text:
Phone number: (02) 9411....
Email: Click to view
URL: https://www.pianoforte.com.au
Year Established: 1987
Trading/Opening hours:
|Mon: 10:00am - 5:00pm
|Tue: 10:00am - 5:00pm
|Wed: 10:00am - 5:00pm
|Thu: 10:00am - 5:00pm
|Fri: 10:00am - 5:00pm
|Sat: 10:00am - 5:00pm
|Sun: 10:00am - 1:00pm
|Public Hols: ---
Business Info
The Pianoforte is one of the leading piano specialists in Sydney, with three store locations across Chatswood, Rydalmere & Seven Hills. The Pianoforte specialise in leading acoustic and digital piano brands including Alex. Steinbach, Yamaha, Kawai and Casio; grand and upright styles, with preloved sales, piano tuning and repair services available.
Acoustic pianos, IQ self-play pianos (self playing pianos), digital pianos
Recommend This Business
The review system is a way for customers of this business to easily share their opinion. By sharing your experience with this business, you help other consumers find the right business for them! By leaving a review, you also earn STARPOINTS. Starpoints can be redeemed for cash or prizes like iTunes giftcards. Find out more about Starpoints here.
Some tips when posting a review: When writing a review, see if you can be as balanced as possible. What did you like, what didn't you like? Here are some things to think about - How was the customer service? How was the product or service quality? How was the price/value? Please also check and adhere to the editorial guidelines when posting a review.
Add your own review
Full Category Tree
Nearby Suburbs
- Willoughby (1) - 1.38 km
- Roseville Chase (2) - 2.06 kms
- Willoughby North (1) - 3.16 kms

subset: commoncrawl


text:
U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
Volume XIII, No. 4
Office of Federal Operations
Fall Quarter 2002
Recent Findings of Disability Discrimination
The Digest of EEO Law is a quarterly publication of EEOC's Office of Federal Operations (OFO).
Carlton M. Hadden, Director, OFO
Donald Names, Director, OFO's Special Services Staff
Editor: Arnold Rubin
Writers: Dann Determan, Gerald Goldstein, Lori Grant, Navarro Pulley
Available in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. The Digest is now available online through EEOC's homepage at www.eeoc.gov. If you wish to receive a copy in print, you must send a request, in writing, to Arnold Rubin, EEOC, Office of Federal Operations, 1801 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507.
No Abuse Found. The Commission did not find complainant's numerous complaints to be an abuse of the equal employment opportunity (EEO) process. The fact that complainant repeatedly challenged supervisory authority, without more, was not indicative of abuse of process. The Commission found no evidence of an intent to clog the EEO system and reversed the EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ's) dismissal of complainant's complaint for abuse of process. Jennings v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03885 (August 29, 2002). See also, Black v. Small Business Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01A10586 (March 19, 2002).
Claims of Age Discrimination May Use the Disparate Impact Theory. Noting that some Courts have concluded that claims of disparate impact in age discrimination cases are not cognizable, the Commission cited its precedent permitting such complaints to go forward under the ADEA. The Commission directed the agency to investigate the complaint under both the disparate treatment and disparate impact theories of discrimination. Fisher v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 01A14326 (September 6, 2002).
Training Warranted Even Absent Discrimination Finding. The Commission reversed the AJ's order, in this non-selection case involving a claim of national origin (Mexican) discrimination. The AJ found no discrimination, but had nevertheless ordered the agency to investigate whether complainant was called "Taco." On appeal, EEOC noted that complainant did not raise a claim of hostile work environment, but presented the insult to show bias instead of harassment. The Commission also affirmed the agency's rejection of the AJ's order to discipline those employees who had used the derogatory term. The Commission declared that, even where discrimination is found, it only recommends discipline. However, EEOC sustained the AJ's order that the agency provide diversity training to staff and management in the absence of an objection by the agency and in light of the record warranting such training. Sandoval v. Department of the Army, Appeal No. 07A10102 (July 23, 2002).
Agency Fails to Provide Full Relief as Ordered. Contrary to the agency's assertion, the Commission found that the agency's final order failed to fully implement the appropriate remedies ordered by the AJ, who found age discrimination in complainant's nonselection for a GS-9/11 Fishery Biologist position in Portland, Oregon. The agency claimed that, prior to receiving the AJ's decision, it had offered complainant a position in Sacramento, California, which roughly equated to a GS-13 level position. Citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.501(a), the Commission found that the agency had failed to meet its burden of showing that it was unable to provide complainant the position in Portland, which he originally sought, or that it was offering complainant a substantially equivalent position. The Commission ordered, in part, the agency to provide complainant with the position at issue or a substantially equivalent position in the Portland, Oregon, area. Kinnear v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 07A10104 (August 29, 2002).
AJ's Decision Becomes Agency's Decision. The Commission found that the agency's failure to correctly file its appeal within 40 days of the issuance of the AJ's decision precluded it from cross-appealing or challenging any aspect of the AJ's decision. McCue v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A13411 (August 8, 2002)
Age and Gender Discrimination Found. The previous decision found age discrimination in complainant's involuntary detail, but found that he had not presented a prima facie case of gender discrimination. On reconsideration, the Commission found that complainant was treated less favorably than a female employee and that all the reasons set forth in the previous decision, justifying a finding of age discrimination, were equally applicable to the basis of sex. The Commission ordered training for the officials involved, consideration of discipline against them by the agency, and notification to complainant as to his claim for compensatory damages. Brown v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05A20341 (July 5, 2002).
Across-the-Board Fee Reduction Rejected. The Commission rejected the agency's 40 percent across-the-board reduction as a result of complainant's prevailing on only one of her two complaints. The Commission concluded that the complaints were not fractionable because they each arose from a common set of facts pertaining to complainant's nonselections. Thus, she should be fully reimbursed for all reasonable attorney's fees. Sermeno v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A13878 (August 7, 2002). But cf. Coard v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01A02439 (August 15, 2002) (allowing a 30 percent reduction in attorney's fees, weighing the overall degree of success against complainant's original goals).
Interest on Attorney's Fees Awarded for Delay in Issuing Final Agency Decision. The Commission ordered interest on the fee award to compensate for the agency's five-month delay in issuing a decision on attorney's fees, for which the agency provided no explanation. Carroll v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01994040 (May 29, 2002).
Agency Erred In Calculating Petitioner's Back Pay and Interest Awards. In granting her Petition For Enforcement, the Commission found that the agency had understated petitioner's gross pay award, from which her net back pay award was derived, as well as the cash value of annual leave. EEOC found that the agency had failed to account for petitioner's hourly pay rate increase and ordered that the revised back pay award be given petitioner, including the accrued interest on the unpaid balance. Pacheco v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 04990043 (August 14, 2002).
Interest on Back Pay Not Available in Age Claims. The Commission agreed with the agency that interest on back pay is not available as a remedy under the ADEA. Kinnear v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 07A10104 (August 29, 2002).
Dismissal of Class Complaint Affirmed. Complainant, the putative class agent, sought to represent both current Black postal employees and Black applicants in the Southeast Area allegedly discriminated against regarding various terms and conditions of employment. The agency adopted the AJ's recommendation that the complainant had failed to satisfy the criteria of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation necessary for class certification. In affirming the agency's final decision, the Commission found, inter alia, that the class complaint constituted an across-the-board attack on alleged discriminatory employment practices, none of which was alleged to affect all class members. Hopkins v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A02840 (July 22, 2000). See also, Risner v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01994323 (September 13, 2002) (claims broad and unspecific); and see, Price, et al. v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal Nos. 01A10502, 01A10540, 01A10539, and 01A10503 (August 8, 2002) (complainant failed to meet criteria for certification; claims also dismissed on jurisdictional and timeliness grounds).
Agency Decision Adopting AJ's Per Se Rejection of Class Complaints Based on Disability Vacated. The Commission remanded this matter to an AJ to develop the record and render a determination as to whether complainant's class complaint met the criteria for certification, based on disability. The initial AJ had summarily denied certification, ruling that disability claims were not suited for class treatment. Travis v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01992222 (October 10, 2002).
Complainant's Complaint Should Have Been Processed as Part of Class Complaint. The Commission found that the previous decision had erred when it addressed complainant's individual complaint. EEOC noted that it had, in a prior decision, certified a class complaint as it pertained to denial of promotions and had remanded the matter for discovery. The Commission ordered the agency to subsume complainant's complaint concerning denial of promotion into the class complaint addressing the issue of promotion denials. Epps v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 05A10387 (September 13, 2002).
Complaint Remanded for Development of Record as to Whether Reprisal was Class Pattern. The Commission vacated the agency's final decision adopting the AJ's denial of class certification on the grounds that a claim of retaliation may not lawfully be the basis of a class action. The Commission cited its precedent that reprisal is an appropriate basis for a class complaint when there is a showing that specific reprisal actions were taken against a group of people for challenging agency policies, or where reprisal was routinely visited on class members. EEOC remanded the matter for additional fact finding to determine if the class certification requirements could be satisfied. Grigsby, et al. v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A01516 (August 15, 2002).
Awards for Non-Pecuniary Damages. In a series of decisions, the Commission ruled as follows:
Complainant Entitled to Timely Hearing Notice. The Commission found that the agency's notice of complainant's right to request a hearing before an EEOC AJ, given when it accepted his complaint, did not comport with the regulatory time frame. Accordingly, the Commission remanded the case for the scheduling of a hearing. Armstrong v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01995376 (March 14, 2002).
Agency Failed to Comply With the Requirements of 29 C.F.R. 1614. The Commission vacated the agency's finding of no discrimination, and ordered the agency to process complainant's claims in the manner mandated by the Commission's regulations. EEOC found the agency deficient in such requirements as failing to inform complainant how to contact an EEO Counselor; failing to timely assign a Counselor; failing to accept issues for investigation until nearly a year after complainant had filed her complainant; and failing to properly investigate her claims. Jansson v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01A22553 (August 23, 2002).
Agency Satisfies Affirmative Defense. Complainant challenged the promotion of two co-workers (CW-1 and CW-2) who purportedly performed duties substantially similar to complainant's, while complainant's promotion by accretion of duties was denied. Affirming the agency's decision of no discrimination, the Commission found that, as to CW-1, complainant could not be promoted from a non-supervisor to a supervisory position by accretion and that the promotion would have to be published and subject to competition, in accordance with the agency's merit system, a valid affirmative defense under the EPA. With regard to CW-2, the Commission found that the position was not comparable to complainant's. Schoch v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 01A13876 (September 25, 2002).
Agency Dismissal Reversed. The Commission found that the agency never made a written request to complainant for information and thus could not dismiss her complainant pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(7). Holbourn v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A01134 (August 29, 2002).
Privacy Act Not Within Commission's Purview. Affirming the agency's dismissal, EEOC noted that the Privacy Act provides an exclusive statutory framework governing the disclosure of identifiable information contained in federal systems of records and jurisdiction is vested solely in the United States District Courts for Privacy Act matters. Aylward v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A20942 (March 7, 2002), request to reconsider (RTR), denied, EEOC Request No. 05A20619 (July 3, 2002).
Official Discussion Memorialized Can State a Claim. Reversing the agency's dismissal, the Commission noted that, while it has consistently held that discussions with supervisors advising subordinates that unacceptable conduct may result in discipline are not cognizable, a written record memorializing such a warning can state a claim. Curry v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01A05004 (March 7, 2002).
Proposed Discipline Merges With Ultimate Action and States Cognizable Claim. The Commission noted that, where an individual has received EEO counseling on a proposed action, in this case a suspension, which becomes an effective action, the otherwise premature claim merges with the effective action, even if complainant has not filed a formal complaint on the effective or ultimate action. Robert, III, v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A21360 (March 14, 2002).
Complainant Has a Cause of Action Based on His Wife's Disability. In reversing the agency's dismissal of complainant's complaint, the Commission declared that complainant stated a claim where he alleged disability discrimination based on his association with a person with a disability. In this case, the agency repeatedly denied complainant dependent care leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and complainant claimed discrimination with regard to his wife's disability. Kirkland v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A10621 (March 14, 2002).
Delay in Processing OWCP Claim Not Cognizable. The Commission found that a claim asserting a delay of a few weeks in processing paperwork for an Office of Workers' Compensation Claims Programs (OWCP) constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the OWCP decision-making process. The Commission noted that there was no evidence that the delay was part of a pattern and practice of discrimination, or part of a claim of hostile work environment. Schneider v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05A01065 (August 15, 2002).
Single Incident Sufficiently Severe to State Claim of Harassment. Reversing the agency's dismissal, the Commission found that complainant credibly claimed that he endured severe humiliation when two Federal Police officers confronted him in the presence of his co-workers and questioned him about his purportedly threatening another co-worker. Complainant had claimed that he had successfully filed EEO complaints against the two managers who had the police summoned and that they were also named in current EEO actions. EEOC concluded that the claim in the present case was sufficiently severe to constitute an actionable claim of harassment. Miller v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05A10338 (August 15, 2002).
Husband's Claim of Retaliation Based on Adverse Action Against Wife Viable. Denying the agency's reconsideration request, the Commission noted that the previous decision's erroneous factual conclusion that complainant's wife was an agency employee when she was a contractor employee, did not prevent the decision from being legally correct. The Commission held that the agency's purported role in the firing of complainant's spouse was an action reasonably likely to deter protected activity by complainant and, thus, the complainant stated a claim. Cantrell v. Department of Transportation. EEOC Request No. 05990538 (September 9, 2002).
Gender-Based Dress Code Not Actionable. Citing Commission precedent, EEOC held that an employer may establish a different dress code for men and women to create a professional atmosphere without violating Title VII. Coates v. Small Business Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01A22569 (July 26, 2002).
Improper Fragmentation of Claims. The Commission found that the agency improperly fragmented and dismissed complainant's claims, treating eight incidents in a piecemeal manner and ignoring the pattern aspect of her claim. The Commission found that complainant had raised a single, actionable, claim of harassment, as evidenced by all the incidents set forth in her complaint. ___________ v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01A11137 (August 27, 2002).
Complainant Could Not Raise Same Claims in Grievance and EEO Complaint. Affirming the agency's dismissal of complainant's complaint, the Commission noted that, when a person is employed by an agency subject to 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d), and is covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which permits claims of discrimination to be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure, the individual must, if s/he wishes to also file an EEO complaint on the same claims, elect to file the matter in one forum or the other, but not both. Gorelick v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01A21398 (March 19, 2002). Cf. Smith v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01A11709 (June 26, 2002), RTR denied, EEOC Request No. 05A21034 (September 26, 2002) (dismissal reversed: no evidence complainant raised same issue in EEO complaint process that was also raised in negotiated grievance procedure).
Appeal Dismissed: Grievances are Not Appealable from the Postal Service. Citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.401(c), the Commission held that a grievant may not appeal a grievance decision to the Commission if the agency involved is not covered by 5 U.S.C. § 7121(d). Since that statute does not apply to the Postal Service, the Commission stated that grievances by Postal Service employees are not within the EEOC's appellate jurisdiction. Pickett v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A22538 (July 12, 2002).
History of National Origin Harassment Dated Back to 1992. EEOC Appeal No. 01A04389 (May 14, 2002). The Commission found that complainant had been harassed based on national origin since 1992, and that the agency had failed to take preventive and corrective action against a co-worker who had stated that he disliked foreign doctors and threatened complainant by racing a car engine in a parking lot. The agency, aware of the harassment, had permitted the co-worker to enter the clinic where complainant worked, despite the existence of notice of restricted contact. The matter was remanded on the issue of damages. Raney v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01A13039 (August 27, 2002).
Pretext Found. Finding that complainant's qualifications were superior to that of a selectee, the Commission found that the agency's reasons for not promoting complainant were a pretext for discrimination against complainant based on national origin and color. The Commission ordered the agency to retroactively promote complainant and award him back pay, seniority, and other benefits, as well as consider compensatory damages. Olivas v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04026 (July 30, 2002).
Retaliation Found in the Absence of a Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reason. The Commission found that the agency had retaliated against complainant for his prior EEO activity when it repeatedly changed his days off, even though most supervisors had fixed days off. The Commission, after finding that the agency had failed to offer a legitimate justification for its action, ordered the agency to reinstate complainant's set days off. Sandhu v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A21514 (July 30, 2002).
Removal Proposal Based on Retaliation. The Commission concluded that the AJ's finding that complainant's removal was proposed because of her having raised a claim of sexual harassment was supported by substantial evidence. The Commission also agreed that this type of activity was actionable because it could have a chilling effect on complainant's desire to engage in protected activity. As part of the relief awarded, the Commission ordered a remand on the issues of compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs. Riojas v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01994212 (August 15, 2002).
EEOC Reaffirms AJ's Authority to Impose Sanctions on an Agency. The sole issue in the agency's reconsideration request was the authority of the AJ to impose payment of attorney's fees as a sanction for failing to abide by an order of the AJ. In affirming the AJ's authority to impose such sanctions, the Commission referred to its regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(f)(3), permitting an AJ to issue sanctions during the conduct of a hearing, as well as to EEOC's recent rulemaking authorizing the imposition of sanctions for failure to produce information during the appeal process. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.404(c). Johnson v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05A20655 (September 25, 2002).
AJ's Sanction Improper. Complainant failed to respond to an AJ's order to answer her Notice of Summary Judgment within a certain time period. The AJ then recommended that the agency dismiss the complaints. However, the agency issued a decision on the merits, finding no discrimination. On appeal, the Commission vacated the agency's final decision and the AJ's dismissal order, finding that complainant's conduct was not the type of conduct that merited sanctions. Cosley-Jordan v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A01933 (September 19, 2002).
Settlement Agreement Breached But No Remedial Relief Available. While complainant had entered into a settlement agreement where the agency had agreed to pay the tuition fees, mileage and per diem for complainant and his wife to attend a federal retirement seminar, the agency's breach of the provision would not entitle him to specific performance because complainant had since retired and the seminar at issue no longer addressed a viable interest. Peterson v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01A10289 (March 7, 2002), RTR denied, EEOC Request No. 05A20530 (June 14, 2002).
Settlement Agreement Void for Lack of Consideration. The agency agreed to allow complainant to file a grievance pertaining to her claims and to treat her with dignity and respect, and not retaliate against her. The Commission found that these provisions did not provide complainant with anything that she was not entitled to receive as an agency employee in exchange for her withdrawing the underlying complaint. Tamura-Wageman v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A11459 (March 7, 2002).
Substantial Compliance Found. The Commission found that the agency was in substantial compliance with a settlement agreement, even though complainant received a required payment approximately three months late. EEOC noted that failure to satisfy a time frame specified in a settlement agreement does not prevent a finding of substantial compliance, especially when all required actions were subsequently completed. Gilmore v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A10815 (March 14, 2002).
Specific Performance Ordered. The Commission found that the agency had breached a settlement agreement when it failed to conduct the third of three Conflict Resolution Sessions, in which complainant was to have had an opportunity to participate. The third session was to be held within 15 days of the second; however, the agency had made no attempt to conduct the third session. EEOC ordered the agency to hold the third session within 15 days of its order. McMillen v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01A21067 (March 19, 2002).
Violation of OWBPA Requires Partial Vacation of Agreement. On a petition from a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) final order, the Commission found that a settlement agreement resolving petitioner's mixed case appeal should be set aside because ADEA-related retaliation claims were protected under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA), and the agreement did not satisfy the specific OWBPA requirements that must be met for a waiver of an ADEA claim to be valid. EEOC also concluded, however, that portions of the agreement attempting to settle reprisal claims raised under Title VII and/or the Rehabilitation Act should be allowed to stand, since petitioner raised no arguments suggesting that these particular waivers were invalid. The Commission noted, however, that the agency may have a simultaneous claim for a reduction of petitioner's award if petitioner ultimately prevails on his retaliation claim and is awarded relief for this claim. Campo v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Petition No. 03A20012 (August 23, 2002).
Hearing Transcript Evinced the Intent of the Parties. The Commission found that the parties had entered into a legally binding settlement agreement, which the agency breached, even though the agreement had not been reduced to a writing after a hearing. EEOC found that the hearing transcript evidenced the intent of the parties, and that the terms of the agreement were clearly ascertainable and agreed to by both parties before the AJ. The Commission ordered specific performance. Opfer, Jr. v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 01A11610 (September 10, 2002).
Agency Failed to Meet Its Burden of Obtaining Sufficient Information Regarding Timeliness of Complainant's EEO Counselor Contact. Rejecting the agency's assertion that complainant was made aware of her nonselection by an agency letter sent well beyond the applicable 45-day period for Counselor contact, the Commission found no evidence reflecting whether and when complainant received the purported letter. Cross v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A20914 (March 7, 2002).
Applicant Not Aware of 45-day Requirement, Dismissal Reversed. The Commission found no evidence that complainant, not a federal employee, had actual or constructive knowledge of EEO regulations or procedures. Michaud v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03448 (September 18, 2002).
EEO Contact on Removal Timely. Complainant's March 8, 2002 EEO contact was within 45 days of February 9, 2002, the date of the arbitrator's decision sustaining the removal and was thus timely. Scott v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A23284 (September 9, 2002)
Untimely Request for Reconsideration. In denying complainant's request for reconsideration on timeliness grounds, the Commission noted its precedent that a complainant was deemed to have constructively received a prior appellate decision that had been mailed to her last known address when she failed to notify the Commission of her address change. In this case, EEOC rejected the argument of complainant, who had moved twice since initiating the appellate process, and his attorney, that they did not receive a copy of the previous appellate decision. Guerard v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05A11141 (March 14, 2002).
Complainant, a PS-6 Letter Sorting/Machine Distribution Clerk (LSM), filed a complaint based, in relevant part, on disability discrimination when she was denied a reasonable accommodation by requiring her to return to her bid position in May 1994; and was terminated from her position. An AJ found no discrimination. The AJ found that complainant was an individual with a disability in that she had asthma and allergic rhinitis which substantially limited her ability to breathe. He further found that the complainant could not perform the essential functions of her position as an LSM Clerk because exposure to the smallest allergens such as perfumed mail could cause her significant harm. The AJ concluded that the agency was unable to offer any accommodation which would allow complainant to continue to be employed in her original bid position. In determining that complainant was able to perform the essential duties of several other positions in locations away from the sorting area, the AJ noted that the agency provided such reassignment accommodations for approximately two years.
The AJ further concluded that the agency proved that reassigning complainant would violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) requirement that vacant positions be posted for bid and, thus, found that the agency had proven that reassignment would cause the agency undue hardship. The AJ found not controlling an arbitration award which sustained complainant's grievance and upheld her right to reassignment. Finally, the AJ concluded that complainant had failed to show any alternative available accommodation that would not pose an undue hardship. The agency's final decision accepted the AJ's finding of no discrimination.
On appeal, the Commission reversed the agency, As the Commission interpreted the AJ's finding, reassignment was the proper accommodation in this case but was not an option because of the requirement that positions be posted and opened for bids. The Commission concluded that the CBA did not bar reassignment of individuals with disabilities and that complainant identified vacant funded positions to which she could have been assigned and which would have effectively accommodated her request to minimize her exposure to allergens concentrated in the letter sorting area. In this regard, the Commission noted the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 122 S.Ct. 1516 (2002), wherein the Court held that normally the employers' seniority system will prevail over the disabled employee's right to reassignment absent a showing of special circumstances, e.g., where an employee shows that the system already contains exceptions such that further exceptions are unlikely to make a difference. In the present case, the Commission found that complainant had demonstrated that reassignment was a reasonable accommodation and that the parties had specifically bargained for and had agreed to an exception to the posting requirement and thus no conflict existed. In addition, the Commission found the existence of special circumstances of the kind contemplated by Barnett supra. The agency had in place a detailed procedure for placing employees with impairments and disabilities, both temporary and permanent, into light and limited duty positions. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the agency's process for granting permanent light duty requests operated outside the bid process and reassignment was a reasonable accommodation. In this regard, the Commission noted that 29 C.F.R. 1614.203(g), which governed and limited the obligation of reassignment in the federal sector, had been superseded, and would be codified under 29 C.F.R. 1614.203(b). The Americans With Disabilities Act standards apply to all conduct on or after June 20, 2002, emphasizing a broader search for a vacancy.
In the present case, the Commission concluded that the agency was aware of vacant funded positions, but unreasonably assumed that complainant would be exposed to allergens in any of these positions. The Commission further concluded that complainant had made reasonable efforts to identify vacant positions for which she was qualified and in which her exposure to allergens was minimized. Accordingly, the Commission found that the agency had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that reassigning complainant would have posed an undue hardship and found that the agency's termination of complainant violated the Rehabilitation Act. As part of the remedy in this case, the Commission ordered the agency to retroactively reinstate complainant as of the effective date of her termination and provide her with a vacant position which accommodated her disability. Burnett v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01981618 (September 26, 2002).
Complainant applied and was selected for the position of Cleaner/Custodian. Subsequent to a an agency medical examination and assessment In June 1998, the contract physician (TCP) found that complainant had a history of coronary artery disease since 1993; that he twice underwent coronary angioplasty in 1994, which resulted in a history of angina requiring nitroglycerin; and that his heart was normal on evaluation. TCP further found that complainant had "gouty arthritis-right foot primarily with infrequent attacks"; degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine with mild, intermittent pain; right elbow cubital tunnel syndrome; and epicondylitis. TCP opined that: (1) absent more definitive information from stress EKG or angiopathy, it would be "hard to dismiss the notion that the exertion associated with the job functional requirements will cause chest pain or worse"; (2) "heavy lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling are likely to cause right elbow and entrapment neuropathy signs and symptoms"; and (3) "neck symptoms could flare up with heavy lifting and carrying." TCP also found that recent clinic records evidenced a history of excessive ethanol intake described as weekly binge drinking; high blood lipids and elevated blood pressure, conditions which "are not prognostically favorable for a young man with coronary heart disease." TCP concluded that complainant was a high risk candidate.
The agency also reviewed a 1996 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) which found that complainant's coronary artery disease was service connected and 30 percent disabling and that his degenerative disc disease was service connected and 10 percent disabling.
The VA also provided the agency with 1998 diagnoses of coronary heart disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, elevated ALT of 88, and thoracic disc disease. Based on this evidence, the agency determined that complainant's conditions were "serious" and caused him to have limitations against repetitive heavy lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, prolonged standing and walking. Accordingly, the agency concluded that employing him as a Cleaner/Custodian would not be in complainant's "best interest."
Complainant filed a complaint of disability discrimination and requested a final agency decision without a hearing. The agency found no discrimination. On appeal, complainant argued that the agency did not acknowledge his physician's progress note, dated June 23, 1998, which stated that complainant had "good exercise tolerance and should be able to continue janitorial job without any problems." His physician also described complainant's coronary artery disease as "stable."
The Commission found complainant to be a qualified person with a disability, in that the agency regarded complainant as having an impairment which substantially limited the major life activity of working, in this case performing a class of jobs: custodial and cleaner positions, and had initially selected him for the position at issue pending the outcome of a medical suitability determination.
In reversing the agency's decision, the Commission found that the agency had failed to meet its burden of showing that complainant posed a significant risk, i.e., high probability of substantial harm. The Commission found no evidence that the agency considered the opinion of complainant's own physician or any evidence regarding complainant's work history since he was diagnosed with coronary artery disease in 1993. The Commission further found that TCP's report was characterized by speculation in the absence of definitive information from a stress EKG or angiopathy with regard to complainant's having "chest pain or worse." TCP also stated that heavy lifting, carrying, pushing and pulling were likely to cause symptoms, but there was no explanation as to what the nature and severity of those symptoms might be.
The Commission additionally found that the agency's finding of unsuitability was not explained in detail, nor did it address the duration of the risk posed by complainant's coronary artery and degenerative disc, the nature and severity of the potential harm, and the imminence of the potential harm. Accordingly, finding no evidence to support the agency's conclusion that complainant posed a direct threat, the Commission found that the agency's denial of employment to complainant violated the Rehabilitation Act. As part of the remedy ordered, the Commission directed the agency to offer the position of Cleaner/Custodian or a substantially equivalent position to complainant at an agency facility within 30 miles of his home, back pay with interest and other benefits, and investigate complainant's claim for compensatory damages. Asuncion v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01993435 (August 23, 2002). See also, McManaway v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01993233 (August 23, 2002) (hiring denial based on direct threat unsupported by the evidence; Commission awards $10,000 in non-pecuniary compensatory damages); and see Jones v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01995775 (September 26, 2002) (denial of employment based on direct threat determination was contrary to the medical evidence; matter remanded on the issues of compensatory damages and attorney's fees).
Complainant, an Aircraft Ordinance Systems Mechanic, dislocated his shoulder in November 1996. According to his treating physician (Dr. J), in January 1997, complainant should perform no heavy lifting or overhead work for one year. No further treatment or visits was required. A Work Restriction Evaluation form limited complainant to lifting a maximum of 10 pounds until January 8, 1998. Complainant was then given a light duty assignment.
Although he was never placed on enforced leave, complainant, on April 22, 1997, was issued a notice proposing to place him on enforced leave for an indefinite period due to his inability to perform the essential functions of his position (lifting up to 75 pounds). On April 30, 1997, complainant's physician (Dr. P) reported that complainant was able to return to work without restrictions. The agency's physician (Dr. M) concurred with Dr. P. Dr. M described Dr. J's recommendation as being "very cautious" as to the expected time of recovery. Nevertheless, the Unit Foreman continued to assign complainant light duty work until January 1998.
The Commission reversed the agency's finding of no disability discrimination, finding that the agency regarded complainant as being significantly restricted in his ability to lift, continuing his limitations for more than a year without medical justification. The Commission noted that if the agency believed that the documentation was insufficient to determine whether complainant posed a direct threat or was unable to perform the essential functions of the position, then the agency had the option of arranging for complainant to be examined by a second specialist. As part of the remedies ordered, the Commission directed the agency to restore any lost seniority and leave used for its failure to restore complainant to his Mechanic position in April 1997. The Commission also ordered the agency to consider complainant's claim for compensatory damages, conduct EEO training of the responsible management officials, including the Unit Chief, and consider appropriate disciplinary action against the Unit Chief. Shobert v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01991157 (August 28, 2002).
Complainant, an agency Program Assistant, injured his back in April 1997. Complainant's physician indicated that, in connection with his herniated disc, complainant had a complete drop foot and experienced severe weakness and numbness in his left leg. The physician placed complainant under the following restrictions: no lifting over 10 pounds; no sitting for more than 30 minutes without a 5-minute break; no standing for more than 15 minutes without a 5-minute break; no repetitive bending, squatting, kneeling, and crawling. In August 1998, the physician released complainant to return to work on a part-time basis (4 hours a day) under the above restrictions. The physician also asserted that complainant could not return to the Program Assistant position. On December 7, 1998, the physician, by letter, advised the agency of complainant's continued profound neurological deficit in his left foot and leg and mechanical back pain. The letter also listed the same previous restrictions.
In December 1998, due to a reduction in force (RIF), the agency reassigned complainant to a vacant position as a Transportation Assistant. The position was designed to accommodate his restrictions. On February 12, 1999, complainant reported for duty and found that his work station was on the second floor in a building without an elevator, no access ramp into the building, and restrooms on the first floor. Complainant determined that he would have difficulty climbing the stairs due to his condition and informed his Second Line Supervisor (SLS) accordingly. SLS took complainant to the Supervisory Program Analyst (SPA) who informed complainant that she had been unaware of his limitations. SPA requested medical documentation to support his request.
Until complainant produced such documentation, he continued to report to the second floor work site in a building without a ramp, without an elevator, and restrooms on the first floor. Complainant averred that he had to climb the stairs 10-12 times a day during his 4 duty hours in order to use the restrooms. As a result of this climbing, complainant's condition worsened. Four weeks after informing SPA of his request, complainant provided medical documentation from his physician explicitly stating that he could not climb stairs. Complainant was then detailed to another building while his work site was physically changed.
Complainant filed an EEO complaint based on the request for additional medical information and subsequently requested a final agency decision, which found no disability discrimination. Reversing the agency, the Commission found that the agency should not have required complainant to provide additional medical documentation regarding his climbing limitation. The Commission found that the agency had clearly been provided sufficient information to substantiate complainant's disability. Furthermore, based on the medical documentation and a leg brace, complainant had provided sufficient information to substantiate the need for accommodation. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the agency had unduly delayed complainant's reasonable accommodation. As remedies, the Commission ordered, in part, that complainant be advised of his right to submit objective evidence in support of his claim for compensatory damages and that the agency provide Rehabilitation Act training for its management officials, including those involved in this matter. In addition, the Commission directed the agency to consider disciplining the management officials identified as having discriminated against complainant and report its decision on discipline to the Commission. McDonnell v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04036 (September 13, 2002).
In reversing the agency's final order, the Commission upheld the findings of an AJ that management officials had failed to abide by complainant's agreed upon limited duty assignment (LDA) and refused to revise her assignment, including the scheduling of her lunch break. The Commission found that complainant was substantially limited in the major life activity of lifting and could perform the essential functions of her position with an accommodation.
Complainant, a City Carrier, had filed her formal EEO complaint on October 28, 1994, claiming discrimination based on disability (hip pain, low back strain, Spondylolysis, and Piriformis Syndrome). Up until then, complainant had been offered and had accepted 4 LDA's in succession. The LDA of April 22, 1994, in effect at the time of the complaint, provided that complainant take lunch from 2:00-3:00 p.m. Complainant had many medical restrictions in operation at the time, including the requirement that she be permitted to take lunch earlier, so that she would not be required to sit, stand, bend, or walk for longer than 4 hours at a time before permitted to take a break. Complainant was restricted from lifting more than 20 pounds and standing for more than 3 hours. She was permitted to take the necessary breaks until April 1994. The AJ concluded that complainant was not permitted to take her lunch break at an earlier time than typically scheduled for her position, between April and October 1994, in accordance with her medical restrictions.
The Commission rejected the agency's argument that complainant had signed a Limited Duty Offer (LDO), in April 1994, which detailed that she would be assigned a lunch hour from 2:00-3:00 p.m. The Commission stated that the signing of the LDO did not constitute a waiver of complainant's right to reasonable accommodation. The Commission noted that complainant had been taking her lunch hour earlier, in accordance with her medical restrictions, prior to signing the April LDO. The Commission stated that, more importantly, complainant had requested an earlier lunch hour due to her medical restrictions, which was a request for accommodation of her disability. Complainant had stated that the earlier lunch hour was necessary so that she would not be sitting longer than 4 hours at a time. The agency did not provide such accommodation until October 1994, 6 months after the request was made. The Commission rejected the agency's explanation that there were certain duties specific to complainant's position that had to be done by 2 p.m. The Commission stated that there was no evidence that the agency considered alternatives, such as swapping duties with another employee, to accommodate complainant's request. Nor did the agency show that accommodating complainant would have been an undue hardship. The Commission ordered the agency to assign complainant a specific lunch break period and breaks consistent with her current medical requirements and not alter them, regardless of new LDAs, absent complainant's consent, with the changing of duty assignments. LaPointe v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01992460 (June 27, 2002).
Complainant claimed disability discrimination when the agency required him to submit medical documentation when he applied for a position, and when the agency cancelled the position vacancy announcement. The Commission found that the agency's pre-offer questions were improper "disability-related questions," as defined by the Rehabilitation Act. However, the Commission further determined that complainant had failed to meet his burden of showing the agency's reasons for withdrawing the vacancy announcement were pretextual. With regard to its finding of disability discrimination, based on the pre-offer questions, and by way of remedy, the Commission ordered the agency to investigate complainant's entitlement to compensatory damages; review its pre-employment hiring processes (especially regarding application forms, interview guidelines, and pre-hire medical examination procedures), revising them as necessary consistent with Commission regulations and Guidance; and to provide EEO training to the officials responsible for personnel decisions, with special emphasis on the agency's obligations under the Rehabilitation Act and implementing regulations with respect to pre-employment inquiries. Smallcanyon v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01997060 (August 21, 2002).
Complainant was sent to two different agency doctors (a psychiatrist and a psychologist) for fitness for duty examinations. Both indicated that complainant was fit for duty, but expressed concerns about complainant's "feelings of persecution." A letter from the psychiatrist recommended that complainant be referred to a psychiatrist for further treatment and be re-evaluated in one year. The agency directed complainant to obtain professional counseling at his own expense. Complainant refused and was subsequently terminated, along with his benefits. In the interim, complainant had been placed in non-duty status, then administrative leave, and been given an "unsatisfactory" annual evaluation, although he was eligible to receive a "not rated" evaluation because he did not work during the rating period.
The Commission reversed both the AJ's and agency's decisions, first determining the complainant's argument was more appropriately construed as an opposition to further medical inquiries. The Commission then found that the agency had violated the Rehabilitation Act because it could not demonstrate that its requirement that complainant seek psychiatric services was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Additionally, based on statements made by complainant's supervisor at the hearing, the Commission found that the agency subjected complainant to retaliation discrimination when it issued him an unacceptable rating, instead of a "not rated" performance evaluation. Meeker v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A12137 (August 23, 2002).
The Commission found that the agency violated the Rehabilitation Act's prohibition against the improper disclosure of confidential medical information, when it sent a letter to other Postal installations disclosing complainant's medical diagnosis and symptoms. The agency had sent the letter in an attempt to find complainant a job that could be performed during a particular shift as a reasonable accommodation. Noting that the Rehabilitation Act permits managers to be informed of necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations, the Commission found the disclosure to be a violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The Commission stated that the disclosure was not necessary to alert managers to restrictions on complainant's work or duties and his need for accommodation. The Commission reiterated to the agency that the Rehabilitation Act does not limit the prohibitions against improper disclosure of confidential medical information, and improper medical inquiries, to individuals with disabilities. The Commission remanded the matter on the issues of compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs. Tyson v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01992086 (August 23, 2002).


text:
Leon County Sheriff's Office Release
Tallahassee, FL - In January 2013, the Leon County Sheriff's Office was contacted by Loss Prevention personnel from both Lowe's Home Improvement stores in reference to a series of thefts.
Property Crimes Detectives were able to confirm that seven individuals had been involved in an organized scheme that defrauded the Lowe's stores out of more than $5,000.00 dollars. Beginning in November of 2012, Lesley Young, 39, began visiting both Lowe's stores.
Young took merchandise off the shelves, going to the customer service counters and obtaining merchandise cards as refunds for returning the items that were never purchased.
When store personnel flagged Young's identification for not having proof of purchase for items returned, Young began soliciting others to assist her in the scheme. On twelve occasions between November 2012 and January 2013, Young and another person would enter the stores and continue the thefts with the other person presenting identification each time.
Detectives, working with Loss Prevention personnel, reviewed video surveillance of these incidents, identified the suspects and obtained arrest warrants. As contact was established with each suspect, they were interviewed and taken to the Leon County Jail.
One of the defendants, Octvter Stibbins, 39, is in custody in Dade County, Florida on unrelated charges. Stibbins will be charged here upon the conclusion of the unrelated charges.


text:
I'm using Wise 1.1 inside a JSF application in order to invoke several web services in a dynamic way and I've got a problem invoking one of these services.
The problematic service returns a list of Strings (an array of Strings) as result. This result is mapped to an 'ArrayOfString' class -as defined in my WSDL file- built and compiled in a dynamic way by Wise. And my question is: How can I use this class in runtime after an invocation of the web service? I need this in order to consume correctly the results of the service.
Everytime I invoke this service, all I get as result (inside InvocationResult object) is a reference to an ArrayOfString object. Due to the fact that this class is compiled by Wise, I'm not able to acces to the corresponding methods of the class. I've tried Java reflection but I've got no success. Have you faced a similar problem before? Do you know a fix for this?
Thanks in advance.
Hi again,
My problem was solved by getting a reference to the ClassLoader from my WSDynamicClient (getClassLoader method). After this I am able to obtain a reference to the corresponding class and to invoke methods from this class.


text:
Skyward Collapse
Skyward Collapse Nihon no Mura expansion hits beta
Skyward Collapse gains a third faction in its upcoming Nohin no Mura expansion, which is now in beta for those who pre-order.
Skyward Collapse headlines
Skyward Collapse: a brain-bending battle against yourself
The destiny of humanity is in your hands – except some fool gave them free will and the little bastards won't stop slaughtering each other. This is Skyward Collapse, the hardest game of chess you've ever played against yourself.
Skyward Collapse now available for Mac and PC
Skyward Collapse, the turn-based 4X god-sim from Arcen Games, is out today on Mac and PC, and the developer sent over some screenshots and a new trailer for it. The game can be picked up through the official website, Steam, and other distributors. Brenna has been playing the preview build, and as soon as she […]
Skyward Collapse to release next week
Skyward Collapse, in which you play a hassled deity trying to keep your people from fighting to the death over petty religious squabbles, arrives next week.
Skyward Collapse is a turn-based 4X god-sim in the works at Arcen Games
Arcen Games have announced its new turn-based 4X god sim called Skyward Collapse is n development.


text: Warning: curl_setopt() [function.curl-setopt]: CURLOPT_FOLLOWLOCATION cannot be activated when safe_mode is enabled or an open_basedir is set in /www/hosting/kjn.cz/darinechka/index.php on line 105 i am a soldier!!! | Daria Nechepurenko about me | photos | links | contact me 18701 days ago Riga the capital of Latvia, is situated on the Baltic Sea coast on the mouth of the river Daugava. Riga is the largest city in the Baltic states. The Historic Centre of Riga has been declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site Oslo trip ‹‹ i am a soldier!!! Pictures Galleries Prague 2009 Oslo trip Christmas dinner, 1 Dec 2007 Parties 4x4 party Links Brenneriet Shopping! kjnův blog You can read Personality Numerology About me


text:
gravio on Family Tree Circles
sort: Date Alphabetical
view: full | list
view: full | list
Journals and Posts
Wynne family members - originally from Carlow Ireland living in America
All 8 of my grandads family moved to America in the forties or fifties, he died before i was born in the 60`s. One was Martin Wynne who was involved in the Gaelic athletic Association in New York. One of my mothers cousins was in carlow in the 80`s and had prepared a family tree which no one can find. He was a lawyer in the USA.
- Displaying 1-1 of 1 Journals
- 1
- of1


text:
That was when you hear a wheezing sound, which was familiar to a key rubbing upon the surface of a ribbed metal wire. You then awaken on a cold steel floor with others you do not recognize. This confusion of your not being in your bed evolves as you wonder where you are. As you look around where you are, you notice that the surrounding area was of an advanced headquarters of sort, for you were in the main computer room from what you deduced. As you looked out the window, you happen to see... Earth!? Outside the window, the planet Earth hanged in the emptiness of space above what you believe to be the surface of the Earth's moon. Although the lights lit up the room you were in, there is nobody in there save for yourselves.
Before a word could be said by any of you, you hear hear something banging on a metal door across from the massive computer. From the sound, it is as if stone were clashing on metal. This sound is briefly ignored as you hear somebody say, "Whatever you do, do NOT blink. Blink, and you're dead." Turning around, you see a man leaning out of a blue police box.
A quick Role Play bit before I throw out what I believe would be the obvious for you Doctor Who fans.


text:
Escape to the Brazil Baroque lifestyle, where glamour meets cosmopolitan chic, and dramatic and beautiful living spaces are
created with our exclusive collections.
Handmade in Brazil, our furniture is crafted from rare antique Brazilian hardwoods reclaimed from abandoned 18th and 19th estates and haciendas. Deep in the heart of Brazil, talented craftsmen in our workshops transform former walls, ceilings, and flooring into our functional, one-of-a-kind works of art.
Attention to detail and 18th century techniques are present in every step of the process, from the brushstrokes
painted on our polychromed pieces to the handforged hardware shaped by
master metalsmiths.
Capturing the romance and rhythms of Brazil, our collections add exotic sophistication to any ambiance. Be prepared to fall in love.
Web services provided by Austin Texas Web Designer Jess Haynie


text:
A new style of compact cams with a common footprint with major manufacturers.
Learn More...
DAYTools™ software generates die component designs in many CAD formats.
Learn More...
Dayton's DAYLube™ NanoCeramic Lubricating Grease is a leading edge, extremely high-performance lubricant that has a wide range of industrial applications.
Learn More...
Dayton Lamina products are sold through 500+ distributor representatives worldwide who look to Dayton Lamina for the technical support they need and the added value their customers expect.
Accelerate the design process with an extensive library of CAD data and downloadable design software.
Privacy PolicyDistributor LoginDayton en México
ISO 9001:2015 Certification
Site Map
@DaytonLaminaTerms & Conditions
Conflict Minerals Statement
500 Progress Road • PO Box 39 • Dayton, OH 45449-0039
a MISUMI Group Company


text:
"I could use a little help here" or "I can do it myself, thank you" for Cloud Projects
Windows Azure allows you to write code in languages within the .NET stack, you can use Java, C++, PHP, NodeJS and others. Code is code - other than keeping things stateless, using a Web or Worker Role in Azure is not all that different from working with an on-premises system.
Working in a scalable, component-based stateless architecture that can use federated security is not all that common for many developers. Some are used to owning the server, scaling up, and state-full paradigms that have a single security domain. Making the transition whilst trying to create a new software application or even port a previous one can be daunting. Sure, we have absolutely tons of free training, kits, videos, online books and more to learn on your own, but some things like architecture can be pivotal as you move along.
So the question is, should you just strike out on your own for a Cloud project, or get Microsoft Consulting Services or another partner to work with you on your first one? I use a few decision points to help guide the projects I assist in.
Note: I'm a huge fan of having help that ends up giving you training and leaves you in charge. If you do engage with someone to help you, make sure you keep this clear and take more and more ownership yourself as the project progresses.
How much time do you have?
Usually the first thing I ask is about the timeline for the project. It doesn't matter how skilled you are, if you have a short window to get things done it's better to get help - especially if this is your first cloud project. Having someone that knows the platform well can save you amazing amounts of time. If you have longer, then start with the training in the link above and once you feel confident, jump in.
How complex is the project?
If there are a lot of moving parts, it's best to engage a partner. The reason is that certain interactions - particularly things like Service Bus or Data Integration - can be quite different than what you may have encountered before.
How many people do you have?
I have a "pizza rule" about projects I've used in my career - if it takes over two pizzas to feed everyone on the project, it's too big and will fail. That being said, one developer and a one-week deadline does not a good project make, usually. It's best to have at least one architect (or someone in that role) guiding the project along, and at least two developers to work on a cloud project. That's a generalization of course, since I've seen great software on Azure with one developer writing code all by herself, but for more complex projects, more (to a point) is better. The nice thing about bringing on a partner is that you don't have to hire them full time - they help you and then they go away.
How critical is the project?
There's no shame in using some help. If the platform is new, if the project is large and complex, and if it is critical to the business, you should engage a partner. That's regardless of Cloud or anything else - get some help. You don't want to hit your company's bottom line in a negative way, but you have to innovate and get them a competitive advantage. Do your research, make sure the partner is qualified to help you, and get it done.
Don't let these questions scare you off. There are lots of projects you can implement on Windows and SQL Azure with nothing other than the Software Development Kit (SDK) that you get for free with Windows Azure. And assistance comes in many forms - sometimes just phone support, a friend you can ask. Microsoft Consulting Services or any of our great partners. You can get help on just the architecture piece or have them show you how to write the code. They'll get involved as little or as much as you like.


text:
Welcome to the Salt Lake Roasting Co.
As the founder of Salt Lake Roasting Co., I have traveled to the ends of the earth to find the best coffee available. You need only travel to the Salt Lake Roasting Company to sample these fine coffees from around the world. Our website is set up to feature these travels in the form of a personal travel journal, as well as offering suggestions on how to grind, brew and store our coffee in your home.
- John Bolton, Owner, Salt Lake Roasting Co.
The Salt Lake Roasting Company's cafe serves up the ideal atmosphere for any crowd. Our great coffee, menu selection, desserts and conversation are shared by our uniquely diverse patrons. Join us to study between classes, have a leisurely luncheon with a friend, or as an after theatre rendezvous - the Salt Lake Roasting Company's cafe is always the perfect choice.


text:
You are about to enter a website that may contain content of an adult nature.
Hello everyone, this is Indian cam girl alexissweet2014 here. I'm 22 year old Female speak English in the Indian live sex chat action. innocent honest brown hair superbe wit amaizing eyes smile end best body ever funny naughty humour erotic the best girl ever. im a sweet gir,funny,i think im beatifoul but i let that to u to see,i like sports music,romantic people,i hate rude people. masturbate is my expertise and also what I will do in Indian live sex private show. I have Brown eyes, Medium Brown hairs and my measurements are 85-60-90. For Turn ons: funny people,mature,hor ny. For TurnsOff: rude people. If you prefer kinks, then Piercings,Shaved, are mine. I'm just hungry for a HARD cock, can't wait to see u in my Indian webcam sex chat room! :)
Show more models
This website contains live indian sex cams, desi cams, hindi cam and tamil sex chat related sexually explicit content.
You must be at least 18 years of age to enter this website. © Since 2012 myindiansexcams.com Indian Sex Chat Network All Rights Reserved
AllHosts1 - AllHosts2 - AllHosts3 - AllHosts4 - AllHosts5 - AllHosts6 - AllHosts7 - AllHosts8 - AllHosts9 - AllHosts10 - AllHosts11 - AllHosts12


text:
Over the winter, I wrote a blog about how to travel like a pro. Unfortunately, sometimes airlines get in your way, no matter how big of a pro you are. So here are my tips on how to get yourself from Point A to Point B when, as a student, you just need to get out of town, forget about your coursework, and go have some fun.
A little background first: On a trip back from DC on USAirways, I ran into the most difficulties in a single trip I ever have. Ever. I was bumped (read forcibly removed) from a flight because I was one of the two last people to check in and the flight was overweight. I was shifted over to Delta, which proceeded to cancel its flight. I then got shifted back to USAirways, which then postponed its flight until 1AM. I was at Dulles Airport for a grand total of 12 hours before I decided to just go home. I received a flight voucher, which I then used to book a flight to NYC for this weekend. The flight was delayed five times for Air Traffic Control reasons, which were not elaborated upon, and I decided again to just hop on a flight the next morning. As a friend told me, "Fool me once…"
So here are my tips to make traveling a little easier:
1. Sign up for alerts from your airline. I received a phone call and e-mail from USAirways every time they delayed my flight. All four of them. Even though your flight has been delayed, at least you can delay yourself from sitting in the airport ad infinitum.
2. If you do have trouble, find a rep. This is a crap shoot. I lucked out and received a wonderful USAirways rep who got me rebooked for a flight the next day, had my bag pulled out and onto a carousel within five minutes, and she did it all with panache and a sense of humor. She looked mean, so don't judge a book by its cover, but restored my faith in humanity and in USAirways. For now. Look for Laura G at CMH. She'll do right by you.
3. Book your flights for as early in the morning as possible. Airlines who have delay problems (I'm looking at you, USAirways, Delta, United, American, etc…) tend to keep getting backed up until what happened to me, happens to you. Getting a flight as early as possible will circumvent this for the most part.
4. Complain, complain, complain. The greasy wheel gets the grease, aka a flight voucher and probably a meal voucher. Use at your own risk though. Flying on an airline you get a voucher from is like getting waterboarded and then saying, "Please sir, could I have some more?"
5. Here's my real solution to everything: FLY SOUTHWEST. I flew Southwest to Chicago, where I was going to be for a few days. I decided to extend my stay by a day. I changed my flight online, there were no change fees, I checked in two bags for free (after a shopping bender on Michigan Avenue doubled my luggage) and for $15 more, I was able to upgrade to business class.
6. Southwest business class gets you this: You are one of the first ten people to board, which means you can get one of the four seats in the front with the extra, super-deluxe legroom. If you check in exactly 24 hours before your flight, you'll likely be the very first. It also gets you a free glass of wine, cocktail or Monster energy drink. And next comes the most important part.
7. It gets you their Fly By Lane, available at most airports (not CMH). I underestimated how much time I needed to get through security at Midway in Chicago. The Fly By Lane let me almost literally fly by the 50 minute+ line at security, and go through the priority security line. It took me five minutes to get through.
8. Even if you don't do business class, you still get two bags checked for free (in addition to a carry on and personal item), a free drink, a snack and the peace of mind that your flight will leave on time. The 24 hour check-in trick works for non-business class too. Set an alarm for 24 hours before your flight, check in and you will almost certainly be in the A11-A30 group.
9. Southwest flies into outlying airports, and so you get to fly cheap. I flew into Midway instead of O'Hare for Chicago, and fly into BWI instead of Dulles or National for DC. The travel time between Midway and Lincoln Park is the same as O'Hare. And I saved $150 on a comparable flight. Very student budget-friendly!
10. The airport you choose when not on Southwest is also important. Dulles, O'Hare and La Guardia tend to have the most problems with delays.
11. And no, I am not a spokesperson for Southwest, though I should be. You can bet this blog will be posted on Southwest's Facebook Wall in hopes that my kind and deserved words land me a free flight somewhere. Business class preferably.
12. Update: My flight back to Columbus from La Guardia got off without a hitch, and even arrived half an hour early. Well done, USAirways. You're 2 for 15 in my book now. Southwest still rocks the most though.


text:
WASHINGTON — I no longer just say information is power. It's only powerful if it's the right and most up-to-date information. As we start off the new year, I thought I would give you a roundup of some personal finance information you should keep your eye on. I also want to point out personal finance highlights from 2012.
WASHINGTON — I no longer just say information is power. It's only powerful if it's the right and most up-to-date information. As we start off the new year, I thought I would give you a roundup of some personal finance information you should keep your eye on. I also want to point out personal finance highlights from 2012.
Credit reports: This month the Federal Trade Commission is expected to release a national study on the accuracy of credit reports. Errors in credit reports can cause consumers to be denied credit or other benefits. The credit reporting industry has maintained that only a small percentage of credit reports contain serious-enough errors to cause harm to consumers. This report will provide an independent look at just how accurate credit reports are.
Social Security: Look for a number of changes in this benefit program. For some, the news is good. But for others, not so much. There's good news for the nearly 62 million Americans receiving monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits. They will see an increase of 1.7 percent this year, according to the Social Security Administration. It's a modest increase compared to the 3.6 percent cost-of-living increase received last year. There was no cost-of-living adjustment the previous two years. High-earning individuals won't be rejoicing in 2013. That's because the maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax will increase from $110,100 to $113,700. Of the estimated 163 million workers who will pay Social Security taxes in 2013, nearly 10 million will pay higher taxes as a result of the increase in the taxable maximum. One final thing. By March, everyone getting Social Security benefit payments by paper check will need to sign up for electronic payments. If you don't choose an electronic payment option before the deadline, you'll receive your money on a debit card.
Medical and dental expenses: If you itemize for tax purposes, you can deduct expenses you paid for unreimbursed medical and dental care for yourself, your spouse and your dependents. But you can only deduct expenses for the year that exceed a certain percentage of your adjusted gross income. For tax year 2012, it was 7.5 percent. For tax years beginning after 2012, the percentage benchmark jumps to 10 percent.
The Mortgage Debt Relief Act: If you borrow money and the lender then cancels or forgives the debt, you generally have to include the canceled amount as income for tax purposes. At the height of the housing crisis, when foreclosures across the country began a troubling increase, Congress passed a law designed to provide some tax relief to folks who had lost their homes. The Mortgage Debt Relief Act allowed people to exclude from income the discharge of debt on their principal place of residence. Debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualified for the relief. But the law only allowed debt forgiven in calendar years 2007 through 2012 to be excluded. Unless Congress acts, the tax break will no longer be allowed.
Improved transparency: Starting in 2012 but continuing this year will be improved information for consumers. Last year, the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau pushed colleges to provide better information on what students and their families will pay. The watchdog agency also opened a student loan complaint system and one to handle individual complaints about credit bureaus. For information on any of these issues, go to www.consumerfinance.gov.
And most notably, people participating in workplace retirement plans are now going to receive better information about the fees they pay. New disclosure rules implemented last year by the Labor Department should help workers and the companies that provide retirement plans understand the fees charged to, or deducted from, individual accounts. If you have a 401(k) or similar plan, you should have begun receiving detailed information tied directly to the fees you have paid.
So in 2013, you should get a full year's worth of detailed fee information. When you get the information, don't ignore it. Review it. Fees typically run 0.5 to 2 percent a year. AARP has posted a video on YouTube to help you understand why fees matter. Search for "Understanding 401(k) Fees." As you review the fee information, compare it with the various investment offerings in your retirement plan. To assess your company's plan, go to www.brightscope.com, where you can find and research the quality of your 401(k) or 403(b) plan.
Personal finance can be complicated. So resolve in 2013 to stay informed.
Readers can write to Michelle Singletary c/o The Washington Post, 1150 15th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20071. Her email address is firstname.lastname@example.com. Comments and questions are welcome, but due to the volume of mail, personal responses may not be possible. Please also note comments or questions may be used in a future column, with the writer's name, unless a specific request to do otherwise is indicated.


text:
Early NASA diapers forced astronauts to disclose the size of their manhood
When NASA astronauts were suiting up to go to space in the 1960s, they had to make a big decision before they explored the world above us: How large of a man are you?
Getting it wrong could damage the mission.
MOON RACE: Why do moon landing conspiracies live on?
According to a former NASA life support system expert who helped construct space diapers, otherwise known as Maximum Absorbency Garment systems, each astronaut in the Gemini and Apollo programs had to wear a condom-type sheath with a hole at the end for urination inside their suits.
In an interview on the Science Channel's Moon Machines documentary series about early space travel, engineer Donald Rethke, known in space history circles as "Dr. Flush", describes how these condoms came in specific sizes to accommodate each astronaut's anatomical size.
Astronauts had to estimate their size correctly. If they claimed to be bigger than they were, the sheath would be loose and liquid leakage could damage the suits and lead to bigger problems for mission astronauts.
The condom initially came in only three sizes: small, medium, and large. Of course every astronaut fancied himself a large, and why not? He was riding on the top of a powerfulpotentially dangerous rocket, exploring parts of the outer world that men had not yet touched. No one wants to called "small" when they are planting an American flag on lunar soil.
In the Moon Machines interview, Rethke said that the sizes were changed to large, gigantic, and humongous to better cope with the astronaut's sense of humor.
LOST MOON: Apollo 13's harrowing week in space
The need for space diapers arose on May 5, 1961, when Freedom 7 astronaut Alan Shepard had to ask permission to wet his space suit on the launch pad. NASA scientists didn't think the need for bladder evac would be an issue in what was to be a 15-minute excursion. The incident made for a pretty humorous scene in 1983's space epic The Right Stuff.
Shepard was inside the Freedom capsule much longer than anticipated, nearly four hours, before finally being shot into near-Earth orbit.
These days, the MAG systems are only needed for missions outside space vehicles, as restroom facilities are a major part of space station outposts.
Craig Hlavaty is a reporter for Chron.com and HoustonChronicle.com.


text:
"My boyfriend is in jail and I sent him a lot, a lot of photographs and I like to get them to him quickly."
Send pictures easily to your incarcerated loved ones.Send photos to this facility
How does it work?
Select your photos
straight from your phone in a few clicks.
We print & ship
your order to arrive in 3 to 5 business days.
Photo delivery
no postage, no stamp, simply easy!
Customer stories
"My boyfriend's been in prison for 3 months following a drunk driving arrest, but he said it's been a wake up call. It's important for me to send him photos everyday to show him love. It's easy to think that nobody cares while you're in jail, but I don't want him to feel that way."
"My daughter needs to see her son grow. It's not easy because she's out of state, but with photos we keep her close to her family. She says there's nothing like seeing her baby smile to keep her fighting until she's home again."
"Sometimes I get fed up about the whole situation. But I've read somewhere that sending things to my baby's father greatly reduces the risk he will backslide. I want my daughter to have a father she can see, not somebody who's in jail for life."
In a few clicks, send photos whenever you want.
Printed in house, intimate photos stay private as long as they are authorized by correctional facilities.
Affordable pricing
Starting from $0.33, your budget stays under control.
Dedicated service
We ship to all prisons in the USA. Any questions about photo restrictions? We will help you out along this difficult journey.


text:
Video Production/ Digital Media/ Graphic Design/ Marketing
Contact Us
4075 Evans to Locks Rd
Evans, GA 30809
Phone: (706) 731-8415
Fax: (706) 738-5477
Every month, SuperSaver Coupons mails to over 150,000 homes in 6 different areas of 25,000 each, providing valuable money-saving coupons to consumers and allowing businesses the opportunity to target their audience.
Our mobile web app gives consumers access to our coupons directly from their smart phones providing merchants an advertising solutions that allows them to put their message in the hands of their customers. Click here to learn more about our Mobile App!
TV advertisements have the potential to reach over 355,000 homes in the entire CSRA area with more targeted messages for your consumers.
Services also available through TranterGrey Media Group include full advertsing agency services, video and audio production, web development, media buying, marketing services, event planning and more.


text:
© University of Kent - Contact | Feedback | Legal | FOI | Cookies
Search/browse mill collections
Refine your search using these filters,
or supply your own search term or phrase.
Search term
Material type
- Barn's Green(1)
- Pettaugh(1)
- Suffolk(1)
- Sussex(1)
- The Queens Head(1)
- [more][less]
These filters define your current search;
click on a filter to remove. Or
Start a new search
Material type
Search results
The Queens Head, Barn's Green, Sussex, England
Black and white negative and print made from it of a Mill Wright, Mr S. Robert Edwards, employed by J. W. Holloway and Sons Millwrights and Engineers in Shoreham, standing outside the 'Queens Head' public house in Barns Green, West Sussex, holding a hammer, taken on 21st July 1935.
This material is available for education use and may not be used for any commercial use without prior agreement. By using this material you are agreeing to the terms of use (pdf) offered by the University of Kent.


text:
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton Centre.
I want to start by referencing the terms of what we are talking about in the motion. What we are looking at is a very modest change to the Employment Insurance Act, so that those workers who are at their most vulnerable in key strategic areas receive some type of assistance and stability.
That is important to acknowledge, because we are not talking about doing this across the country. We are talking about doing it in areas that geographically or systemically have greater than 10% unemployment. It is very important to recognize that point, because it limits the scope of where we are going to be addressing the issue to start with.
We are going to acknowledge those areas that have a significant bump of unemployment, where there seems to be something happening in those regions that is causing a greater impact in those communities. Those regions would be able to access a fund that is a little more flexible for the families of the workers who are in trouble because there is something happening in those regions.
Those significant unemployment bumps could be caused by anything. In Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, they could be in the fishing industry. Or in my area of Windsor, Ontario, for example, we are concerned about an automotive downturn, which could peak things up at certain periods of time.
We know that certain sectors and certain parts of our country have some very unique challenges. That is what we are talking about: a very focused first step to address this. It is very important to acknowledge that the member for Acadie—Bathurst who has brought this forward has done it so he can be inclusive of the House. That is the intent here. It is not to try to take such a position on a very divided issue. We have taken some criticism that I think is very unfair, because we have taken a position whereby we can at least reach out to all members of the House to provide a simple change in our system that will cost only approximately $20 million.
That cost is going to go back to workers and their families. It is going to go back to them to make sure their mortgages and car payments get paid. It will make sure that they can put food on the table. It will make sure that they are able to get retraining and get back on their feet much more quickly.
We are not talking about $20 million in terms of a corporate tax cut or something which might have the money squirreled away somewhere outside this country. By the way, we still have not fixed that.
We are talking about $20 million that gets injected back into the hands of people who have already paid this out. They have paid for it through their benefit contributions on a daily basis, matched by their employer. That is what the whole insurance issue is about: we will have that coming back and we are looking at moving it from 14 weeks to 12 weeks.
Quite frankly, I am disappointed about the attacks saying that we have not included all these other things. We know that there is no consensus on this issue, so what can we do as a logical first step to make a difference, especially with the twilight of Parliament and this session and the threat of a looming election at any time? What can we do to allow those people and those geographic regions to have better benefits, for their own stability? At the end of the day, it will help those communities. It will change things. That is why the member for Acadie—Bathurst brought this forward.
There are a number of different issues on employment insurance that we can really relate to what is happening here. I want to touch on a couple of issues and one in particular that I have seen. It relates to going from 14 to 12 weeks. Some people in different occupations cannot deal with the way this is now. The member for Winnipeg Centre talked about carpenters and skilled trades. They work so much to get a job done and often are under a lot of pressure to get that job done quickly. Sometimes they actually have to work overtime and pay higher premiums and greater taxation, but at the same time, they are closing their working weeks down.
I can relate to that in regard to the persons with disabilities I used to support prior to coming to the House. Many of them, for their long term health and well-being, could not work at a job for 35 or 40 hours a week. That became problematic. Generally speaking, in Windsor West, even if someone had a good stable job the threshold to collect any type of employment insurance was often far too high.
When some of my clients, who were in occupations for years, diligently paying their taxes and watching it come off their paycheques, found themselves unemployed due to circumstances beyond their control, for example the employer had to lay them off or the company closed, they found nothing there for them. People were immediately removed from that system and put into the welfare system.
In Ontario, under the Harris regime, it was brutal. I remember supporting clients at that time who had to sell their cars or their life insurance policies. It was unbelievable. One client in particular had to sell the policy and dispose of it before going on social assistance. However if a person passes away, the state has to pick up that cost anyway, so there is actually a double cost on it. Those are the types of things people are made to do before they can actually receive some type of assistance. What happened was people would go into turmoil and it undermined their being able to get back on their feet and be successful again.
What is important about the motion is that we are asking that the qualifying weeks go from 14 weeks down to 12 weeks in areas with 10% unemployment or higher and that we have a specific strategy to address this so people can get back on their feet a lot quicker.
I think due diligence is required from the government. We have areas that for economic reasons have higher unemployment or have sectorial problems. We had a good debate the other day on the textile industries, where we know that beyond the control of the workers in this country, and their quality and ethics in terms of producing good products and services, there are other factors, which are beyond anything they can do individually, that are causing their unemployment. We had lots of different horror stories of what happened in that sector either because of things that the government has done in terms of the trade policy or has not done in terms of some of the massive overseas subsidization of other industries that have allowed unfair competitive practices and have thrown those workers out of work. The government has a duty to come up with a strategy to deal with that. We will be voting on that and I would encourage all members to support that effort.
We need to have specific government strategies for areas that are going to be influenced beyond their control in their area of expertise until we can make sure that there is going to be some stability.
I do want to address, in my final two minutes here, the notion that going from 14 weeks to 12 weeks to collect benefits would create an influx of people who cheat the system. Why do we not go after the people in the corporate world, white collar crime, those this country never goes after, those who cheat people out of their pensions, their savings and their earnings, with the same type of vigour? Why is it always on the backs of the workers as being victims first?
It is unacceptable. Nobody wants those cheaters and we should go after them if they are going to do that, but the government cannot get away with not doing anything about white collar crime and the looting of pensions and at the same time not do a little bit for workers and have an excuse--


text:
Former Lions and Dolphins quarterback Joey Harrington has now reached the nadir of his Portland days. He was hit from behind while biking.
Wrote The Oregonian, "The accident occurred at 8:24 p.m. Sunday near Southeast Foster and 88th Avenue." Harrington was taken to the hospital, but his injuries were not life-threatening.
But, this being Portland, and all, there are major bike-related implications that the Harrington-unfriendly mainstream sports media might ignore. BikePortland.org says that Southeast Foster "has no bike lanes at this location and the street is notorious for traffic crashes." Uh-oh! Plus, the driver who hit Harrington was cited for following too close. Perhaps he will lose his license and before too long will be on a bike as well. Eventually, all will bike freely, among former NFL quarterbacks.
Joey Harrington struck while riding his bike Sunday night in SE Portland [Oregonian]


text:
Look at what the UPS man dropped off on my doorstep this afternoon? Couldn't wait to share it with you!! More details and a free copy to giveaway before end of week. Soooo excited!
The US version and the UK version are both shipping from Amazon now.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
So this happened...
Posted by Laurie Wisbrun | Scarlet Fig at 10:16 PM
10 comments:
- Unknown said...
looks amazing.. got to have this one!!!!
- November 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM
- Jo Ann said...
Fabulous, would be great reading for sure!
- November 28, 2012 at 11:02 PM
- Michelle said...
oh wow, looks gorgeous, I will certainly be buying this to add to my last one from you. Congratulations, Michelle xx
- November 29, 2012 at 3:03 AM
- Kara {me and elna} said...
Fancy freaking PANTS! Congratulations!!! :D
- November 29, 2012 at 8:27 AM
- Kara {me and elna} said...
PS: Check out my blog today for a peek at a bag I made with some of your fabric! http://www.meandelna.blogspot.com/2012/11/its-time-for-prizes.html
- November 29, 2012 at 8:28 AM
- Mrs Flying Blind... said...
woo hoo!
- November 29, 2012 at 8:37 AM
- Pam said...
Congratulations. I would love to have it!
- November 29, 2012 at 8:47 AM
- Ruby in the Dust said...
Congratulations, you must be so happy! Ooh, I'm so excited to see where my little embroidered brooches ended up!
- November 29, 2012 at 4:18 PM
- Amy Prior said...
huge Congratulations Laurie!
- November 29, 2012 at 8:32 PM
- janequiltsslowly said...
That looks amazing! Congratulations!
- November 30, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
124 Killian Commons Parkway
Exit 22 off of I-77
Columbia, SC 29203
Sorry, no items matching your request were found.
Above you will find all of our competitively priced new 2016-2017 Honda cars. With a wide selection of new cars to choose from, we are confident that you will find a vehicle that fits your lifestyle. As a major destination for a Civic, Accord, Ridgeline, CR-Z, CR-V, Pilot, Fit and many other Honda vehicles in Columbia, we are ready to assist you in any way that we can. Use our Power Search tool below to filter by make, model, year and body style, or call us to speak to a member of our knowledgeable sales team. If you cannot find a particular Honda vehicle, please try our CarFinder tool and we'll locate it for you!
Popular Models: Accord
| Civic
| Fit
| Ridgeline
| Odyssey
| Pilot
So now that you have seen Midlands Honda's inventory of 2016-2017 Honda models in Columbia, SC, why not take a minute to browse our selection of used cars in Columbia, SC? We inspect all pre-owned vehicles that come into our Columbia, SC, South Carolina dealership to ensure we are providing genuine quality for our customers. Come visit us at 124 Killian Commons Parkway, Columbia, SC 29203 and see for yourself!
**Based on 2013 EPA mileage estimates, reflecting new EPA fuel economy methods beginning with 2008 models. Use for comparison purposes only. Do not compare to models before 2008. Your actual mileage will vary, depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle.
For EV models, 132/105/118 city/highway/combined miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent (MPGe) rating; 82 mile combined (city/highway) driving range rating (adjusted). Ratings determined by EPA. Your MPGe and range will vary depending on driving conditions, how you drive and maintain your vehicle, battery age/condition, and other factors. For additional information about EPA ratings, visit http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/learn-more-electric-label.shtml.
For 2014 Honda Accord Plug-In Hybrid, 124 city/105 highway/115 combined miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent (MPGe) electric rating; 47 city/46 highway/46 combined MPG gasoline only rating. 13 mile maximum EV mode driving range rating. 570 mile combined gas-electric driving range rating. Ratings determined by EPA. Use for comparison purposes only. Your MPGe/MPG and driving range will vary depending on driving conditions, how you drive and maintain your vehicle, battery age/condition, and other factors. For additional information about EPA ratings, visit http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/learn-more-PHEV-label.shtml.