the reward. We are not only labourers, brethren, but mariners—mariners that are often tempest-tossed; the sails are rent to ribbons; the timbers are creaking; the ship drives along before the blast—who does not want to get into port? Which man among you does not desire to say, 'See, the harbour is near; lo, the red lights'? Who among you would not wish to cast anchor now, and say, 'I have passed the floods, and now I am come to my desired haven'? Brethren, we are not only mariners but pilgrims—pilgrims of the weary foot, having here no continuing city. Who does not want to get to his home?
For meditation: As God's children Christians can look forward to heaven as the place to enjoy their Father's perfect company (John 17:24; 1 John 3:1–2); as God's servants, they can anticipate their Master's rewards for their labours (Ephesians 6:5–9; Revelation 14:13).
Sermon no. 413
11 August (1861)


text:
Brainiacs will gather in Las Vegas next month for the Trivia Championships of North America, and here's a twist: Scouts from two TV networks will be on the prowl for potential game show contestants.
The third annual championships at the Tropicana Aug. 9-11 will pit whiz kids against one another in a variety of contests, such as "drink while you think" pub quizzes and Knodgeball, a patented blend of knowledge and dodgeball.
How would you do in such a challenge? Here's a representative question, provided by Quizzing North America, the contest organizer:
"Emma Lazarus was born on this day (July 22) 164 years ago. Her most famous poem, 'The New Colossus,' is most famously inscribed on a plaque that sits where?" (See below for answer.)
Casting teams from NBC's "Million Second Quiz" and GSN's "The Chase" will be seeking people with the right mix of brains and spunk for future TV appearances.
Past winners from "Jeopardy!" and "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" will be taking part in various contests throughout the weekend.
Registration costs $169 until July 25 and $229 thereafter. The price includes entrance to all events, lunches on Friday and Saturday and reduced room rates at the Tropicana.
So here's the answer to whether you could compete successfully: If you answered "At the base of the Statue of Liberty," you could be a contender.
Follow us on Twitter @latimestravel and like us on Facebook


text:
Judicial Externship is a 4-credit hour non-graded program
open to students in their second and third year who
are interested in externing for a federal appellate, district,
or magistrate judge or an Illinois appellate court judge.
A judicial externship enables a student to become involved
in particular legal problems through research and drafting
opinions. Depending upon the judge, an extern may have the
opportunity to observe the day-to-day routine of a judge
and discuss with the judge and the judge's law clerk those
legal problems which attorneys face in their profession,
and the specific problems which attorneys confront in their
courtroom. Take advantage of this prestigious learning opportunity
while enhancing your marketability in the legal world!
Application Process
The applications for Spring 2005 Judicial Externships
are available both in the Law Offices Reception Area
(Room 600) and in the Career Services Offices.
Completed applications should be submitted to Ms.
Carole Ross, Secretary to Professor Gross, Room 612, Law
Offices, by Monday, October 11, 2004, at 5:00 p.m.
If you have any questions about the program or the application
process, contact Prof. V. Gross in Room 617. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
The Coordinated Advice and Referral Program for Legal Services
(CARPLS) and Chicago-Kent College of Law have created a
legal aid hotline clinical program at the Law School for
Chicago-Kent students starting in the spring 2004 semester.
The 2 credit clinical program will be open to a maximum
of 5 second and third year students, with preference being
given to evening-division students. Students need not be
"711" licensed. The class will generally meet
on Wednesday evenings from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. The participating
students will talk to CARPLS clients who call the CARPLS
Hotline seeking legal advice in the areas of landlord-tenant
and family law. The students will be supervised by an experienced
CARPLS attorney.
Student interns in the IP-Patent Clinic will assist faculty
and students at the Illinois Institute of Technology, the
University of Illinois at Chicago, and other tech transfer
or school related companies or institutions on selected
"real-life" patent related matters. The student
interns will work with and be supervised by the newly-appointed
adjunct clinical faculty who are patent lawyers at Bell,
Boyd, and Lloyd in providing patentability opinions, performing
clearance searches, and guiding clients through the range
of intellectual property legal issues that typically face
start-up inventors and companies. In addition, the student
interns will make presentations to Illinois Institute of
Technology faculty and students on patent issues in an attempt
to educate and market the IP-Patent Clinic to the faculty
and students.
Prerequisites: Prior completion of Patent Law required.
Because the IP-Patent Clinic experience will involve working
with technology, it is very strongly recommended that students
possess a technical background, and preference will be given
those students in selecting clinic interns.
The IP-Patent Clinic is a three-credit course that will
be offered in the fall and spring semesters, and it is anticipated
that between 3-5 students will participate each semester.
Chicago-Kent College of Law offers a clinical
program in family law. The family law clinic operates
on a sliding scale fee basis, depending on the financial
circumstances of the parties. The clinic represents clients
in matters limited to cases to be brought before the Cook
County Circuit Court. Client referrals are actively sought
from the practicing bar, labor unions, employee groups,
and educational institutions.
In addition, the clinical program provides
a teaching platform for Chicago-Kent students who are
interested in practicing in the area of family law. All
student work is completed under the direct supervision
of an attorney.
Attorney Ira C. Feldman has been named
to oversee the new program. Prior to his appointment,
Feldman was a partner at the law firm of Wildman, Harrold,
Allen and Dixon. From 1981 to 1991, he was a partner at
Naumark, Bonner and Feldman. Between 1975 and 1981, he
headed Feldman and Associates. Feldman completed his undergraduate
at American University and earned his law degree at the
university's Washington College of Law.
"Professor Feldman is a highly regarded and experienced
practitioner of family law. He will expand the services
of the Chicago-Kent Law Offices to include representation
in matters of legal separation, divorce, child support,
child custody, visitation, guardianships and other related
matters," said Professor Gary S. Laser director of clinical
For information on the Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic,
please visit the website:
For information on the Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic,
please visit the website:
Chicago-Kent Law Offices was established
in 1976. The program is a fee-generating teaching law
firm that provides clinical practice experiences under
the close supervision of teaching attorneys. The program
delivers outstanding legal services to its clients and
provides high-quality clinical education to more than
150 students each semester. Practice areas include employment
discrimination and civil rights, general practice, criminal
defense, health law, alternative dispute resolution, tax
law, and an advice desk program at the Daley Center.
For a complete description of all clinical programs, please
visit the Law Offices' Home Page at www.kentlaw.edu/academics/clinic.
Main Chicago-Kent event
Academic calendar
CLE calendar
Alumnae/i event calendar
Admissions calendar


text:
Flower 3D Model (3ds,Gsm,Max) - Free Download
Free Flower 3D Model ID6292 for Free Download in (.gsm & .3ds & .max) Zip Files. Freebies 3dsMax Models of Flower, Plant, House Plant 3D Objects, 3D Models download free for your 3D Visualization & 3D Printing.
Added by:
File format:3ds, Gsm, Max
File size 2.7 MiB, 429 hits:
Free Personal Use (Contact author for Commercial)
File Popular: 408 views
3dsMax, Maya, Sketchup, ArchiCad...
Added day:
October 1st, 2014
Category:Plants & Trees
Tag:flower house plant plant


text:
U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
Meeting of May 8, 2013 - Wellness Programs Under Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Laws
Chair Berrien and Commissioners, my name is Judith Lichtman, and I am Senior Advisor for the National Partnership for Women & Families. We are pleased that the Commission has convened this public meeting and appreciate the opportunity to offer recommendations to promote nondiscrimination in employer wellness programs.
The National Partnership is a non-profit, nonpartisan advocacy organization with more than 40 years of experience promoting fairness in the workplace, access to quality health care and policies that help women and men meet the competing demands of work and family. Since our creation as the Women's Legal Defense Fund in 1971, we have fought for every significant advance for equal opportunity in the workplace, and we continue to advocate for meaningful safeguards that prevent discrimination against women and families.
The National Partnership represents women and families across the country. As health care purchasers, consumers and decision makers for themselves and their families, women are keenly interested in wellness and prevention of illness. Comprehensive, participatory employer wellness programs - if designed and implemented properly - can potentially offer women and their families an avenue for improving and maintaining their health, and lower costs for the employer.1 Health promotion activities such as allowing flex-time for walking or other physical activity, offering healthy lifestyle education classes and other workplace initiatives can encourage women to engage in valuable wellness activities. A well-designed, voluntary wellness program should be individually tailored and focused on the health and well-being of each employee. Employers should take into account personal circumstances, including family caregiving responsibilities or multiple jobs that may make it difficult for employees, particularly women, to participate in wellness programs that take place outside of normal work hours. Employers should look to accredited wellness programs as guides. These programs offer true benefits that can help women achieve their wellness goals by providing activities at a time and location that fits the time constraints associated with their obligations at home and in the workplace. While we see the benefits of "participatory" wellness programs that seek to improve employee health across the board, our comments focus on concerns with so-called "contingent" or punitive wellness programs that operate to shift costs to employees and have not been proven scientifically to promote improved health.
We are troubled by the fact that increasingly, many employers are instituting punitive wellness programs that are at cross-purposes with improving their employees' health.2 Additionally, some of the wellness programs that are of particular concern link financial rewards or penalties to certain biometric markers, such as Body Mass Index (BMI). Under these punitive wellness programs, if an employee elects not to be assessed for these biometric markers, does not meet the employer's chosen benchmarks, or cannot successfully lower her biometric marker to her employer's satisfaction, she can be penalized with higher health insurance premiums, or she may not be able to qualify for financial rewards.
There is scant evidence showing that punitive programs tying health insurance premiums to health outcomes actually improve employee health. Simply put, there is no reason to believe that an unhealthy employee who participates in a punitive wellness program will emerge healthier.3 As detailed below, some wellness programs require all employees to meet the same biometric benchmarks - a one-size-fits-all approach that does not address individual employees' life circumstances and wellness needs, particularly because biometrics are not always adequate measures of health. Such programs enable employers to reduce their health care costs under the guise of a wellness program, by merely shifting those costs to employees that they deem to be most unhealthy. This practice is akin to medical underwriting, the practice of determining an employee's health insurance premium on the basis of certain health information.4 Employers must not be permitted to utilize employer wellness programs as a subterfuge for discriminatory cost-shifting that decreases affordability and access to health insurance for those who need it most.
Punitive wellness programs implicate employment nondiscrimination statutes if they disproportionately penalize women, racial minorities, older workers and other protected classes. Wellness programs that impose punitive measures, or grant so-called "rewards" in the form of lower insurance premiums to some employees but not to others, could run afoul of anti-discrimination laws if they have a disparate impact on members of a protected group, as discussed more fully below. Women, racial minorities and older workers are more likely to pay increased costs associated with punitive wellness programs, because these groups are more likely to experience significant health disparities and are particularly vulnerable to chronic illnesses, and will therefore face greater difficulty satisfying employer-defined benchmarks.5 Punitive programs that impose fees or withhold financial rewards for failing to meet certain health benchmarks would be expected to disproportionately impact groups protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,6 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)7 and the Equal Pay Act,8 among other laws. These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, race, national origin, age and other protected categories.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Wellness programs that impose disproportionate penalties or disproportionately deny rewards on the basis of sex, race or national origin may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.9 Title VII prohibits discrimination with respect to "compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment."10 An employer may violate Title VII by treating members of a protected class differently than others (i.e., disparate treatment discrimination).11 In order to state a disparate treatment claim, the plaintiff must show that the employer treats some people less favorably than others on the basis of plaintiff's membership in a protected group.12 Critical to a disparate treatment claim is the employer's discriminatory motive, although this motive can be inferred in some circumstances.13
An employer may also violate Title VII by utilizing a facially neutral employment practice if it has an adverse impact upon persons of protected group (i.e., disparate impact discrimination).14 In order to state a prima facie disparate impact claim, the plaintiff must point to a specific policy or practice that has an adverse impact on the basis of race, sex, or other protected characteristics.15 The Supreme Court, in a case addressing an employer's unequal provision of health insurance coverage, held that "health insurance and other fringe benefits are compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" under Title VII.16 Charging increased fees or denying rewards for failure to meet certain biometrics are practices that could be subject to a disparate impact challenge under the Title VII framework.
For the purposes of an adverse action under a Title VII framework, financial rewards and penalties can operate as flip sides of the same coin. A wellness program that offers a "reward" to those who meet certain benchmarks may constitute an adverse action for those who do not qualify for the reward, just in the same way that a penalty may constitute an adverse action for those who are required to pay a higher cost. Although the language of the wellness program might refer to a "penalty" or "reward," the effect is the same: to shift the employer's health insurance costs disproportionately to protected groups.
Some wellness programs offer voluntary activities and benefits for all employees, such as flex-time for exercise or reduced cost gym memberships, geared towards encouraging employees to improve and maintain their health. But punitive wellness programs that tie rewards or fees to health benchmarks would be expected to have an adverse impact on women and racial minorities, because women and racial minorities are more likely to experience the most serious health disparities. For example, women are more likely than men to have medical conditions such as obesity17 and arthritis.18 Racial minorities are more likely to face heart disease,19 obesity20 or diabetes.21 Over one-third of African-American women over age 45 report fair or poor health, and almost 30 percent have diabetes.22 African-American women also suffer from the greatest obesity rates.23 African-Americans have the highest mortality rate of any racial and ethnic group for all cancers combined.24 They are twice as likely to be diagnosed with diabetes compared to non-Hispanic whites,25 and also 40% more likely to have high blood pressure.26 Hispanic adults are 1.7 times more likely than non-Hispanic white adults to have been diagnosed with diabetes,27 and twice as likely to have certain types of cancer compared to non-Hispanic white Americans.28 Even when income, health insurance and access to care are accounted for, disparities remain.29 While well-designed, nondiscriminatory wellness programs that seek to combat these conditions and improve employees' health may be a worthy endeavor, wellness programs that merely seek to shift costs depending on health benchmarks may run afoul of the law.
Employers would likely encounter difficulty in attempting to justify a wellness program that disparately impacts a protected group. If a plaintiff is able to show that the employer's wellness program adversely impacts a protected group, the employer must demonstrate that the policy is "consistent with business necessity."30 The employer must show that the program is "necessary to the safe and efficient operation of the business"31 and "of great importance to job performance."32 Proof of "mere rationality" is not enough.33 The policy is not a business necessity "if an alternative practice better effectuates its intended purpose or is equally effective but less discriminatory."34
Although issues of economy can be considered, courts have concluded that cost savings alone cannot justify a policy or practice that results in a disparate impact.35 The employer would likely encounter difficulty demonstrating that any cost savings associated with wellness programs are "necessary to the safe and efficient operation of the business,"36 particularly when there is scant evidence establishing that wellness programs have resulted in measurably improved health outcomes for employees.37 Although reducing health care costs is arguably a factor a court might consider, the employer would most likely need to show that there was no other solution to lowering costs that did not result in a disparate impact. Linking financial rewards to biometrics that may not correlate to underlying health and adopting wellness programs that disproportionately harm members of a protected group runs contrary to the spirit and the letter of Title VII.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Wellness programs that disproportionately impose penalties or deny rewards to older workers may violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The ADEA prohibits discrimination against persons over the age of 40.38 In pertinent part, the ADEA makes it illegal for an employer to "… discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age."39 The statute specifically prohibits "the reduction of the rate of an employee's benefit accrual, because of age."40 An increase to a health insurance premium could constitute an adverse action under the ADEA, and an employer cannot discriminate against older workers in the provision of that benefit.
As under Title VII, an ADEA plaintiff may proceed under a theory of disparate treatment or disparate impact.41 If the plaintiff has evidence that the employer intended to discriminate against older workers through a wellness program, the plaintiff may proceed with a claim of disparate treatment. An employer may also violate the ADEA by utilizing a facially neutral employment policy or practice that has an adverse impact on older workers. When an employee identifies an employment practice that causes a disparate impact,42 the employer must show that a "reasonable factor other than age" motivated the policy.43 Under the ADEA's implementing regulations, a "reasonable factor other than age" is a non-age factor that is "objectively reasonable when viewed from the position of a prudent employer mindful of its responsibilities under the ADEA..."44 Factors a court could consider when determining whether the policy is reasonable include: the extent to which the factor is "related to the employer's business purpose," whether the factor was administered "fairly and accurately" and whether the employer considered the impact on older workers and the extent of the harm suffered.45
A wellness program may violate the ADEA if it has a disparate impact on older employees, who are more likely to suffer from a range of chronic conditions (some, if not all of which also would qualify as disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 199046 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,47 both as amended). Studies have shown that obesity,48 hypertension,49 high cholesterol50 and low bone density, 51 as well as more serious conditions such as diabetes,52 heart disease53 and arthritis54 are strongly correlated with age. Obesity is far more prevalent among the elderly than the general population.55 Almost 75% of individuals aged 65 and over have at least one chronic illness,56 and at least 50% have two chronic illnesses.57 Thus wellness programs that penalize employees for failing to satisfy certain biometric benchmarks might be expected to disproportionately impact older workers.
As detailed below,58 there is little reliable evidence that punitive wellness programs do more than shift costs to employees. Thus, a court could find that there is insufficient evidence to establish a defense to a disparate impact claim. Indeed, the factors laid out in the EEOC's regulations weigh against these programs.59 There is little evidence that a wellness program is "related to the employer's business purpose."60 Punitive wellness programs that penalize older workers whether directly, or indirectly through unattainable employee incentives, would be unlikely to be deemed to be administered "fairly and accurately."61 Under the last factor - harm to the employee - it is clear that if a wellness program imposes a financial penalty, this can significantly reduce an employee's earnings.62 As such, the ADEA protects against wellness programs that disproportionately penalize older workers.
The ADEA prohibits employers that offer health care benefits to their employees from discriminating against older workers by refusing to cover them or by reducing their benefits because of their age. However, an employer may be permitted under the ADEA to reduce benefits of older workers as long as the same amount of money is spent on older workers as is spent on younger workers.63 Yet there are several ways that a wellness program might not be sheltered by this defense provided by the ADEA. First, the exception is only available to employers when "justified by significant cost consideration."64 Second, in the context of a contributory health plan, wherein the employer and employee both contribute to the cost of the premium, the employer may increase the employee's premium contribution as the employee ages, but the proportion that the employee pays cannot be higher than the proportion paid by younger employees.65 Thus, an employer would run afoul of the ADEA if the proportion of older workers' contributions increases as a result of financial penalties or increased premiums associated with wellness programs.
The Equal Pay Act
Wellness plans that impose financial penalties can also run afoul of the Equal Pay Act, which requires that women and men are compensated equally for equal work.66 The Department of Labor's regulations implementing the Equal Pay Act make clear that equal wages include fringe benefits.67 The EEOC also has recognized that the Equal Pay Act requires equal compensation for not only salaries and bonuses, but also employment benefits.68 Indeed, courts have awarded lost benefits in Equal Pay Act cases.69 Thus, an employer wellness program could run afoul of the Equal Pay Act if it penalizes employees by granting different benefit levels to women and men with the same or similar work duties.
There is no authoritative research demonstrating that providing financial rewards or imposing penalties to health outcomes causes workers to adopt healthier behavior.
In general, data supporting wellness programs is lacking. Indeed, in the November 29, 2012 proposed rule on incentives for nondiscriminatory wellness programs in group plans, the Departments of Treasury, Health and Human Services and Labor acknowledge that "insufficient broad-based evidence makes it difficult to definitively assess the impact of workplace wellness on health outcomes and cost."70
There is little data supporting punitive wellness programs that try to change employee behavior by raising insurance premiums or tying rewards to health outcomes. There is scant - if any - empirical evidence that monetary rewards can result in sustained weight loss.71 Crucially, there is no independently evaluated research demonstrating that linking the cost of employer-sponsored insurance to certain biometrics has an impact on health outcomes.72
Moreover, requiring all employees to meet biometric markers such as BMI, blood pressure and cholesterol is not reasonably related to improving employees' health, particularly when the same standards are applied indiscriminately to all employees. Biometric markers are overwhelmingly common in wellness programs generally. According to a recent survey, 90 percent of companies that have outcomes-based wellness programs use a weight-related standard and 75 percent use blood pressure, cholesterol and tobacco use.73 Yet these biometrics are influenced by a range of genetic and environmental determinants that do not affect all employees equally and are largely out of an individual's control.74 BMI, in particular, is not an accurate assessment of health, as it is designed as a measure of public health risk, not as a marker for individual goals.75 Penalizing all individuals with a BMI or body weight over a certain number ignores the science that shows that many individuals who are not overweight nevertheless have a high BMI, and, conversely, that many overweight people are in good health and have blood pressure and cholesterol within the healthy range.76 In addition, whether because of genetic or environmental factors, some chronic conditions do not significantly improve over time. For example, there is extensive scientific evidence indicating that employers cannot expect their employees to lose large amounts of weight and maintain significant weight loss over time, even with intensive treatment options.77 There is also strong scientific research showing that individuals can improve their health by taking small steps towards weight loss.78 Yet an employee who took such a step - for instance, lowering her BMI from 35 to 32, where the employer's benchmark is set at 30 - would not escape a penalty under a punitive wellness program when there is one BMI benchmark required for all employees.
Some employers follow best practices by adopting wellness programs that have been accredited by organizations that apply evidence-based standards to assess the program and its implementation.79 But, as described below, many employers instead adopt wellness programs that apply overly broad, punitive standards that may disadvantage those in protected groups.
Notwithstanding the lack of evidence to demonstrate their efficacy, many employers have already implemented, or plan to implement, wellness programs that penalize employees who do not meet health criteria set by the employer. Employers are increasingly relying on punitive wellness programs to control the cost of health benefits.80 A 2010 survey by Hewitt of nearly 600 large U.S. employers (representing more than 10 million employees) found that nearly one-half (47 percent) already use or plan to use financial penalties over the next three to five years for employees. Of those companies using or planning to use penalties, the majority (81 percent) say they will do so through higher benefit premiums. Increasing deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses were also cited as possible penalties.81 Interest in punitive wellness programs is on the rise. In Hewitt's most recent survey, published in March 2013, 58 percent of employers surveyed plan to impose consequences on participants who do not take appropriate actions for improving their health.82
Some punitive wellness programs charge employees higher health insurance premiums simply for failing to reach certain benchmarks. Safeway's "Healthy Measures" program, for example, tests participating employees' tobacco use, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.83 Employees who fail these tests pay $780 more for annual individual coverage and $1,560 more for annual family coverage than employees who pass the tests.84
Many punitive wellness programs penalize employees whether or not they choose to participate in the programs. Scotts Miracle-Gro has implemented a program that imposes penalties for failure to participate in some aspects of the program.85 Scotts' wellness program offers a health-risk appraisal called "Health Quotient."86 Employees who choose not to participate pay a $40 per month insurance premium surcharge.87 If an employee takes the appraisal and is in the mid- to high-tier range of risk levels, she can opt to consult a health coach and take steps to lower risks.88 However, if the employee does not take further action, she will pay a $67 insurance premium surcharge - or penalty - per month.89 Scotts' policy is a double-edged sword - if employees choose not to be evaluated, they incur a penalty, but agreeing to undergo the evaluation can come with even greater costs.
Several states penalize employees if their BMI - one of the most popular biometrics used by employers to measure health90 and obesity91 - exceeds a certain threshold. The state of Alabama has imposed financial penalties on its employees who have a BMI over 30,92 and the state of North Carolina has denied its employees access to better health insurance options if an individual's BMI is above a certain measure.93
Because women, racial minorities and older workers tend to be less likely to meet rigid health benchmarks, they are more likely to have to pay increased costs when financial penalties or rewards are associated with those benchmarks. As such, punitive wellness programs can run afoul of equal employment opportunity laws.
Employer Wellness Programs Must Comply with Additional Federal Laws.
Although outside the scope of what we have been asked to address in our testimony, employer wellness programs implicate a number of additional federal statutes including, but not limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Additional provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act require insurance companies to cover all applicants and offer the same rates regardless of pre-existing conditions or sex.111 The law prohibits gender rating,112 a process by which insurers consider gender when setting premium rates in the individual health insurance market, and as a result, women are often charged more than men for the exact same coverage.113 The law also limits medical underwriting.114 Allowing employer wellness programs to raise costs for protected groups contravenes the purpose of these provisions, which endeavor to ensure equal and affordable access to everyone, regardless of sex, pre-existing condition, or other status. Employer wellness programs should not operate as a backdoor to permit such practices or a subterfuge for unlawful discrimination.
Employers must ensure that their wellness programs comply with the legal obligations set out in each of these statutes.
We urge the EEOC to (1) issue guidance; (2) engage in outreach to educate workers about their legal rights, to inform employers about their legal obligations; (3) enforce anti-discrimination protections when employer wellness programs operate as a subterfuge for unlawful discrimination; and (4) work closely with other agencies to ensure that statutory protections against employment discrimination are properly considered in the development of federal policy.
First, the Commission should issue thorough and specific guidance. In 2000, the Commission released enforcement guidance regarding discrimination in employee benefits. That guidance states, in pertinent part, that employers cannot rely on the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) or the Internal Revenue Code to defend a benefit plan with age-based disparities.115 The guidance also addresses disparate impact in employee benefits, confirming that an employer's facially neutral employment benefits policy that nonetheless disproportionately affects employees on the basis of a protected classification can violate Title VII.116
The Commission should build upon the 2000 guidance to provide thorough and specific guidance regarding employer wellness programs. This guidance should explain the implications of anti-discrimination laws and describe the types of wellness programs that would run afoul of those laws, applying the legal framework to various forms of wellness programs. The guidance should explain how the analysis of wellness programs fits into traditional disparate treatment and disparate impact frameworks under the Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc. The guidance should make clear that differences in an employer's provision of benefits, including health insurance premiums, can constitute an adverse action and establish a cause of action. The guidance should also provide best practices for employer wellness programs. Examples of model employer wellness programs could include programs that do not disproportionately raise costs for protected groups; voluntary programs that do not impose financial penalties for failure to meet certain metrics or require employees to attend events or programming before or after work hours; programs that are supported by concrete evidence that they actually promote wellness for most employees rather than simply shifting costs to the employee; and programs that offer reasonable alternatives for workers that may not benefit from a one-size-fits-all approach.
Second, the Commission should engage in outreach and education to ensure that employer wellness programs comply with nondiscrimination laws. Such outreach and education is crucial to preventing unlawful discrimination and ensuring that workers can exercise their rights under the law. Employers should consider whether their wellness program would be expected to disproportionately harm women, racial minorities, older workers or workers with disabilities. The health and individual circumstances of employees should be of primary concern. Employers should consider whether an employee has family caregiving responsibilities or multiple jobs that might make it nearly impossible for employees to participate in wellness activities that take place outside normal work hours. Employers should be incentivized to implement accredited wellness programs that have been approved by national research organizations.
Third, the Commission should enforce the law to challenge discriminatory wellness programs. The EEOC should develop systemic and impact litigation to protect the most vulnerable workers, including low-wage workers who would be impacted by cost-shifting measures that penalize protected groups. Increased insurance costs can be particularly detrimental for workers in low-wage jobs and their families. To develop these cases, investigators and litigators should be trained to identify red-flags. In addition to penalizing programs that raise premiums for vulnerable employees, investigators must also pay particular attention to programs that purportedly offer "rewards" to participating employees, yet result in fewer employees participating in the employer-provided health insurance. In these cases, as premiums increase, employees who receive "rewards" can be better able to utilize the employer's health benefits, while those who do not participate in wellness programs may no longer be able to afford health insurance.
Fourth, the Commission should work closely with other federal agencies by providing advice and technical assistance to ensure nondiscrimination in the implementation and regulation of employer wellness programs.
Punitive wellness programs can run afoul of antidiscrimination laws by imposing costs or withholding rewards from protected groups. Women, racial minorities and older workers are more likely to experience significant health disparities and are particularly vulnerable to chronic illnesses. The need for access to quality, affordable health care is imperative to those with chronic illnesses. Employers should not shift costs disproportionately to these groups, particularly in light of the lack of evidence that punitive wellness programs actually improve employee wellness or decrease overall health care costs. Employer wellness programs should not operate as a subterfuge for discriminatory cost shifting that decreases affordability and access to health insurance for those who need it most.
Through guidance, outreach, education, enforcement, technical assistance and advice to other federal agencies, the EEOC has an opportunity to ensure that employers comply with nondiscrimination laws and follow best practices in the design and implementation of wellness programs. With proper oversight by the Commission, wellness programs can truly help employees achieve meaningful improvements in health outcomes without running afoul of equal employment opportunity laws.
Again, thank you for convening this meeting and providing an opportunity to share our insights and ideas. We look forward to continuing to work with the Administration to ensure nondiscrimination in employer wellness programs.
1 Mercedes Carnethon, et al., Worksite wellness programs for cardiovascular disease prevention: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. American Heart Association Advocacy Coordinating Committee; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease; and Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism (2009).
2 Michelle M. Mello, et al., Wellness Programs and Lifestyle Discrimination - The Legal Limits, 359 N. Engl. J. Med. 192-199 (2008); Susan Okie, The Employer as Health Coach, 357 N. Engl. J. Med. 1465-9 (2007).
4 Nat'l Women's Law Center, Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women 7 (2008), http://action.nwlc.org/site/DocServer/NowhereToTurn.pdf.
5 Alina Salganicoff, et al., Women and Health Care: A National Profile, Kaiser Family Foundation (July 2005), http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/Women-and-Health-Care-A-National-Profile-Key-Findings-from-the-Kaiser-Women-s-Health-Survey.pdf; Leandris C. Liburd, Looking Through a Glass, Darkly: Eliminating Health Disparities, 3 Preventing Chronic Disease (July 2006), available at: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/jul/pdf/05_0209.pdf.
6 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006).
10 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
11 See, e.g., Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711 (1978) (holding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that an employer charged all female employees higher retirement fund premiums than it charged to males).
13 Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335 n. 15 (1977).
14 See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429-33 (1971).
15 Id. at 432 (explaining that the complainant must show that an employer has a "particular employment practice" that causes a disparate impact).
16 Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. E.E.O.C., 462 U.S. 669, 682 (1983).
17 Cynthia L. Ogden et al., Nat'l Center for Health Statistics, Obesity Among Adults in the United States - No Statistically Significant Change Since 2003-2004 1 (2007), available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db01.pdf.
18 Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Prevalence of Doctor-Diagnosed Arthritis and Arthritis-Attributable Activity Limitation - United States, 2007-2009 (Oct. 8, 2010), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5939a1.htm?s_cid=mm5939a1_w.
19 Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Prevalence of Heart Disease - United States, 2005, Table 1 (Feb. 16, 2007), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5606a2.htm.
20 Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Differences in Prevalence of Obesity Among Black, White, and Hispanic Adults - United States, 2006-2008 (July 17, 2009), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5827a2.htm.
21 Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, Age-Adjusted Incidence of Diagnosed Diabetes per 1,000 Population Aged 18-79 Years, by Race/Ethnicity, United States, 1997-2009, http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/incidence/fig6.htm (last visited April 23, 2013).
22 See Salganicoff, et al., supra note 5.
24 U.S. Dep't Health & Human Services, Office of Minority Health, Cancer and African Americans, http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?lvl=2&lvlID=51&ID=2826 (last accessed April 28, 2013).
25 U.S. Dep't Health & Human Services, Office of Minority Health, Diabetes and African Americans, http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?lvl=2&lvlID=51&ID=3017 (last accessed April 28, 2013).
26 U.S. Dep't Health & Human Services, Office of Minority Health, Heart Disease and African Americans, http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?lvl=2&lvlID=51&ID=3018 (last accessed April 28, 2013).
27 U.S. Dep't Health & Human Services, Office of Minority Health, Diabetes and Hispanic Americans, http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?lvl=2&lvlID=54&ID=3324 (last accessed April 28, 2013
28 U.S. Dep't Health & Human Services, Office of Minority Health, Cancer and Hispanic Americans, http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?lvl=2&lvlID=54&ID=3323 (last accessed April 28, 2013).
29 Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Health Disparities and Inequalities Report - United States, 2011, Summary, available at: http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/reports/CHDIR11/ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
30 Civil Rights Act of 1991 § 105(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i).
31 Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 623 n. 3 (2009) (citing Robinson v. Lorillard Corp., 444 F.2d 791, 798 (4th Cir. 1971)).
32 Williams v. Colorado Springs, Colo., Sch. Dist. No. 11, 641 F.2d 835, 841 (10th Cir. 1981).
33 Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 249 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 (1970).
34 Ricci, 557 U.S. at 635 (quoting Robinson, 444 F.2d at 798, n. 7).
35 Robinson, 444 F.2d 791, 799, n.8; U.S. v. N. L. Industries, Inc., 479 F.2d 354 (8th Cir. 1973); Johnson v. Pike Corp. of America, 332 F. Supp. 490 (C.D. Cal. 1971).
36 Ricci, 557 U.S. at 623 n. 3 (2009) (citing Robinson, 444 F.2d at 798 (4th Cir. 1971)).
40 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 623(i)(1)(A).
41 Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 240 (2005).
42 Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 554 U.S. 84, 100 (2008).
43 Id. at 93-98; 29 C.F.R. § 1625.7.
46 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 et seq.
48 Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Report: Vital Signs: State-Specific Obesity Prevalence Among Adults - United States, 2009 (Aug. 3, 2010), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm59e0803a1.htm.
49 Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, High Blood Pressure Facts, http://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm (last visited April 23, 2013).
50 Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, Cholesterol: Conditions, http://www.cdc.gov/cholesterol/conditions.htm (last visited April 23, 2013).
51 U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General, Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General, Ch. 4, Oct. 14, 2004, available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/bonehealth/ chapter_4.html.
52 U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services, Office of Women's Health, Diabetes Factsheet, http://womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/diabetes.cfm#d.
53 U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services, Nat'l Heart, Lung & Blood Inst., Who Is at Risk for Heart Disease?, http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/hdw/atrisk.html.
54 Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, Arthritis: The Nation's Most Common Cause of Disability, http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/arthritis.htm.
55 Ctr. for Disease Control and Prevention, Older Persons' Health, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/older_americans.htm (last visited April 23, 2013).
56 E. Calkins, et al. New Ways to Care for Older People: Building Systems Based on Evidence (1999).
57 L.P. Fried LP & J.M. Guralnik, Disability in older adults: evidence regarding significance, etiology, and risk, J. 45 Am. Geriatric Soc. 92-100 (1997).
63 29 U.S.C.A. § 623(f)(2)(b).
68 Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, Equal Pay/Compensation Discrimination, http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/equalcompensation.cfm (last visited April 23, 2013).
69 See, e.g., Meadows v. Ford Motor Co., 510 F.2d 939 (6th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 998 (1976); Grove v. Frostburg Nat. Bank, 549 F. Supp. 922, 946 (D. Md. 1982).
70 Incentives for Nondiscriminatory Wellness Programs in Group Health Plans, 77 Fed. Reg. 70627 (Nov. 26, 2012) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. 2590).
71 V. Paul-Ebhohimhen & A. Avenell, Systematic review of the use of financial incentives in treatments for obesity and overweight, 9 Obesity Reviews 355-67 (Oct. 23, 2007).
72 Kevin G. Volpp, David A. Asch, Robert Galvin & George Loewenstein, Redesigning Employee Health Incentives - Lessons from Behavioral Economics, 365 N. Engl. J. Med. 388-390 (Aug. 4, 2011).
73 Health Enhancement Research Org., et. al, Fact Sheet: Statistics About Workplace Wellness (July 2012), http://www.the-hero.org/learning_series/incentives_guidance/FS_wellness%20stats_FINAL_071512.pdf.
74 L. Perusse & C. Bouchard, Gene-diet interactions in obesity. Am. J. Clinical Nutrition; vol. 72 (5 Suppl.), pp. 1285S-1290S (2000).
75 Jon R. Gabel et al., Obesity and the Workplace: Current Programs and Attitudes Among Employers and Employees, 28 Health Affairs 46-56 (2009).
76 Antony D. Karelis, et al. Metabolic and body composition factors in subgroups of obesity: What do we know? J. 89 Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2569-2575 (June 2004); Neil Ruderman, et. al, The metabolically obese, normal weight individual revisited, 47 Diabetes 699-713 (1998); Adam Gilden Tsai & Thomas A. Wadden, Systematic review: An evaluation of major commercial weight loss programs in the United States, 142 Annals of Internal Medicine 56-66 (Jan. 4, 2005).
77 M.J. Franz, et al., Weight-loss outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of weight-loss clinical trials with a minimum 1-year follow-up. 107 J. Am. Dietetic Ass'n 1755-67 (2007); L.P. Svetkey, et al., Comparison of strategies for sustaining weight loss, 299 JAMA 1139-1148 (March 12, 2008).
78 Rena R. Wing & Suzanne Phelan, Long-term weight loss maintenance, 82 Am. J. Clinical Nutrition 222S-5S (2005); Thomas A. Wadden, et al., Efficacy of lifestyle modification for long-term weight control. 12 Obesity Research 151S-162S.11 (December 2004).
79 See, e.g., Nat'l Committee for Quality Assurance, Wellness & Health Promotion Accreditation, http://www.ncqa.org/Programs/Accreditation/WellnessHealthPromotionWHP.aspx
81 Bloomberg.com, Hewitt Survey Shows Growing Interest Among U.S. Employers to Penalize Workers for Unhealthy Behaviors (March 17, 2010), http://www.hewittassociates.com/Intl/NA/en-US/AboutHewitt/Newsroom/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?cid=8256.
82 Aon Hewitt Survey Highlights Important Role of Incentives in U.S. Employers' Efforts to Improve Workforce Health and Performance, Aon Hewitt, Mar 25, 2013, http://aon.mediaroom.com/2013-03-25-Aon-Hewitt-Survey-Highlights-Important-Role-of-Incentives-in-U-S-Employers-Efforts-to-Improve-Workforce-Health-and-Performance.
83 Steven A. Burd, How Safeway Is Cutting Health-Care Costs, Wall St. J., (June 12, 2009), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html.
85 Larry Hand, Employer health incentives: Employee wellness programs prod workers to adopt healthy lifestyles, Harvard School of Public Health Mag., (Winter 2009), available at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/winter09healthincentives.
90 Mike Stobbe, Dieting for dollars, Star Telegram, June 2, 2010, http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/01/2231875/dieting-fordollars-more-us-employees.html. As many as one-third of employers plan to implement financial incentive programs to encourage employees to reduce their BMI or other biometric markers of health. Id.
91 Obesity Action Coalition, Measuring Weight and Obesity, http://www.obesityaction.org/understanding-obesity/measuring-weight (last visited April 23, 2013).
92 Shari Roan, Alabama to place 'fat tax' on obese state employees, L.A. Times Blog, Aug. 25, 2008, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/08/alabama-places.html.
93 State of North Carolina Session Law 2009-16, Senate Bill 287, available at http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S287v8.pdf.
95 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(d); see also Watson v. City of Miami Beach, 177 F.3d 932, 935 (11th Cir. 1999); Tice v. Centre Area Transp. Authority, 247 F.3d 506, 514 n. 7 (3rd Cir. 2001).
96 Equal Employment Opportunities Comm'n, ADA Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations, http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/medfin5.pdf.
98 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000ff-1 to 2000ff-11.
101 29 C.F.R. § 1635.8(b)(2)(ii).
104 United States Dep't of Labor, Frequently Asked Questions: The HIPAA Nondiscrimination Requirements, http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_hipaa_ND.html (last accessed April 25, 2013).
110 Rene Bowser, The Affordable Care Act and Beyond: Opportunities for Advancing Health Equity and Social Justice, 10 Hastings Race & Poverty L. J. 69 (2013).
113 Nat'l Women's Law Center, Turning to Fairness: Insurance Discrimination Against Women Today and the Affordable Care Act 7 (March 2012), available at: http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/nwlc_2012_turningtofairness_report.pdf
114 42 U.S.C. §§ 300gg?4(a)?(b).
115 Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, Employment Compliance Manual, Chapter 3: Employment Benefits Section (October 3, 2000), http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/benefits.html.