text:
U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
Volume XIX, No. 2
Office of Federal Operations
Spring 2008
The Digest of EEO Law is a quarterly publication of EEOC's Office of Federal Operations (OFO)
Carlton M. Hadden, Director, OFO
Douglas A. Gallegos, Acting Director, OFO's Special Services Staff
Digest Staff
Editor: Arnold Rubin
Writers: Robyn Dupont, Gerard Thomson, Arnold Rubin, James Meiburge, Natalie Nelson
The Digest is now available online through EEOC's homepage at www.eeoc.gov.
(See also, "Findings on the Merits," and "Settlement Agreements, this issue. – Ed.)
Complainant's Retention of Out of Town Counsel Reasonable. The Commission found that complainant was entitled to an award of attorney's fees representing the hourly rate in the geographic area in which the attorney practiced. The agency failed to show that complainant's decision to retain an out of town counsel to represent her during the appeals stage of her complaint was unreasonable. In this case, the agency located only one local attorney who practiced employment law, and complainant submitted declarations showing that she unsuccessfully searched for a local attorney with the proper expertise to handle her case. Further, the issues on appeal were not fractionable, but related to the damages complainant endured and the various remedies needed to compensate her for the discrimination. Thus, complainant was due attorney's fees for all hours spent on pursuing the underlying appeal. Zula Moore v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120072439 (July 31, 2007).
(What follows is a review of selected nonpecuniary compensatory damages awards issued by the Commission this year for unlawful employment discrimination. See, also, "Findings on the Merits," this issue. – Ed.)
$130,000.00 Awarded for Termination Based on Disability. The Commission affirmed the EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ's) award of $130,000.00 in compensatory damages due to her discriminatory (disability) termination. According to the record, she began to cut herself, and was hospitalized for suicidal behavior. Complainant was forced to seek public assistance for food and housing because of financial problems precipitated by the discrimination, and felt shame and embarrassment. She also had to move to a remote location because it was all she could afford. Further, a friend described complainant, who had an active social life and hobbies prior to the termination, as a "hermit." Finally, the record supported a finding that complainant's pre-existing anxiety and depression were significantly exacerbated by the discrimination. Jo Fellows-Gilder v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070046 (January 31, 2008).
$130,000.00 Awarded for Race-based Harassment and Constructive Discharge. The Commission affirmed an AJ's award of $130,000.00 following a finding that complainant was subjected to race-based harassment and constructively discharged. Complainant experienced a serious deterioration of his relationship with his young children, and became withdrawn, moody, and depressed. He was hospitalized, considered suicide, subjected to electroshock treatment, and continued to take medication and saw a psychiatrist. Paul L. Terban v. Department of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 0720040117 (April 3, 2008).
$55,000.00 Awarded for Disability–based Harassment, as Commission Increases Agency Award of $5,000.00. The Commission increased to $55,000.00, from $5,000.00, an agency award for emotional harm suffered as a result of complainant's being subjected to a hostile work environment based on disability. Complainant submitted evidence of the emotional distress and resulting physical debilitation from stress caused by the agency's discriminatory harassment. The stress disrupted complainant's home life, brought on feelings of depression and loss of self-esteem, and worsened his psoriatic arthritis, impairing his physical independence. Michael A. Rainbolt v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120080503 (March 26, 2008).
$50,000.00 Awarded for Race-based Nonselection. The Commission affirmed an AJ's award of $50,000.00 for a race-based nonselection involving the position of a specified medical program director. The award was based upon two declarations from psychologists, as well as a statement from complainant's husband, a co-worker, and complainant herself that she suffered from depression, stress and anxiety. In addition, complainant, a nurse, suffered weight loss, crying, a strained marital relationship, social withdrawal, and an inability to sleep. Anesia Okezie v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070005 (March 19, 2008).
$50,000.00 Awarded for Hostile Environment Based on Race and National Origin. The Commission affirmed an AJ's award of $50,000.00 following a finding that complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment based on race and national origin. The record showed that complainant suffered emotional distress, depression, and anxiety, and complainant submitted medical evidence in support of his claim. Testimony of complainant's wife and co-workers further confirmed his condition. Marty Hern v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060012 (March 10, 2008).
$40,000.00 Awarded for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Regarding Medical Examinations and an Unsatisfactory Performance Rating. The Commission affirmed an AJ's award of $40,000.00, subsequent to a 2002 finding by EEOC of disability discrimination when the agency required complainant to submit to additional medical examinations after being declared fit for duty; and retaliation when he was issued an unsatisfactory performance rating. Complainant's physician and others testified that complainant's post traumatic stress disorder and depression were exacerbated by the discrimination. Steven F. Meeker v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120080625 (May 12, 2008), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080591 (July 16, 2008).
$15,000.00 Awarded for Discriminatory Denial of Hardship Transfer. Complainant was awarded $15,000.00 for distress suffered as a result of the discriminatory (multiple bases)denial of a hardship transfer. Complainant stated that he was greatly humiliated, and made to feel like less of a person. Adrian R. Mask, Sr. v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120080856 (June 6, 2008).
$8,000.00 Awarded as Commission Increases Agency Award from $2,500.00 for Failure to Provide Interpreter to Hearing-Impaired Employee. The Commission increased to $8,000.00 from $2,500.00 an agency award, following a finding that complainant was subjected to disability discrimination when the agency failed to accommodate complainant's hearing impairment by not providing him with a sign language interpreter or alternative means of participating in agency employee meetings. Complainant stated that he was frustrated and upset by the agency's failure to provide him a sign language interpreter on various occasions. Donley B. Bratsch v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0120071942 (August 22, 2007).
$1,500.00 Awarded for Disability-based Termination. Following the agency's finding that complainant was subjected to disability discrimination with regard to her termination, the agency conducted a supplement investigation into complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages. The agency subsequently awarded complainant $1,500.00. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the agency's award, noting that the medical documentation and testimonial evidence showed that much of the emotional distress complainant suffered was due to factors other than the discrimination. Cynthia S. Martinelli v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120072930 (March 7, 2008).
$1,000.00 Awarded for Denial of Reasonable Accommodation. The Commission awarded complainant $1,000.00 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages based upon evidence showing that the discriminatory denial of reasonable accommodation caused him to suffer mental anguish. Although complainant's mental health care provider indicated that his interpersonal relationships were affected, the health care provider did not explain the nature or duration of these problems. James N. Degnan v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120065106 (May 29, 2008).
(See by category, this issue.—Ed.)
Age Discrimination Found in Nonselection Case. The Commission found that complainant was subjected to age discrimination when he was not selected for a position with the agency. According to the record, complainant was one of four candidates interviewed for the position. The agency, however, chose a candidate under the age of 40. The selecting officials' notes indicated that they liked the selectee's energy, and that she was "young" and "flexible." In addition, they testified that she was "from the younger generation" and could "speak with the talk of new veterans." Complainant, on the other hand, was described as a "long term counselor" with a "solid background," who would "probably not fit our model." The Commission noted that the record was replete with references and stereotypes of age, and complainant's alleged inability to relate to newer veterans. Further, while the agency stated that it chose the selectee because of her outreach skills and ability to relate to recent veterans, the record showed that complainant and the selectee received almost identical scores in relation to interview questions addressing those areas. The Commission rejected the agency's assertion that it would have chosen one of the other candidates over complainant. The agency was ordered to offer complainant retroactive placement into the position in question, with back pay. Allen Bedynek-Stumm v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060054 (February 20, 2008).
--Under the Rehabilitation Act—
Impermissible Dissemination of Medical Information. The Commission found that the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act when complainant's supervisor disseminated information regarding his medical condition. According to the record, complainant's supervisor lectured him in front of co-workers about the dangers of smoking while having heart disease. The Commission found the dissemination of this information constituted a violation of the Rehabilitation Act since the medical condition or history of any employee must be treated as a confidential medical record. The agency was ordered to provide training for the supervisor in question, and investigate complainant's claim for compensatory damages. Danny L. Price v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0120070997 (May 22, 2008).
Unlawful Disability Related Inquiry. Complainant, who had previously been diagnosed with back pain, sciatica, and lumbar strain, submitted a note from his physician to his immediate supervisor asking that he be excused from work due to an examination for chronic lumbar problems, as well as diabetes, high blood pressure, and depression. Complainant was then told to clock out and go home because the note indicated he was seen for depression. The agency subsequently made several attempts to contact complainant's physician, and complainant remained off of work. After several months, complainant's physician submitted correspondence to the agency diagnosing complainant with adjustment disorder and depression, and the agency's medical director determined that complainant could return to work without limitations. Complainant, however, did not return to work, and later applied for disability retirement. In the interim, complainant filed an EEO complaint and requested a hearing. An AJ found a violation of the Rehabilitation Act when the agency made a disability-related inquiry and by not allowing complainant to return to work because the inquiry had not been responded to by his physician. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the AJ's finding of disability discrimination. The Commission noted that complainant's supervisor and the postmaster testified that they did not believe complainant's medical condition impaired his ability to perform the essential functions of his modified position, or posed a direct threat to the health and safety of complainant or any other employees. Instead, the agency made the inquiry solely because the word "depression" was used by complainant's physician. The agency was ordered to pay complainant all pay and benefits he would have received during the period he was not permitted to return to work. Rogelio A. Bernal v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0720080038 (June 17, 2008).
Reasonable Accommodation in the Appellate Process. The Commission issued an interim order requiring the agency to provide complainant, who was visually impaired, the hearings record on audio cassette or CD-ROM in order for her to prepare her brief in support of her appeal. Complainant sought a reasonable accommodation during the hearing process, and the AJ ordered the agency to provide the complaint file in an audible format. The Commission did not require the agency to reproduce complainant's exhibits, stating that it was not necessary to do so in order for complainant to produce an appellate brief. Carin C. Memmer v. Environmental Protection Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 0120071285 (July 27, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080151 (January 16, 2008).
Race Discrimination in Nonselection. Complainant, a Clinical Nurse, applied for the position of Instructional Systems Specialist. According to the record, the selectee would be responsible for planning and developing accredited nurse training, and was required to have completed various educational coursework. Of the sixteen applicants for the position, two were referred as qualified. Complainant was informed that she failed to document four of the additional five educational requirements for the position. On appeal, the Commission found that complainant was subjected to race (African-American) discrimination when she was not referred for the position. While the agency stated that the two candidates who were referred met four of the five additional requirements, the record showed that the candidates met only two to three of the criteria. Further, neither the complainant nor the two referred candidates submitted information with their applications to clarify the courses listed on their transcripts, and the agency official who reviewed the applications did not testify at the hearing to explain any discrepancies in the application screening process. Thus, the Commission concluded that the agency's articulated reason for the action was a pretext for race discrimination. The agency was ordered to offer complainant the position in question or a substantially equivalent position, with back pay. Jacqueline McCarroll v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070060 (February 12, 2008).
Race-based Harassment. The Commission found that the agency failed to take any corrective action when management harassed and undermined the supervisory management of complainant because of her race (African-American). Among other relief, complainant was awarded $62,795.00 in compensatory damages, and the agency was ordered to reassign the discriminating officials. Melene Richardson v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120070003 (May 22, 2008).
Sexual Harassment. The Commission found that complainant was subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor, including inappropriate touching, jokes, and innuendo. Further, after complainant complained about the supervisor's conduct to a co-worker, the co-worker informed a manager about the matter. The agency, however, failed to show that it took prompt and effective action to prevent or remedy the harassment. The agency was ordered to pay $15,000 in compensatory damages, based upon evidence that the supervisor's conduct caused complainant to dread going to work, feel sad, have disturbed sleep, and seek counseling. Jean Page-Sanchez v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050080 (June 12, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520070800 (September 7, 2007).
Sex Discrimination. The Commission found that complainant was subjected to sex (female) discrimination when she was issued a notice of removal for unsatisfactory attendance. According to the record, a comparative male employee had more severe and numerous absences and tardiness during the same period but was not disciplined. While complainant received progressive discipline, the agency treated her differently than the comparative male employee by imposing discipline for minor instances of tardiness in a much more aggressive manner. Further, when questioned about the disparity, the responsible official had difficulty responding. The agency was ordered to retroactively reinstate complainant, with benefits and back pay. Connie L. Bridgewater v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070028 (September 13, 2007).
National Origin Harassment. The Commission found that complainant was subjected to harassment because of his national origin (Filipino). Specifically, a co-worker addressed complainant using derogatory language and profanity. In addition, two supervisors treated complainant rudely and disrespectfully, and repeatedly gave him "documented discussions." The Commission noted that the evidence established that the harassment resulted in considerable mental distress to complainant. Further, the Commission found the agency liable for the conduct of the supervisors. In this case, complainant was ultimately removed from the agency. Further, while the agency was placed on notice of the harassment when complainant reported the incidents to upper-level management, the agency failed to show that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior. The agency was ordered to offer complainant reinstatement to his position, with back pay, and pay him $5,000.00 in compensatory damages. Romulo E. Arcinue v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 0520051034 (April 15, 2008).
Harassment Based on Race and National Origin. The Commission affirmed an AJ's finding that the agency discriminated against complainant on the bases of race (Native American) and national origin (Cherokee Nation) when it had knowledge of the harassment but failed to take prompt and corrective action to remedy and prevent the hostile work environment created by an agency customer. Among other relief, complainant was awarded $50,000.00 in compensatory damages and restoration of leave. Marty Hern v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060012 (March 10, 2008).
Termination Based on Race and Color. The Commission upheld an AJ's finding of race (African-American) and color (Black) discrimination when complainant was terminated from his position as a Part-Time Flexible Letter Carrier. Although complainant was a probationary employee, the record reflected that he worked at the same—or better—level as other full-time carriers. In part, the agency was ordered to offer complainant the position and calculate his back pay entitlement. Alonzo Artis v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070032 (February 4, 2008).
Race-based Harassment and Retaliation. The Commission found that complainant was subjected to racial (African-American) harassment and retaliation for reporting racial hostility based on numerous instances of race-based animosity. It was determined that the agency failed to take any corrective action to end co-worker harassment as no employees were disciplined, and managers never communicated that the behavior was not to be tolerated. The Commission also found that the agency retaliated by terminating complainant's training, an action which resulted in complainant's failure to become certified as an air traffic controller. The agency was ordered to offer complainant reinstatement with back pay, expunge relevant agency records, and provide training for responsible managers. Pamela Coopwood v. Department of Transportation (FAA) EEOC Appeal No. 0120054544 (July 10, 2007).
Hostile Work Environment based on Disability and Retaliation. The Commission found that complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment due to her disability and prior EEO activity, and constructively discharged. According to the record, complainant's first line supervisor gave her a strict schedule, ordered her to carry heavy boxes, accused her of lying and placed her on a performance improvement plan. Complainant had a five-pound lifting restriction due to injuries to her right arm. The AJ found that complainant's supervisor was not a credible witness, in that she was often unresponsive and not believable. The AJ concluded that the supervisor's actions were directly attributable to her desire to get rid of complainant because she believed complainant was not pulling her weight, and that a reasonable person would have found the working conditions to be intolerable. The agency was ordered to pay complainant $150,000.00 in compensatory damages, based upon evidence in the record, including statements from her daughter and a psychiatrist, that she suffered from depression and anxiety related to the discrimination. The agency was also ordered to appoint complainant to a Social Worker position with back pay. Karen Solomon v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070071 (March 3, 2008).
National Origin Discrimination and Reprisal Found in Reassignment. Following his reassignment, complainant filed a formal complainant alleging that he was subjected to national origin (Ghana) and reprisal discrimination with regard to that action. In addition, complainant stated that, although he was reassigned at the same pay level, the position involved higher-level duties. On appeal, the Commission found that complainant was subjected to discrimination as alleged. With regard to the reassignment, the Commission stated that the agency failed to provide any legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for that action. Complainant's file did not contain any documentation or notes as to the reason for the reassignment, and the named official stated only that he did not remember assigning complainant to a new unit. Further, while the agency asserted that the pay levels of managers are based upon the number of junior managers supervised, management officials provided contradictory information regarding this matter. The agency was ordered to retroactively reinstate complainant to his former position, with back pay at the higher level. Michael Opare-Addo v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120060802 (November 20, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080211 (May 30, 2008).
Hostile Work Environment Based on Race, National Origin. Color, and Prior EEO Activity. The Commission affirmed the Administrative Judge's finding that complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment based on race (African-American), national origin (African-American), color (black), and retaliation. Despite the fact that two years had passed since complainant's prior EEO activity, the record as a whole reflected a retaliatory motive against complainant. Specifically, the responsible official took a special interest in complainant after she accused him of creating a hostile work environment, and purposely stayed apprised of issues concerning complainant even after she left his supervision. Further, the official made it a point to be actively involved in the adverse actions cited in the complaint. The agency was ordered to purge complainant's records of a letter of warning and performance improvement plan reference, and pay complainant $50,000.00 in compensatory damages. Marilyn M. Howard v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060026 (May 2, 2008).
(See also article, this issue. –Ed.)
Retaliation Found in Agency's Sending Complainant Home for a Month. The Commission found that complainant was subjected to reprisal discrimination when she was sent home after working approximately four hours, and not allowed to return to work for one month. The Commission initially noted that, inasmuch as the agency's decision to send complainant home affected her compensation, she was subjected to an adverse employment action. Further, complainant requested an on-going accommodation, and was sent home after providing additional medical documentation, despite the agency having work within her restrictions. The Commission then found that the agency failed to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Neither complainant's supervisor nor the Manager timely responded to the Investigator's request for affidavits. While the supervisor ultimately submitted an affidavit, he indicated that complainant was able to perform the essential functions of her position with or without reasonable accommodation, and that he was not aware of having sent complainant home because of her disability. The agency was ordered to pay complainant back pay, and conduct a supplemental investigation with regard to compensatory damages. Robyn J. Thompson v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 0120063745 (March 12, 2008).
Retaliation in Nonselection. Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that he was subjected to reprisal when he was not selected for a Supervisory Realty Specialist position. According to the record, complainant testified at the EEO hearing of another employee, which also involved the named management official in complainant's case. While the agency asserted that the selectee was chosen because of his work experience and references, the record showed that complainant had more job-related experience, and supervisory training than the selectee, who did not have any supervisory experience. Further, during the hearing, the selecting official acknowledged that complainant's objective qualifications were superior to those of the selectee. Finally, there was no documentation in complainant's evaluations to support the selecting official's claim that complainant had poor people skills. The agency was ordered to pay complainant $10,000.00 in compensatory damages for stress and anxiety, as well as promote him to the Supervisory position. Norman E. Logan v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060093 (September 10, 2007).
Retaliation in Reprimand and Termination. The Commission found that complainant was subjected to reprisal discrimination when the agency reprimanded him and terminated his employment. Complainant raised the issue of race discrimination approximately two months previously, and the agency cited complainant's claims of racism in upholding the Letter of Reprimand. In addition, the Proposed Letter of Termination cited complainant's accusations of bigotry and racial motivations against his supervisor, and the agency again mentioned those reasons in upholding the termination. The record failed to show that the agency would have taken the same actions absent the discrimination. The agency was ordered to reinstate complainant, with back pay. The agency was also ordered to pay complainant $15,000.00 in compensatory damages, based upon evidence that complainant suffered emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of social life as a result of the discrimination. Theodore McGary v. Peace Corps, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060027 (March 7, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520070500 (September 21, 2007).
Hostile Environment Based on Retaliation. The Commission found that the agency discriminated against complainant when it subjected her to heightened scrutiny due to her prior EEO activity. The Commission initially rejected the agency's assertion that certain claims were untimely discrete acts. The Commission noted that complainant initially alleged that she was subjected to reprisal and a hostile environment, including being yelled at and criticized, and having the responsible official say derogatory things about her, and, as such, her claim was timely. The Commission then found that complainant was subjected to reprisal. While the agency articulated legitimate reasons for its actions, the Commission found that reprisal was a motivating factor. Specifically, the responsible official stated that complainant filed frivolous EEO claims, and boasted that he had successfully written a negative performance conduct letter after complainant had gotten a similar letter expunged through a prior EEO complaint. The record supported a finding that the responsible official would have taken the same actions even absent the discrimination. The agency was ordered to provide training to the responsible official, and consider disciplinary action. Deborah A. de Armas v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060085 (July 26, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520070873 (September 27, 2007).
EEOC Order to Reinstate Complainant was Independent of Back Pay Order. Following a finding that petitioner was subjected to retaliation when he was not selected for a position with the agency, the Commission ordered the agency to retroactively promote petitioner with back pay. Subsequently, petitioner asserted that the agency failed to comply with the Commission's order. Upon review, the Commission concurred with petitioner. Specifically, the Commission noted that while the agency initially offered to reinstate complainant, the agency later "nullified" the offer because the parties were unable to agree on the appropriate amount of back pay. The Commission, however, stated that the order to reinstate petitioner was clearly independent of the duty to resolve any issues arising from the back pay award. Further, petitioner was entitled to a back pay award representing the difference between his GS-12 salary and the GS-13 salary he would have earned between the date of the discrimination and the date of his retirement. Nicholas R. McKinley v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Petition No. 0420070020 (February 21, 2008).
Petitioner Entitled to Reimbursement for Additional Tax Liability. In the underlying appellate decision, the Commission found that petitioner was subjected to sex discrimination, and ordered the agency to, among other things, provide petitioner with back pay and compensation. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for enforcement, asserting that she was entitled to additional compensation for the increased tax burden she incurred from receiving a lump sum back pay award. The Commission concluded that, because petitioner submitted evidence of additional tax liability stemming from the lump sum payment, she was entitled to reimbursement for the amount of additional tax liability. In addition, petitioner was entitled to $500.00 spent on CPA services to calculate the tax liability. Deborah A. Ulloa v. USPS, EEOC Petition No. 0420080001 (February 22, 2008).
Commission Affirms Administrative Judge's Finding in Favor of Complainant as Sanction Against Agency. Following complainant's request for a hearing, the agency forwarded the complaint file to the AJ without the report of investigation. The agency ultimately submitted the report beyond the 180 day limitation period for completing the investigation specified in the EEOC Regulations. The AJ, at complainant's request, issued an Interim Decision imposing sanctions against the agency by finding that it discriminated against complainant. On appeal, the Commission found that the AJ did not abuse her discretion in finding for complainant as a form of sanctions for the agency's failure to conduct a timely investigation. Lawrence S. Lomax v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070039 (October 2, 2007), request for reconsideration denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080115 (December 26, 2007).
Settlement Agreement Knowingly and Voluntarily Agreed to Will Be Binding on the Parties Upon Signing. A settlement agreement acknowledged by the agency to have been reached by an agency director who had actual and apparent authority to settle complainant's informal complaint was not invalidated by the agency's attempt to immediately repudiate it less than 20 minutes after the signing. The Commission found that the settlement agreement was a voluntary, valid contract as soon as it was signed by both parties. Likewise, the complainant's filing of a complaint after the issuance of a notice of right to file did not invalidate the settlement agreement. The Commission ordered the agency to implement the terms of the settlement agreement and pay complainant back pay and other benefits. Libby D. Madar v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120081295 (April 22, 2008).
Settlement Agreement Fails for Lack of Consideration. The settlement agreement provided that the agency agreed to review the complainant's updated medicals and provide the complainant with work, if possible, in conjunction with her updated medicals and medical restrictions. The complainant provided the necessary information. The Commission held that the agreement contained no consideration from the agency in that the agency appears to have undertaken no legal detriment and the agency merely agreed to review complainant's updated medical documentation and provide her with work. The Commission found that the agency provided complainant nothing more than that to which she was entitled to as a matter of law, and accordingly, she received no consideration for her agreement to withdraw her EEO matter. The agency was ordered to reinstate complainant's complaint and resume processing the matter from the point at which processing ceased. Ruby M. Ollivierre v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120081608 (May 2, 2008).
No Evidence of Coercion Found in Execution of Settlement Agreement. The settlement agreement provided, in part, for the payment of attorney fees not to exceed $10,000.00 in accordance with the Laffey Matrix.1 Complainant submitted to the agency a verified fee petition requesting $154,204.00 for attorney's fees and costs, which was denied by the agency. Complainant claimed that the settlement agreement was executed while complainant was under severe distress and that she was coerced into signing it. The Commission noted that it examines coercion claims with close scrutiny and the party raising the defense must show that there was an improper threat of sufficient gravity to induce assent to the agreement and that the assent was in fact induced by the threat. The Commission found that at the time of the agreement complainant was represented by counsel and that there was no evidence of coercion surrounding the entering of the agreement. The Commission affirmed the agency's final order regarding the award of attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $10,000.00. Ava Marshall v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0120062971 (May 5, 2008).
(In the following cases, the Commission found complainant's claims to be cognizable. –Ed.)
Warren K. Gladden v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 0120081616 (May 5, 2008) (nonselection for a specified managerial position based on race and age).
Scott P. Sinkhorn v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120081331 (May 5, 2008), request to reconsider denied, EEOC Request No. 0520080559 (June 23, 2008) (harassment/hostile work environment based on sex, religion, and retaliation involving offensive language and disciplinary threats over a period of years).
(In the following cases, the Commission affirmed the agency determination that the complainant failed to state a claim. –Ed.)
William T Traylor v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0120063833 (April 25, 2008) (volunteer not aggrieved person: individual must receive benefits which constitute significant remuneration or be required to work as a volunteer in order to obtain or lead to regular employment; in this case, complainant alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of reprisal when the agency issued his final check for incidental expenses three weeks late. Complainant was a Day Use Host Volunteer at an agency recreational area and had signed an Agreement for Individual Voluntary Services, stating that the work would be non-compensable. The decision noted that, generally, only an individual who is an employee or applicant for employment is covered by the EEO statutes. Here, the only forms of compensation that complainant received were reimbursement for incidental expenses and a transportation allowance.)
Tonya A. Hackney v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120072779 (August 20, 2007). (unpaid intern not covered by EEOC regulations: complainant was essentially a volunteer, and was not covered by the EEO statutes that protect against employment discrimination.)
Agency's Appeal Untimely.
According to the record, the agency's Office of Civil Rights received the Administrative Judge's decision on March 30, 2007. The agency, however, did not file its notice of final order and appeal until May 10, 2007, that is, beyond the 40-day filing period. The agency asserted that period for filing an appeal should begin to run on April 2, 2007, the date on which its designated representative received the Judge's decision. The Commission noted, however, that its policy is to send correspondence relating to the disposition of a case to the agency's headquarters office that is designated to handle such matters. The Commission also rejected the agency's claim that the Office of Civil Rights assumed the representative received the decision 5 days after it was issued, stating that the 5-day presumption applies only to documents that do not bear a legible postmark or have no proof of the date of receipt. In this case, the record showed that the Office of Civil Rights actually received the decision on March 30, 2007. Thus, the Administrative Judge's decision was final. Estella Sugawara-Adams v. EPA, EEOC Appeal No. 0720070050 (September 10, 2007).
The following article is not intended to be an exhaustive or definitive discussion of a complex area of law. For more detailed information and additional resources, the reader is advised to consult the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov. In addition, the reader may consult the EEOC's Compliance Manual on Retaliation (May 20, 1998). The Digest appreciates the contributions of Natalie Nelson to this article. –The Editor
Retaliation serves as one of the nine bases for an equal employment action. Recently, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether an individual can raise the issue of retaliation following a claim of age discrimination. The Court granted certiorari in Gomez-Perez v. Potter 2 to address the appropriateness of a retaliation claim. The basic question presented by the case is whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act3 encompasses a complaint of retaliation. In Gomez, the Court determined that retaliation claims were protected following a claim of age discrimination.
Myrna Gomez-Perez (complainant) was employed by the United States Postal Service (agency). In 2002, she requested a transfer to be closer to her ill mother. She accepted a "part-time flexible" position which did not guarantee her 40 hours of work per week in order to obtain the transfer. Approximately one month later, complainant requested a transfer back to her old position, but her request was denied. The agency asserted that the position had been converted to part-time and filled by another employee. Following this denial of transfer, complainant, then 45 years of age, filed a formal complaint of age discrimination under the ADEA. Subsequently, complainant alleged that, as a result of filing the complaint, she was subjected to various forms of retaliation, including being harassed and having her work hours reduced. Complainant filed a civil action, claiming that the agency violated the federal sector provision of the ADEA by retaliating against her for filing a complaint of age discrimination. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the agency on the basis of sovereign immunity, and the Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed on alternative grounds.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the ADEA does prohibit retaliation against federal employees who file a complaint of age discrimination. The Court followed the reasoning of two prior decisions Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 4 and Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education,5 in determining that the ADEA's provision prohibiting "discrimination based on age" includes retaliation based on an age discrimination complaint. Both Sullivan (which interpreted 42 U.S.C. § 1982) and Jackson (which interpreted Title IX of the Education Amendments6) held that broadly worded prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race and sex, respectively, included a prohibition against retaliation. The Supreme Court noted that the ADEA language at issue in Gomez was not materially different from the language at issue in Jackson, and was the functional equivalent of the language at issue in Sullivan. Further, in all three statutes, the language appears in the context of a remedial provision aimed a prohibiting discrimination.
The Supreme Court was not persuaded by the argument that the ADEA expressly creates a private cause of action for retaliation, but fails to expressly provide the same prohibition when outlining the provisions for the federal sector. The Court of Appeals had determined that, unlike the private sector provisions of the ADEA, § 633a did not explicitly mention retaliation, and, therefore, Congress intended that the ADEA prohibition against retaliation apply to private employers but not federal employers. The Supreme Court noted, however, that the prohibition against retaliation in the federal sector derives from the text of § 633a itself and not from the ADEA private sector provisions. Thus, the Supreme Court found it insignificant that the private sector provisions of the ADEA explicitly mention retaliation. The Supreme Court noted that the private and federal sector provisions of the ADEA were drafted at different times, and are couched in very different terms. Specifically, the ADEA federal sector provision was patterned directly after the broad federal sector provisions of Title VII. Further, the Court noted that Congress was presumably familiar with the decision in Sullivan at the time it enacted a broad, general ban on age discrimination, and had reason to expect that this ban would be interpreted in conformity with that precedent.
The Supreme Court also rejected the agency's historical argument that, when it enacted the ADEA, Congress intended for the Civil Service Commission to extend its regulations regarding retaliation to cover age discrimination complaints. The Court found no direct evidence that Congress actually took this approach. Thus, the argument lacked any support in the legislative history.
Finally, the Supreme Court considered whether the principles of sovereign immunity require that the federal sector provisions of the ADEA be read narrowly, prohibiting discrimination based on age but not retaliation. While the Court conceded that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be expressly stated in the text of the statute, it found that the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 633a(c) of the ADEA includes § 633a(a) where the language in question is found.
The EEOC Regulations have long provided that no person shall be subject to retaliation for opposing any practice made unlawful by the ADEA.7 Further, the Commission has stated that federal employees are protected against retaliation under each of the employment discrimination statutes, including the ADEA.8 The Supreme Court's decision in Gomez confirms that federal employees are protected from retaliation for filing a discrimination claim under the ADEA.
The Supreme Court had generally established that federal discrimination statutes prohibit retaliation, whether explicitly stated or not. In Gomez, the Court turned to its decisions in Sullivan and Jackson as the basis for its opinion. In those cases, the Court held that a broad prohibition against race and sex discrimination, respectively, also provided for claims of retaliation. Following this precedent, the Court found that similar language examined in Gomez allows for the same freedom for retaliation claims under the ADEA. The decision in Gomez is consistent with precedent established in both Sullivan and Jackson, with the Supreme Court holding that the language of "discrimination based on age" includes a prohibition of retaliation in response to a claim of age discrimination.
1 This matrix of hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels and paralegals/law clerks has been prepared by the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. The matrix is intended to be used in cases in which a "fee.shifting" statute permits the prevailing party to recover "reasonable" attorney's fees. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.5(k) (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (Freedom of Information Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (b) (Equal Access to Justice Act). The matrix does not apply in cases in which the hourly rate is limited by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
3 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
8 EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 8 (Retaliation), Footnote 5, No. 915.003 (May 20, 1998).


text:
The terms of use
The portal of the City of Kragujevac is an electronic medium which provides us with the services and information useful for citizens, businesses, government institutions, employed and unemployed, non-governmental organizations, in short to all society members.
By clicking on the service you are interested in you can get the basic information relevant for acquiring that service. Some services allow you to get the forms in electronic shape so that you can print them and thus file a request or an application form, etc. For other services the Portal will directly lead you to the web pages of the institutions which are responsible for them. By using and downloading the material and documentations from the site, you agree to comply completely with the terms and conditions of use described in this information. If you do not accept any of the terms and conditions, do not use this site and do not download materials and documentation from the City of Kragujevac site.
The contents on the portal of the city of Kragujevac is completely and exclusively the property of City of Kragujevac. It is not allowed to copy, reproduce, scan, distribute or publish any part or the whole web site without the authorized written approval, except in the case of downloading the information or materials and saving it on the hard disc for the individual and personal use of the individual user.
All the trademarks and logos shown in this portal are the names and property protected by the copyright of the City of Kragujevac and may not be used without the written approval. Neither the trade marks nor names including the name of the City of Kragujevac may be included in the Internet address without the written approval of the City of Kragujevac.
The City of Kragujevac takes no responsibility for the materials made or published by the third parties linked by the pages to the portal of the City of Kragujevac. If you decide to visit any of the linked web sites, you are doing that based on your own decision and responsibility, and you are taking the risk in respect of the viruses and such. The links themselves do not mean that the City of Kragujevac is authomatically sponsoring or is in any way connected to entities responsible for updating the mentioned web sites or pages.
The City of Kragujevac reserves all the copyrights on all of its own contents (textual, visual and audio materials, data bases or programming code). Unauthorized use of any of portion of the portal is considered to be breaching the copyright of the City of Kragujevac and is viable for legal prosecution. The City of Kragujevac is entitled to the changes and modifications of the terms at any time without any notification in advance. It may inform the users about the important changes and modifications through e-mails or by announcing it on the portal.
By using any of the contents on the portal of the City of Kragujevac, we consider you informed and warned about the latest rules. In case you notice a photo protected by copyright or that the author`s signature is incorrect, please notify us propmptly by writing to the following address email@example.com so that we can take all the necessary steps in order to correct the error.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Lassco: Architectural Salvage in the UK
- Location: multiple locations and online
- Specialty: Architectural Salvage
- Price range: $$-$$$
- Website: lassco.co.uk
Store History
- Founded: 1970's
- Founded by: Adrian Amos
- Headquarters: London, UK
London-based Lassco bills itself as "England's prime resource for architectural antiques, salvage and curiosities". Here architects, interior designers and homeowners alike hunt out original Regency fireplaces, two-metre-wide chandeliers or 1960s door handles; whatever is required to complete their vision, Lassco is likely to have it.The company was founded by Adrian Amos in the early 1970's, when "it became evident that there were householders at one end of a North London street throwing original features into skips that householders at the other end were busily reinstating... between the two a business was born".
Lassco now has three locations in the UK: the original Brunswick House in Vauxhall, London (pictured) which stocks mainly antiques and hardware, Ropewalk in Bermondsey, London which has reclaimed timber flooring and other architectural salvage, and the new Three Pigeons in Oxfordshire, which holds wonders both great and small. Two of the locations even have popular cafés, so shoppers can sit on an old stone bench in a garden surrounded by sculpture, enjoying coffee and cake, and take any of it home with them afterwards.
(Images: Eleanor Büsing)


text:
From the same book title, Meetup to support, give our experience, strength and hope to local girls and women who have lost their mothers. Let's share our relationships with friends, family and loved ones.
Motherless Daughters Meetups are just getting started. You can start your own or check out related topics


text:
Dr. Richard E. Offerman D.D.S
June 28, 1935 - May 2, 2008
Dr. Richard E. Offerman D.D.S. passed away Friday, May 2, 2008, at age 72. He was born June 28, 1935, in Madison.
He was the husband and best friend of Jacqueline (nee Davies); beloved dad of Cindy (Scott) Smith of Colorado Springs, Colo., Stephen (Maureen) Offerman of Milwaukee, John (Lisa) Behling of Knoxville, Tenn., Scott Offerman of Colorado Springs and Nicholas (Dr. Shannon) Offerman of Cincinnati; and loving grandfather of Emily and Ellen Smith, Anthony Offerman and Kaitlyn and Lauren Behling. He is also survived by his mother-in-law, Jean Davies; brother-in-law, Jeffrey (Carol) Davies; his aunt, Pauline Nichols of Walworth; his cousins, Anne, Bud (Peggy) and Jay Nichols; other relatives and many friends.
Dr. Offerman was preceded in death by his parents, "Speed" Offerman and Gertrude (nee Nichols) Offerman, and his uncle, Donald Nichols.
Dr. Offerman had a private orthodontics practice in Waukesha for 38 years and also practiced in Wales. Dr. "O" retired in 2001.
He attended Randall Grade School in Waukesha and was a 1953 graduate of Waukesha High School. After entering Carroll College in Waukesha, Dr. Offerman was affiliated with Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity, was president of his fraternity pledge class and was elected to the Beta, Beta, Beta Honorary Biological Society. He participated in varsity athletics, including basketball, wrestling and tennis and was a member of the C Club letterman's society.
In 1956, Dr. Offerman entered Marquette University Dental School in Milwaukee and was affiliated with the Delta Sigma Delta professional dental fraternity. He graduated from Marquette University Dental School in 1960.
Dr. Offerman interned in oral surgery from 1960 to 1961 at Albany Medical Center Hospital in Albany, N.Y. From 1961 to 1963, he did post-graduate work in orthodontic education at Eastman Dental Center in Rochester, N.Y. He was licensed to practice dentistry in Wisconsin and New York.
In 1963, he began private practice in Waukesha.
Dr. Offerman was a member of the following: Wisconsin Dental Association, Waukesha County Dental Society, State Bureau of Handicapped Children, American Dental Association, American Association of Orthodontists, Midwestern Society of Orthodontists, Wisconsin Society of Orthodontists and the International Association of Aesthetic Orthodontists (invitation only).
He was past president of the Waukesha County Dental Society; a member of the Council on Practice Administration of the American Association of Orthodontics; past president of the Wisconsin Society of Orthodontists; chairman of the scholarship committee and a member of the board of directors of the National Foundation; chairman of the dental health and education committee and a member of the board of directors of the Waukesha County Dental Society; a delegate from the Waukesha County Dental Society for the Wisconsin Dental Association; a member of the American Association of Orthodontists Task Force on Orthodontic Insurance; president of the Eastman Orthodontic Alumni Association; and chairman of peer review for the Wisconsin Orthodontic Society for seven years.
Dr. Offerman was an associate professor and lecturer at the Marquette University School of Dentistry, Graduate School of Orthodontics from 1965 to 1973 and was presently a guest lecturer at the dental school.
His publications included "A Diastema Closing Device" in the Journal of Clinical Orthodontics in July 1984; "Basic Considerations for Orthodontic Procedures by Both the General Practitioner and the Orthodontist" in the Wisconsin Dental Association Journal in May 1968; and "Facial Assymetry in Cleft Palate Individuals" in Cleft Palate Journal in 1963.
A memorial visitation for Dr. Offerman will be held from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Friday, May 9, at St. Mark's Lutheran Church, 424 Hyde Park Ave., Waukesha. A memorial service will be held at 11 a.m. Saturday, May 10, also at St. Mark's Lutheran Church.
In lieu of flowers, memorials would be appreciated to the Kettle Moraine Scholarship Foundation, 563 A.J. Allen Circle, Wales, WI 53183.
The family would like to especially thank Dr. Martin Kern for his unwavering dedication to Dr. "O."
Church and Chapel Funeral Home is serving the family. For more information, call 549-0659 or visit www.churchandchapel.com to view the online obituary, leave condolences or receive directions.


text:
Your browser does not support iframes.
Mobile & Web Games Development
Software & Database Development
We are extremely happy to be working with Zarrar and his team for the last two years on the Great Scottish Run project. They have come up with some extremely innovative ideas and at the same time accommodated all of our requests and changes.
Culture & Sport Glasgow
Glasgow Based Game Developers for Mobile & Web
Tentacle Solutions is a globally renowned web and mobile game development company based in the UK. Our primary focus is the development, distribution and licensing of high quality viral games across all platforms – HTML5 web, iOS and Android mobile platforms, tablet devices, PC's and games consoles. Tentacle Solutions houses some of the leading talent within the UK gaming industry, overflowing with experience and imagination in the development and creation of some of the most exciting games today.
HTML5 – The New Coding Standard
Discover the power of HTML5 and what it can do for you! Imagine a game that will work seamlessly on the web and mobile platforms. By developing games under the new HTML5 specification, we can introduce cool new features to your gaming experience that simply weren't possible before.
Android Game App Development
Google's Android platform is one of the most advanced gaming platforms available today and more of your potential audience are using it today! Do you need an iOS game ported over? Tentacle have devised a powerfully fast system to convert your game - talk to us today!
iPhone Game App Development
The iPhone, iPad and iPad Pro are truly outstanding mobile game platforms. Tentacle can help develop your game idea into an amazing and gorgeous iOS platform game. Let Tentacle get your Game Idea to the App Store Today!
Kiosk Touchscreen Display Games
Do you need a game developed for a touchscreen display? Tentacle have helped Museums and Institutions move away from Flash Software to the Powerful HTML5 platform for Kiosk software. HTML5 will allow faster development with reduced costs!
All rights Reserved
Copyright © 2001 - 2018 Tentacle Solutions Ltd


text:
Recent Comments
|07/31/2008 - 10:58pm
|Stanford is still trying to
|Stanford is still trying to pay everyone back for The Band Play. And nobody should make fun of the Ballroom Dancing. Or the Men's Glee Club. M has the best. Bar none. And let's hear a cheer for a school that can make a kick butt solar car in a state that gets about 90 days of sun a year! THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!
|07/31/2008 - 10:48pm
|200 words? Aww man. Is this
|200 words? Aww man. Is this graded on a curve? Actually, I think "diaries" should be just that. I think a breakdown of the game is great, but so is a breakdown of the tailgate, or some past stories of great days of M-dom. I agree that smack probably belongs on the message board. To a point. I have respect for other schools and their traditions and fan bases, but I don't think it can be expected to show "Big Love" to Sparty or Bucknut Nation. But I don't think there's much point in "You suck," "No, YOU suck" postings.
|07/30/2008 - 6:26pm
|I like Inge, I'm just stunned
|I like Inge, I'm just stunned that Pudge went. Shouldn't be. Anybody is fair game at trade time. I think more than anything they could use a shrink for the relievers and get their heads on right. Overall the underperformance of this group is frustrating. But they're still our team. Always have been. Always will be. :)
|07/30/2008 - 5:18pm
|Does it give a little more
|Does it give a little more credence to what Calvin said about his chances of becoming the head coach there given the tone of the athletic program? Hmmm. I'm just sayin'
|07/27/2008 - 11:11pm
|Yeah, Rich Rod never did the
Yeah, Rich Rod never did the late night stuff here on MSN after the game. Mountaineer Magazine was always something a few days later.
I think it's too bad. Anyone who grew up on Michigan Replay will feel a little lost for a while.
If I were a local station I'd have some kind of highlights program and insert it there assuming the rules allowed it. I'm really not sure how it goes with Michigan. I know where I live any station could turn a special out any day of the week on WVU because I've seen it time and time again. It's not just the "offifial station" of WVU that does specials. So maybe someone could chime in with a Sunday morning highlights show with some guest analysis. Surely there are two local Michigan Men who could partner with a Bernie or Don Shane and do a 30 min recap to feed the need on Sunday morning.
Then again I guess in the age of DVRs and such, they figure Thursday is as good as any.
Thursday M football show? Against.
Sunday M Replay? For.
|07/23/2008 - 10:30pm
|We should borrow Woody's
|We should borrow Woody's phrasing and just call it: That school down south and leave it at that. Except for the fact that ND is also down south. Hmm. Or we could adopt the election year strategy and just refer to them as "our opponents." I vote for Braylon's take. Why should we refer to them?
|07/23/2008 - 10:28pm
|Yes and no.
If the
|Yes and no. If the military HAD been allowing guys to come out & play that's one thing, but otherwise it's just a bad pick by the Lions. They should have known the guy would have a job that he was liable for. I think of Roger Staubach. From the Wiki article on him: "He was a 10th round draft pick in the 1964 NFL Draft by the Dallas Cowboys, but due to his military commitment, did not begin playing until 1969 as a 27 year old rookie. He was also draftd by the Kansas City Chiefs in the 10th round of AFL draft. After graduating from the Naval Academy, Staubach could have requested an assignment in the States but he chose to volunteer for a one-year tour of duty in Vietnam where he served as a supply officer for the United States Navy until 1967. He spent the rest of his Naval career in the United States, playing football on various Naval service teams to prepare for his future career in the NFL." So - draw from that what you will I'm sure he's everything we need from our military leaders. You don't get into that place without being the top of the crop. But it just seems that the precedent has been set way back.
|07/23/2008 - 5:01pm
|Next year eeeeeeeee will see
|Next year eeeeeeeee will see to it that M players can attend. By that time they will be able to drive the ball 725 yards with a 5 wood. NINJA GOLF!
|07/23/2008 - 4:52pm
|Sometimes one must BE absurd
Sometimes one must BE absurd to illustrate the absurd.
|07/23/2008 - 2:01pm
|07/23/2008 - 2:00pm
|So - what I get out of it is
So - what I get out of it is that Sparty gets off talking about his coach's Nether-Regions and his friend's sexual escapades. Freud would have a field day with Lil Brah here.
|07/23/2008 - 1:34am
|If could be worse. (Sorry, I
|It could be worse. (Sorry, I love WV as a state, but this IS funny ....) From my afternoon paper: Drinking tiki torch fluid is not advised by Kelly Holleran Daily Mail staff CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- More West Virginians are winding up in the emergency room for some weird, warm-weather mishaps: suspected poisoning by tiki torches and glow toys. The West Virginia Poison Center reports that so far this year four people have been treated for drinking the refillable liquid that fuels the tropical-themed torches, popular as patio décor and a favorite for backyard parties.
|07/21/2008 - 10:53pm
|No but the couch burning
No but the couch burning friends a bit farther southeast of C-bus did dump trash cans on "The U" one game as they were coming out of their "Away" tunnel. Nearly started a brawl. Classy? No. Funny. Sorta mainly because everyone hates on "The U."
The whole soccer Hooligan deal is pretty stupid. There's making noise. There's intimidating the other team with cheers and chants. There's spending hours on a blog page writing about your favorite team. And then there's the dumbasses who show up specifically to fight and either hurt someone or get hurt. This ain't Fight Club. I can find a way to "be alive" without having to roll with someone from the other teams so-called fans. That's just stupid.
|07/21/2008 - 10:43pm
If I WAS a betting
If I WAS a betting man I think if M has ANY kind of a kicking game and they don't fumble the ball 20 times they'll pull it off. The emotions of the team will reach new levels because they have something to PROVE. There are still a lot of guys who lost to App St. on the team and they don't want to have their images all over for weeks on end being seen losing an opener to Utah no matter how good the Utes are.
|07/21/2008 - 10:38pm
|Thou shalt not wear a sweater vest with or without tie on the sidelines of any Michigan game. EVER.
|07/19/2008 - 11:34pm
|Well, if anything if you look
|Well, if anything if you look at it, it should be a swipe at the ethics of Alabama since both guys were courted there. And from what I have read from Brian in months gone by, Bama seems to sort of make up the rules as they go on rosters and nubmers of slots open, etc. A wee bit shady there. BTW, both guys also come from the same county in WBGVa if you can believe that. RR has had his share of "bad eggs" but he has been known to give those kids another shot much like Tressel. Sometimes that rubs people wrong... special treatment for athletes, etc. Hopefully he won't have the kind of kids who get in trouble but they ARE kids. Kids = trouble. I've heard his side of the story enough to know that calling him unethical really depends on what state you live in. I think his original statement should suffice: It's America and he wanted to change jobs. The rest is just pissing matches.
|07/19/2008 - 4:18pm
|You're right about the
You're right about the returns, but they hold a certain number of single-game tickets for fans like me who could never do the season ticket thing anyhow. They'll sell them no matter what. I'm doing everything I can to see if I can get there this time. Hope so!
|07/19/2008 - 4:14pm
|Well, living here in WBGVa I
|Well, living here in WBGVa I have heard SO MUCH of this argument that it's amazing. There was quite a bit of head scratching though over Stewart even though his team just whupped OU. I think a lot of folks thought the Stewart hire was based on emotion. He certainly was cheaper. He fits the mold they want of a home town, home spun, aw shucks kinda guy - PLUS he didn't have a big time agent that would cost them a lot of money. He took quite a pay cut from what RR was making. He seems to be a really nice guy, but he will not have as much leeway in the losing department with fans. They will demand that another "big name" coach be hired because in their minds they have "arrived" with the Michigans, Ohio States and Oklahomas. We shall see. I think the scoring against OU gets credited to Calvin. Stewart was pretty much the cheerleader/motivator and there to manage the clock and decide on overall strategy, etc.
|07/17/2008 - 11:34pm
|You watch
|All of the Barwis buzz - talking about all of the NFL players or NFL players in waiting coming to work out with him... once the NCAA starts getting a whiff of that kind of P.R., they'll come up with some dumb rule to make that illegal. Schools could then use it as a "recruiting tool." You know, like they did with the rule about Media Guides. Yeah - kids are gonna come to your school because of your Media Guide. Whatever. But your S & C coach showing off his street cred... that may be too much for the party poopers at the NCAA. I hope not, but it seems they pretty much dump on everything else that could be considered ANY way to attract kids to a school. Don't believe me? Go to the M Athletic Dept and see if you can get a signed football or basketball to raffle for your favorite charity. It'll take weeks if not months and you have to sign an NCAA compliance form stating that nobody in middle or high school who is an athlete will receive the ball - because that could be a recruiting tool to make kids want to go to your school. So it's not a reach to think they'll look poorly on all of the hype about who's hanging around the weight room. But I hope not.
|07/16/2008 - 8:54pm
|Here's a shot of what that
|Here's a shot of what that would look like - only we'd have good looking helmets. Not a fan. http://www.flickr.com/photos/gotbob/1935964408/
|07/16/2008 - 2:22pm
|We should have a system where
|We should have a system where huge posts get a helmet sticker. LOL!
|07/16/2008 - 2:20pm
|I just watched that Fields of
|I just watched that Fields of Glory thing last night and Bo said that helmets were just stitched like that but Fritz painted it Maize so the QBs could see the receivers down the field. Only in those days I think the QB was called a HB.
|07/16/2008 - 2:17pm
|Now, now boys and girls - I
|Now, now boys and girls - I DO live here so let's not trash the entire place! It's not like I'm chained here. It's a nice place with plenty of great people. And while I'm certainly not high on the WVU fan list, the STATE and the UNIVERSITY are two different things.... I just need to convince my WVU friend of that. That aside, I never had a problem with the new M road unis. But your comment does give me a little ammo to plug back at him with. If the new road unis are so "bad" or "ugly" and you still have some that look like it, ummmmm, doesn't that mean that THOSE WVU unis are just as ugly? LOL! That's why it's fun to have friends who don't share similar opinions on everything. We argue like cats & dogs at times but still enjoy a brew and hanging out.
|07/15/2008 - 12:52pm
|Being "The Hybrid" (M Native,
Being "The Hybrid" (M Native, WV Resident) I've seen both sides of this plate. When I lived in M I would order "2 on 1 without" - that meant 2 Coney dogs on one plate with no onions. In WV I order 2 Hot Dogs "with sauce." You would have to ask for the onions in WV.
|07/15/2008 - 9:51am
|Well, here I was getting
|Well, here I was getting ready to get all offended because I live in W-BG-Va and then I opened it. And then I laughed. Because I've been guilty of visualizing the map that way - EXCEPT the part about Michigan. LOL! Whoever did that also is pretty plugged into the news with Oklahoma as well. A very good chuckle to start the day... and man, if you can't laugh at yourself a bit, then you need to lighten up. Thanks for posting!
|07/14/2008 - 9:58pm
|Potty mouth.Berman is
Potty mouth. (Edit - watch it - someone will say you sound like the "very bad things" that are said at football practice. LOL!!!)
Berman is annoying and probably needs to focus on radio. Harsh but there's a time when guys move from on camera to off and he's there. I'm not watching. Despite her calling him "Boom" I give her a pass. Mainly because she's easy on the eyes. A sexist thing to say, but she draws a particular audience. It's what they want at ESPN.
|07/14/2008 - 5:37pm
|A2 Hatin' On M
A lot of news organizations seem to set up this mentality of "gotcha" and that anyone who makes bank is somehow doing so on the take or against the rules.
TRUST ME if we printed the home phone numbers of the Editors they would have a coniption. Their argument would be that they are not public figures in charge of the public trust. However, newspapers have pretty much enjoyed a monopoly in their hometowns with regulators looking the other way. It's always been a case of the "do-gooders" trying to uncover something untoward - even if nothing untoward is going on. It's how they operate.
They also have a very anti-profit mentality, execpt where the newspaper is concerned. If the football team or athletic department makes money, it's a bad thing. If the paper makes money, it's expected.
Funny though how the marketplace of information has caught up with the newspapers and places like MGoBlog have taken over the position of being THE place for information about something folks care about like M sports.
I know Brian is a fan but he's no shill. If something WRONG was going down, I know he'd call it out. Otherwise he'd be labeled as a shill and readership of MGoBlog would spiral downward. The paper in it's effort to appear "independent" continues to cut off its nose to spite its face. You can't stomp on the very entity that makes people want to read you for info without losing contacts within that entity or readership or both.
It's OK to investigate how things are run. It's another to make insinuations and print phone numbers of the people in charge to CREATE an atmosphere that something is wrong when apparently it isn't.
|07/14/2008 - 4:42pm
|On some of the older versions
|On some of the older versions you could mess with lineups on any team and save them. I don't know about the newer versions. I always made a 7" QB that had the body of a tank with like 99% passing, running, accuracy, stamina, speed., etc. Kind of looked like Jared Lorenzen only taller, and with talent. LOL! I never played the whole deal with recruiting, etc. I am not sure you can still do this on the new versions.
|07/14/2008 - 4:34pm
|I don't care what they wear
|I don't care what they wear really. I'm glad M will make bank on the new purchases of the licensed goods. I also do see that it will be tough on some folks to rake $150 out of the wallet in today's economy. That's just the facts of life. Can't criticize folks for that. Unlike some comments I've read, I DON'T think you're "more" of a fan if you have the authentic or the replica or a Steve & Barry's T. As long as it's Maize & Blue, says Mighican on it, and you're showing pride in the team, I'm cool with it! Trust me, I catch HELL for wearing Michigan stuff to the gym in the land of Ohio State AND WVU but I wear it just about EVERY day. Let' 'em hate!!! I DO smell a LARGE sale on the NIKE versions though coming up VERY very soon. Someone let me know if you see one! LOL!
|07/14/2008 - 12:21am
|Not to be sarcastic about
|Not to be sarcastic about your question, but after watching OSU blitz and pressure M last November, I don't think things could be much worse. I see some missed assignments as the year goes on. Any new system is going to produce that result. Overall though, I feel pretty confident as a fan that this new system really is state of the art for college.
|07/14/2008 - 12:15am
|Wait a minute... wait a
|Wait a minute... wait a minute... dude... how much you want for those seats? (To the games, not the weddings!) :)
|07/13/2008 - 11:17pm
|How Many Of You
|OK - I haven't played since the '07 version and very little at that because, well, I suck at video games. Be that as it may, I'm curious how many of you just f*ck with Ohio State's lineup and just make them a team you can crush again and again? How many "play them" straight up? I admit, I always create a QB that is just freakishly good for M and mess with the OSU lineup so I can see M win again and again... Watch, one day they're gonna make the game REAL and make that an NCAA violation so your next season sucks plus forfeits, etc.
|07/13/2008 - 8:19pm
|There was a series of like 3
|There was a series of like 3 games in the late 80s - early 90s that Iowa and Michigan had decided on last second field goals or game ending plays. I was at the Iowa game in Ann Arbor where M kicked the 43 yard winner in the rain and wind to win as the clock hit :00. There is no question that was one of the loudest crowds because we did the Wave and Bo was fit to be tied. It was one of the first times the Wave was ever done at M Stadium and he wrangled up his head set into a knot, threw it on the ground and stomped on it because we - the fans - got a penalty for making TOO MUCH noise. That was before they changed that rule.


text:
Our team is ready to serve YOU today, with the best quality fruit trees & varieties available.
Van Well Nursery is a top supplier of fruit trees to commercial orchardists, wholesale and retail nurseries and the average backyard gardener. We grow more than 1 million apple trees, pear trees, cherry trees, peach trees, plum trees, prune trees, apricot trees, nectarine trees and nut trees each year.
- View some of the high-quality varieties that we sell.
- Check out our current & future inventory
- Contact our sales staff ... they are ready to answer your questions and assist you with your next fruit tree order.
If you are looking for top quality fruit trees from a company with personal customer service, you're at the right place. Van Well Nursery ... helping growers grow™ since 1946.


text:
Gomez signs letter of intent
When life as an athlete throws you a curveball, you have two options: take the strike, or hit it out of the park.The latter tactic was chosen by Mai Gomez, a former Big Spring High School softball and volleyball player who suffered a series of ankle injuries which put her sports career on the sidelines, but opened up a new, potential career.Gomez, a senior this year at BSHS, signed her letter of intent Thursday to attend Howard College on a full scholarship, majoring in what she knows best — sports medicine.A student trainer for the past three years under the tutelage of Jim Campbell, BSHS' head athletic trainer, Gomez has worked closely with the varsity track and football squads.Her previous injuries, Gomez said, served as the catalyst for her becoming a student trainer."I had two ankle sprains,and I saw what (Campbell) did, and became interested," she said. "I decided to make it my focus instead of athletics. Then, after doing it, I really wanted to make it my career."Campbell, who has served as a mentor for Gomez, believes the choice to attend HC is a good fit."I think (Gomez's) injuries kind of piqued her interest," he said. "Through the rehabilitation process, things just connected. She became a trainer, and was a tremendous help in track and football."Gomez said she thrived on the new challenge, and made learning the techniques of on-the-spot first aid her priority."In track, proper stretching is important," she explained. "In football, it is knowing how to use the proper procedures if anything happens. Once, a football player broke his neck. We had to know what to do — how to handle it, how to stay calm."John Overton, Athletic Trainer for HC, is excited for Gomez as she prepares to graduate and enroll at the local junior college."Howard College will give her a great opportunity to advance, get a degree, and change her life," he said. "I take (Campbell's) recommendations, and he says (Gomez) has done a good job working for him."Gomez ultimately plans to go beyond Big Spring."I want to eventually go to Texas Tech University, and get my Doctorate in Sports Medicine," she added.Gomez's dream job? To work with her favorite pro sports team — the Dallas Cowboys.


text:
|September 8, 2013, 01:48 PM
Join Date: January 8, 2013
Location: missouri
Posts: 49
Ij-70 makarov
Ive been wanting a makarov for a while now and one just popped up in my area but he wants 350 for it. It comes with 3 mags 2 grips and the holster and a couple hundred rounds of silver bear.
This seems high to me, because when I hear people talking about Maks they only pay like 150-250 for them. But when I look online theyre all right around 300.
So whats a good price for a Russian Ij-70 Makarov?
Also while im at it whats the accuracy and reliability like?
|September 8, 2013, 02:05 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 4,193
I have four Maks, two Bulgarians, and East German and a Commercial Russian IJ-70. The only minor negative some consider to the IJ-70 is the adjustable rear sight, but I've never had a problem with mine even carrying it on occasion but prefer to carry a Bulgarian due to the fixed rear sight.
The IJ-70 will be accurate and extremely reliable, but I do think $350 is high. $200 - $250 will get you a nice IJ-70 if you look a bit.
|September 8, 2013, 02:38 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 145
I agree that $200 - $250 is a good price - 10 years ago.
As the SB ammo is worth some $15 per box of 50 the "couple hundred rounds" figures in to the price. If it's 200 rounds, that's $60 off the price of the pistol. A 3rd magazine is a great bonus - they cost $20 now. So the pistol price is now down to $270. The holster and grips do not add much value. That's a good deal and I would buy it right away.
|September 8, 2013, 02:53 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2000
Posts: 4,193
Not considering the ammo, I've been seeing Russian Commercial Maks go for $200 - $250 recently in my area. Ten years ago they were $150 or so.
East Germans and even Bulgies are going for much more.
|September 8, 2013, 02:54 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,237
Ij-70 makarov
I have one and it is very accurate. This is largely due to the fixed barrel design of the Mak. It is a very robust, solid pistol.
Look on line for Makarov fluff and buff for pictures and description of how to slick up the trigger pull and feed ramp. My Russian Mak sliced up the web of my hand from the sharp bottom edges of the slide in recoil. I filed and sanded those off. Now it works very smooth with no slicing and dicing.
|September 8, 2013, 02:57 PM
Join Date: January 8, 2013
Location: missouri
Posts: 49
Seems pretty mixed looking across the internet. I think I can live with 270 for the pistol just cuz I want one so much. Im just trying to make sure I dont get completely ripped off, as long as it runs good I dont see myself selling it.
|September 8, 2013, 03:08 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2009
Posts: 714
I agree along the lines of what north bender said. It's not a screaming a deal. But it's not completely out of line either. If you want one, I'd say go for it. I really doubt you'll regret it.
|September 8, 2013, 03:16 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 145
Pilot if you see them for $200 you can certainly make money on each one you buy.
|September 8, 2013, 03:49 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: A Place Worse than California
Posts: 782
The last IJ-70 I bought was $125 in 1998. THose were considered the bottom of the barrel Mak's, even behind the Chinese.
E. German were the most sought after, with the Bulgarian coming in second.
"It was people who upheld their duties to their office, the constitution, and the public by opposing Hitler who were called traitors"
"...a historian asked what had happened to the German people for them to accept a criminal government. Unfortunately, nothing needed to happen. In nations across the world people accept government crime."
"In democracies as well as dictatorships, subordinates illegally obey their rulers. Subordinates who remain true to their oaths of office by opposing their rulers are rare."
|September 8, 2013, 05:53 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Posts: 188
The price may be a little high, but not much. I have 4 Makarovs and my commercial Russian may be the most accurate of the bunch. But I think it's more the design than anything else - it's known for its accuracy. I don't care too much for the adjustable rear sight but it hasn't caused a problem and it does serve its purpose. I've gotten 15 yard groups of 1 1/2 inches despite the heavy commercial trigger pull.
|September 8, 2013, 06:03 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Starkville, MS
Posts: 6,764
|September 10, 2013, 02:56 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,273
I don't know that I would pay $350 for what he's offering. It's not a horrible price for what he is selling, but not really good either. I'd try to talk him down to $300, maybe pay $325 depending on the brand/condition of the holster and grips and just how many rounds of ammo he's offering. If they are NIB Makawraps and an Alessi holster, it makes the deal a lot better than an Uncle Mike's nylon holster and a set of old beat up Pearce grips.
|September 10, 2013, 05:34 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: May 23, 2012
Posts: 533
You might want to counter offer with a lower bid like you said, $325. However, if you really want a Mak, and I can understand that, don't pass up the deal for $25. Three months from now you won't even be thinking of price and will be glad you bought it.
Consider this:
Makarov: $200
2 extra Mags 40
2 Grips 35
ammo 25
holster 10
Total $310
Parts and accessories based on prices (w/o tax & shipping) at http://www.gunpartscorp.com/Manufact...arov-33376.htm
My Russian Commercial is easy to shoot, consistent and accurate.
|September 10, 2013, 03:14 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: January 20, 2012
Posts: 105
I have a love / hate relationship with my IJ-70. Mine came to me as a .380, and it was unreliable, but it was also RIDICULOUSLY accurate. I couldn't bring myslef to get rid of it, because I shot it so well. So, I bought a barrel press and a 9X18 barrel for it. The swap is made, but I don't have any 9X18 ammo yet, so I haven't shot it. I expect the same accuracy, and I am hoping for more reliability. Even if I don't get it, I don't expect I would sell mine. If you want one, buy it. I don't think it sounds like an unreasonable price. I just saw a Bulgy in the LGS (one week ago) with only one mag for $300.
|Thread Tools
|Search this Thread


text:
Mayor's Office
The City will begin installing about 1,300 "smart" parking meters downtown Tuesday, February 19. The new meters will be solar-powered and programmable and will accept credit, debit and pre-paid parking cards and dollar coins in addition to dimes and quarters. The meter installation is expected to be completed by March 1.
The City maintains about 2,300 parking meters downtown. The new meters will be installed generally in the area bounded by 7th, 16th, "M" and "R" streets. New meters also will be installed in the Haymarket lot north of "O" street and on 14th and "W" streets on the UNL campus. Some of the meters will be multi-space meters.
Beginning Monday, March 11, the hourly rate at all downtown meters will increase from 50 cents to $1. "Our meter rates have not increased since 1995," said Dave Landis, City Urban Development Director. "The main reason for the increase, however, is that the most convenient metered spaces should not also be the cheapest. As the private sector knows, convenience has value, and our current system is turned on its head. When parking spaces are both cheap and convenient, people endlessly circle looking for a bargain. After the rate change, City-owned parking garages will be the cheapest downtown parking option. The result should be greater turnover at the metered spaces, and that will benefit downtown restaurants and shops."
Landis said the programmable feature will allow the maximum parking time to be adjusted. For example, the meters can be adjusted to allow for nine hours of parking on a Husker home football game day.
The new Liberty brand meters from Duncan Solutions cost about $500 each and another $6,000 for management and training. The expense will be covered through the City parking fund, and no General Fund tax dollars will be used. The City Council approved the new meters and the rate increase as part of the budget process.
For more information on downtown parking, call Parking Services at 402-441-PARK (7275) or visit parkandgo.org.


text:
CRESTVIEW � Baker School�s baseball team played David against the Crestview High School Gray team Goliath in the Justin Richards Scholarship Tournament�s championship game on Saturday. The Gators didn't have slingshots or stones, but they made use of their weapons in the way of baseballs and bats. The Baker players also showed a bit of courage and tenacity along the way.
CRESTVIEW � Baker School�s baseball team played David against the Crestview High School Gray team Goliath in the Justin Richards Scholarship Tournament�s championship game on Saturday.
The Gators didn't have slingshots or stones, but they made use of their weapons in the way of baseballs and bats. The Baker players also showed a bit of courage and tenacity along the way.
After dropping their tournament opener to the Gray team 10-2 Thursday, the Gators won three straight games to earn a spot in the championship game against Crestview Gray.
Baker got the best of the rematch, taking a 7-6 win to claim the tournament title.
Alan Weidenhammer and Kyle Davis provided the pitching and their teammates supplied timely hitting and stingy defense to come away with the win.
Baker followed a time-proven recipe for success, Gator coach Scott Johnson said.
"I�ve been around long enough to know that the kids would have to execute, not make errors, throw strikes, and above all else, put the ball in play on the ground and compete," he said. "And our boys did that, pretty much. Game one, we struggled, throwing strikes a little bit, but from that point, we put it in play.
"The pitchers threw strikes and we played good defense. The older guys � the seniors now � did a great job. It was a great experience."
Weidenhammer and Davis provided the Gators leadership at the plate and on the mound.
Weidenhammer walked in the first inning and later scored on a Davis hit, giving the Gators an early 1-0 lead.
Hunter Willis scored for Crestview in the bottom of the first inning, tieing the game at 1-1.
Weidenhammer turned in the tournament�s defensive play in the second inning to shut down a potential Bulldog rally.
Devin Wimmer led off the Bulldog second with a base hit. Pierce Cadenhead tried to bunt, but popped the ball up between home plate and the pitcher's mound.
Weidenhammer made a diving catch to retire Cadenhead and, while still sitting on the ground, threw to first base to double up Wimmer.
A three-run Bulldog third seemed to put Crestview in control of the game.
Weidenhammer temporarily struggled with his control, hitting Dustin Kervin and Jordan Chamberlain with errant pitches.
Drew Graham singled and all three runners eventually scored.
Daviswalked and scored as Jacob Nixon was safe on an error in the top of the fourth inning. The Bulldogs answered with two runs in the bottom of the inning.
Wimmer singled, leading off the inning, and Cadenhead reached on a walk. Wimmer scored on a Kervin hit and Cadenhead was sent home by a Bryce Larkins base hit.
With two outs in the inning and the two Bulldog runs in, Johnson replaced Weidenhammer on the mound with Davis. Davis shut the Bulldogs down the rest of the way as the Gators battled back.
Travis Farmer led off the Baker fifth with a single and moved to third as Weidenhammer doubled. Josh Long was safe on a fielder's choice as Farmer was thrown out at home.
Austin Hicks singled to score Weidenhammer. Davis walked and Mason Lowery singled home Hicks.
Hicks scored when Austin Davis grounded out for the second Gator out of the inning.
Jake Rainey and Weidenhammer scored for Baker in the sixth to give the Gators the win.
"You have to give those guys credit," Bulldog coach Tim Gillis said. "They wanted it a lot more than we did. They deserve it.
"They wanted it, they played hard and battled. I thought they were impressive. Anybody that was here could see that."
The Gators made their way to the championship game in impressive fashion.
After losing the tournament opener to Crestview Gray, the Gators on Thursday beat Crestview Red 7-3, giving the Red team their only loss of the tournament.
Friday belonged to Baker as the Gators pounded Northview 12-2 and made short work of Choctawhatchee 17-2. Both games were called in the fifth inning on the run rule.
Hicks and Rainey combined for the win against Northview. The trio of Weidenhammer, Bubba Ellis and Dylan Josey shut down the Indians.
The way Baker swung the bats against Northview and Choctaw pitching might have been the least of Johnson's worries.
The Gators fell behind the Chiefs 1-0 in the first inning. But the Northview lead didn't last long.
Baker sent 12 battters to the plate and scored eight runs in the second inning to take control of the game.
Things started innocently enough, with Kyle Davis drawing a walk and Lowery connecting for a base hit. With one out, Austin Davis was hit by a pitch to load the bases.
Rainey walked to score Kyle Davis. Lowery scored on a Dakota Blackburn single, and Farmer cleared the bases with a double that increased the Gator lead to 5-1.
Farmer, Weidenhammer and Long also scored in the Gator second. Baker scored four unearned runs in the fourth inning in rolling to the win over the Chiefs.
Choctaw scored twice in the top of the first inning to take a brief lead against the Gators.
Baker responded with four runs in the home half of the inning taking a lead the Gators wouldn't relinquish.
Baker scored four runs in the second and third innings and five runs in the fourth as the Gators coasted to the win and secured a spot in the championship game.
"The thing about the summer is we are not necessarily playing against the other team," Johnson said. "We are playing against ourselves and trying to make ourselves better.
"We are playing at bats, innings, pitch to pitch and just trying to make ourselves better. In the game of baseball, giveaways are strikeouts and pop-ups. When we don't strike out and we hit the ball on the ground, we have a great chance (of winning)."
Randy Dickson is the Crestview News Bulletin�s sports editor. Email him at firstname.lastname@example.com, tweet him @BigRandle, or call 682-6524.


text:
Check out our new Online Digital History!
Click the bus to enter!
The Dane County Library Service (DCLS) is the primary public library service for many residents of Dane County.
The Bookmobile provides public library services in Dane County cities, towns, and villages that do not have a public library.
The Readmobile provides outreach library services to various Dane County communities, often in partnership with community organizations.
The Dane County Library Service provides MANY more services to the residents of Dane County. At-risk children, elderly housing complexes, senior centers, and other community groups are served, as are individuals such as people who are homebound or who have disabilities. Click here for a full list.


text:
Racing Rivals is a racing game and it was develop by Glu Games Inc and publish by itunes, racing rivals hack it was available in many different languages such as a English, Arabic, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Turkish and currently supported and Compatible with iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch and android devices. you can download this game for you ...Read More »
Tag Archives: racing rivals cheats
Racing Rivals Hack Unlimited Money (All Versions)
App Name:Racing Rivals Itunes Url: https://itunes.apple.com/app/racing-rivals/id604186826?mt=8 Version: Latest Features: Works for jail-broken And non-jailbroken Devices Unlimited Money Instructions: Download The hacked Files From Below Extract it! Put The Extracted Files Inside /Library/MobileSubstrate/DynamicLibraries/ Throw Ifunbox Run Your Game Enjoy The Hack! Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Fail To Download? Donate Today And Get Your ...Read More »


text:
Massachusetts medical marijuana dispensaries may open this summer
PITTSFIELD -- Medical marijuana dispensaries could open in Massachusetts by this summer now that state public health officials plan to approve final regulations this spring.
The Department of Public Health's draft regulations will be issued March 29. If approved by the Public Health Council, which reviews all health policies in Massachusetts, the rules governing marijuana dispensaries could go into effect May 24.
Attorney General Martha M. Coakley has also ruled that Massachusetts cities and towns cannot ban local dispensaries for medical marijuana. They can adopt measures to regulate and or delay dispensaries. Coakley's ruling, prompted by Wakefield's local ban on dispensaries last fall, states local bans would or will conflict with Massachusetts law.
Medical marijuana and dispensaries to distribute pot were approved by 63 percent of Bay State voters last November. A week later, Wakefield residents voted to ban dispensaries.
Complete bans on dispensaries violate the intent of the medical marijuana law, Coakley said.
Last month, the ACLU wrote Coakley urging her to rule against the Wakefield bylaw.
"The purpose of Question 3 was to legalize medical marijuana and to create a statewide system of treatment centers making it available to patients with prescriptions from their treating physicians. Wakefield's ban would thwart that purpose," said Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts.
In a separate ruling, Coakley approved Burlington's moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries, which prevents any centers until June 30, 2014.
Geoffrey C. Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, told The Associated Press the attorney general's ruling in Burlington indicates that communities will still have a strong say over dispensaries.
"Clearly the attorney general's decision re-affirms that cities and towns do have the ability to regulate and adopt bylaws that will set conditions regarding the location or other issues of dispensaries," Beckwith said. "That in itself is good news for those communities interested in regulating or limiting where the facility can be located, for example not in a residential area, not near schools, not in a downtown commercial district."
The law permits up to 35 nonprofit dispensaries or treatment centers within the state, but no more than five can be built in any one county.
Ishver Patel, who works at Elm Street Discount Cigarettes & Variety in Pittsfield, which sells glass pipes, said he's hopeful that if a dispensary is built in the Berkshires it would increase sales.
"We only sell one every few weeks now," he said. "If we start selling more, we could have a bigger selection too."
Currently, the shop only has five glass pipes on display for sale.
Pittsfield Mayor Daniel L. Bianchi sent his proposal to regulate dispensaries within the city to the Community Development Board but it's still under review.
With the announcement from the Public Health Council, the proposal, drafted by city solicitor Kathleen Degnan, could be expedited with dispensary applications potentially available this summer.
During a hearing before the Public Health Council, Cheryl A. Bartlett, a deputy interim commissioner for the state Department of Public Health, spelled out the first official time frame for putting into effect medical marijuana.
Bartlett said the department will file draft regulations for medical marijuana by March 29 and will present those regulations to the Public Health Council on April 10.
"We feel it is important to put forward these regulations into the public domain as quickly as possible so as to allow perspective medical marijuana treatment center applicants sufficient time to study our regulations prior to engaging in a competitive application process this summer and fall," she said.
To reach Josh Stilts:
or (413) 496-6243.
On Twitter: @JoshStilts
If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.