Jim Bergauer chips onto the 9th green. Photo by John McHale/ladailypost.com Eddie Sanchez putts-out on the 9th green Saturday morning in the 67th annual Atomic City Invitational Golf tournament being played over a 4-day period this 4th of July weekend at the Los Alamos County Golf Course. Results will be posted as they become available. Photo by John McHale/ladailypost.com A golfers tee off on the 9th green practicing social distancing. Photo by John McHale/ladailypost.com Barbara Schmidt is the driver and support team for Eddie Sanchez. Photo by John McHale/ladailypost.com Bryan Fearey putts-out on the 9th green. Photo by John McHale/ladailypost.com Jeff Goettee takes his fairway shot to the 9th green. Photo by John McHale/ladailypost.com
John Spoke to Galway United Manager Shane Keegan on Over The Line Galway United take on Cork City at Turners Cross in the SSE Airtricity League Premier Division Tomorrow Evening At 7.45pm. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/sports.podcast/SHANE+KEEGAN+OTL.mp3print WhatsApp Facebook Twitter Email
Is this Retaliation 2.0?Two weeks ago, Adria Richards attended an industry conference at which she overheard sexual jokes from two attendees sitting behind her during a session. So, she complained…on Twitter:And then she blogged about it here. The social-media complaints resulted in one of the joke tellers getting fired. And, last Wednesday, Ms. Richards tweeted that her employer supported her.That same day, SendGrid, Ms. Richards’s employer, fired her.(Jon Brodkin at arstechnica.com has the full story here).We can argue about the propriety of using social media to publicize a harassment complaint, especially when a private complaint could have sufficed. Still, the SendGrid response certainly seems harsh and unfair.But did SendGrid go so far as to retaliate (as a matter of law) against Ms. Richards?Find out, after the jump…* * *It’s a tough one.Over the weekend, I read this article in the San Jose Mercury News about the firing. Two lawyers, one who represents employees, another who represents employers, were asked whether firing the tweeter/blogger was legal?The plaintiff’s lawyer said of the employer, “They’re basically retaliating against her for speaking out about sexual harassment.” The defense attorney acknowledged that the “law is strong in protecting people who make complaints of harassment, or who participate in an investigation about complaints of harassment.” He called the situation “a tough one.”He’s right.For what it’s worth, SendGrid justified its response in its own blog post. Underscoring that SendGrid, “supports the right to report inappropriate behavior, whenever and wherever it occurs,” the company noted that “her decision to tweet the comments and photographs of the people who made the comments crossed the line. Publicly shaming the offenders – and bystanders – was not the appropriate way to handle the situation.”A complaint, by any other method or medium, is still a complaint.The anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 make it unlawful to discriminate against an individual because s/he has opposed any practice made unlawful under the employment discrimination statutes (i.e., a protected activity).The law itself does not place any restrictions on the manner in which an employee complains about discrimination. Before the advent of social media, employees generally complained about workplace harassment in-person, via telephone, in a letter, or through email. A tweet and a blog post may be anything but the traditional way to complain. But a complaint via social media is a complaint nonetheless. Call it the 21st century equivalent of taking an ad out in The New York Times, or maybe the actions taken in this 1990 case, where the plaintiff wrote letters to customers criticizing her employer’s alleged discrimination.So, the issue of law here is not how Ms. Richards complained. Rather, it’s whether Ms. Richards opposed a practice made unlawful under the employment discrimination statutes? That is, did SendGrid have any responsibility to offer protection to Ms. Richards from sexual comments made on a business trip by non-employees?This is a story about control.As I noted above, this is not an easy one to analyze. But, a little research I performed over the weekend yielded this case (Little v. Windermere Relocation, Inc.), which suggests that Ms. Richards may have a viable retaliation claim against her former employer.In Little, a corporate services manager was told to cultivate a business relationship with a client to try to get his account. When she went to a business dinner with the client to discuss the account, he drugged her at the restaurant and she awoke to find herself being raped by him in his car and apartment. When she recounted what happened to co-workers, they said that reporting it would jeopardize her career. When she reported it to a supervisor, she was not removed from the account. When she finally told the company president, he said he did not want to hear about it and reduced her salary. She said that the pay cut was unacceptable to her, and he responded that it would be best if she moved on and cleared out her desk. The court held that she had presented sufficient evidence that the employer had ratified or acquiesced in the rape, which occurred in the “work environment” as construed to include out-of-office meetings with business clients.All it takes is a reasonable belief.I could distinguish Ms. Richards’s situation, given that her complaints were not about company clients. However, it appears that she was attending a business conference at SendGrid’s behest. And I assume a benefit to SendGrid was Ms. Richards learning and networking with other conference attendees. Therefore, if a conference attendee engaged in behavior that amounts to discrimination or sexual harassment, then Ms. Richards’s social media complaints could amount to protected activity.Remember also that even if the law does not technically recognize the actions of which Ms. Richards complained as unlawful discrimination, to engage in “protected activity,” she need only have a reasonable belief that what she experienced was unlawful.So, although SendGrid may have preferred that its employee utilize another method to complain about sex discrimination at the conference, the law is not concerned with the employer’s preference. A complaint by any other method or medium — even social media — is still a complaint. The law is designed to protect employees from unlawful harassment and those who complain about it.Consequently, firing an employee who complains about what she believes to be sex discrimination is often a recipe for disaster. Firing an employee because of that complaint, well…It may be time for SendGrid to lawyer up. Fast. To read the original post, please click here.
An oil refinery did not qualify for a manufacturing exemption from Wyoming sales tax on purchases of certain chemicals, catalysts, oils, lubricants, and other materials, because the items were not used directly in, and consumed or destroyed during, the taxpayer’s manufacturing processes.A threshold requirement for the exemption is that the purchased item must physically interact with or become an ingredient or component of the manufactured product at some point. Thus, an exemption was denied for chemicals, lubricants, and like materials that were used in the taxpayer’s manufacturing facility, but did not physically interact with the refined petroleum products or derivatives.Also, spent oil and lubricants that did not initially interact with the refinery’s production, but were later salvaged and disposed of through recycling into the taxpayer’s crude oil supply did not qualify for exemption. Whether an item is exempt depends on the original form, purpose, and use of the item in the manufacturing process.Here, an opportunity to dispose of waste lubricants by adding them to the manufacturing process after they became waste did not qualify their initial purchase for an exemption. The recycling of waste lubricants into crude oil feed stock for refining into gasoline and diesel did not render the original purchase tax-exempt.On the other hand, the taxpayer offered sufficient evidence that six categories of purchased chemicals physically interacted with its production of petroleum or derivatives and were destroyed or consumed during the process. The Department or Revenue conceded that these items were probably exempt, and the State Board rejected the Department’s argument that the evidence was not timely presented.In the Matter of the Appeal of Frontier Refining, Inc., Wyoming State Board of Equalization, Nos. 2015-42 and 2015-45, July 5, 2017Login to read more tax news on CCH® AnswerConnect or CCH® Intelliconnect®.Not a subscriber? Sign up for a free trial or contact us for a representative.
Watch Serie A live in the UK on Premier Sports for just £11.99 per month including live LaLiga, Eredivisie, Scottish Cup Football and more. Visit: https://subscribe.premiersports.tv/ Simone Zaza came off the bench to rescue a point for Torino, but it’s Cagliari who emerge feeling more confident. Click here for the full match report. OR See how all today’s Serie A games unfolded on the Liveblog.
TagsTransfersAbout the authorFreddie TaylorShare the loveHave your say Southend chairman confirms interview for Ex-Man Utd, Celtic striker Larssonby Freddie Taylor24 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveFormer Celtic and Manchester United striker Henrik Larsson is meeting with Southend chairman Ron Martin about the club’s managerial position.Larsson was in attendance as the Blues lost 1-0 to Accrington in League One at the weekend.While there are other managers interested in the job, including Kevin Bond and caretaker Gary Waddock, Larsson is the high profile option.”We know the qualities within the manager that we are looking for but the combination of those characteristics or persons are not always available and it’s right we carry out, as we are, proper due diligence in arriving at the right choice,” Martin said to reporters.”Henrik Larsson is obviously one of the individuals that we have been interviewing but he is not the only candidate and no decision has been made as I write this statement.”I am going to Stockholm in the morning, back in the afternoon, to meet potential ‘back room staff’ but that’s it, gathering information. There are five shortlisted candidates and Gary Waddock is certainly included.”It’s sometimes difficult for the assistant to step into the shoes of the manager but in this instance Gary has had very considerable experience and he is well-placed to stamp his authority.”
LONDON – Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is promising to do a better job protecting user data following reports that a political consultant misused the personal information of millions of the company’s subscribers. The fact is, European regulators are already forcing him to do so.A similar data breach in the future could make Facebook liable for fines of more than $1.6 billion under the European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulation, which will be enforced from May 25. The rules, approved two years ago, also make it easier for consumers to give and withdraw consent for the use of their data and apply to any company that uses the data of EU residents, no matter where it is based.The law is the latest attempt by EU regulators to rein in mostly American tech giants who they blame for avoiding tax, stifling competition and encroaching on privacy rights. European analysts say GDPR is the most important change in data privacy regulation in a generation as they try to catch up with all the technological advances since 1995, when the last comprehensive European rules were put in place. The impact is likely to be felt across the Atlantic as well.“For those of us who hold out no hope that our government will stand up for our rights, we are grateful to Europe,” said Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor at the University of Virginia who studies technology and intellectual property. “I have great hopes that GDPR will serve as a model for ensuring that citizens have dignity and autonomy in the digital economy. I wish we had the forethought to stand up for the citizen’s rights in 1998 (the start of Google), but I’ll settle for 2018.”The U.S. has generally taken a light touch approach to regulating internet companies, with concerns about stifling the technology-fed economic boom derailing President Barack Obama’s 2012 proposal for a privacy bill of rights. But Europe has been more aggressive.EU authorities have in recent years taken aim at Google’s dominance among internet search engines and demanded back taxes from Apple and Amazon. The European Court of Justice in 2014 recognized “the right to be forgotten,” allowing people to demand search engines remove information about them if they can prove there’s no compelling reason for it to remain.Now data protection is in the crosshairs of the 28-nation bloc, where history has made the right to privacy a fundamental guarantee. Nazi Germany’s use of personal information to target Jews hasn’t been forgotten, and the new Eastern European members have even fresher memories of spying and eavesdropping by their former communist governments.In today’s world, digital commerce companies collect information on every website users visit and every video they like. This data is the lifeblood of social media sites that give users free access to their services in exchange for the right to use that intelligence to attract advertisers.But the Facebook scandal shows it can also be used for other purposes.A whistleblower this month alleged that Cambridge Analytica improperly harvested information from over 50 million Facebook accounts to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election. News reports have focused on the relationship between Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix, former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and billionaire computer scientist Robert Mercer, who bankrolled the operation.Cambridge Analytica says none of the Facebook data was used in the Trump campaign. Facebook is investigating.“The regulation is trying to balance the power between ourselves as individuals and organizations that use that data for a whole variety of services,” said David Reed, knowledge and strategy director at DataIQ, a London-based firm that provides research on data issues.The EU’s new rules expand the reach of regulations to cover any company that processes the data of people living in the bloc, regardless of where the company is based. Earlier rules were ambiguous on this point, and international companies took advantage of that to skirt some regulation, the EU says.While Facebook is based in Menlo Park, California, it has some 277 million daily users in Europe out of 1.4 billion globally.The EU legislation also demands that consent forms are written in plain language anyone can understand. No more legalese across pages and pages of terms and conditions that few people read before clicking “I Agree.” The regulations also require that consent must be as easy to withdraw as it is to give.To ensure compliance, there’s the potential for big fines. Under GDPR, organizations face fines of up to 20 million euros ($25 million) or 4 per cent of annual global turnover — whichever is greater — for the most serious violations.Facebook reported $40.65 billion in revenue last year. That means a serious violation could cost the company as much as $1.63 billion.Even though GDPR doesn’t legally protect the data of people outside the EU, analysts expect many companies to apply the rules worldwide. Smaller firms are likely to decide it’s too expensive to run multiple compliance systems, though bigger firms like Facebook and Google may still decide to “bracket off” European operations, Vaidhyanathan said.Sarah T. Roberts, a professor of information studies at UCLA, says the EU is formulating the rules of engagement, rather than allowing internet companies to dictate. While U.S.-based platforms were created in the image of Silicon Valley, that type of bravado and no-holds barred capitalism doesn’t go down well in Europe.“Despite claims that cyberspace is not fettered to planet Earth, that is not true,” she said.Facebook, for one, has taken notice, setting aside a page of its website to explain what the company is doing to comply with GDPR. “We’ve built tools to help people manage their data and understand their choices with respect to how we use their personal data,” it says.But GDPR is not a panacea that will ensure everyone’s data is protected. Some analysts suggest the next step should be to ensure that everyone owns their own data and can sell it in exchange for services.Pressure is building for increased regulation in the U.S., where members of Congress have called on Zuckerberg to testify about the Cambridge Analytica scandal.The alleged conspiracy has captured the public imagination, focusing worldwide attention on data protection, Vaidhyanathan said.“Cambridge Analytica’s story sounds like a spy novel,” he said. “It has a bond villain in Alexander Nix. It has a secretive billionaire genius in Robert Mercer. It has the evil sidekick in Steve Bannon. It is working for right-wing interests and it claims to be able to control our minds,” he said. “We needed a few Bond villains to make the story lively.”
ST. JOHN’S, N.L. – Fortis Inc. has signed a deal to sell its 51percentt stake in the Waneta expansion hydroelectric project in B.C. to its provincial government partners for approximately $1 billion.The B.C. government’s Columbia Power Corp. and Columbia Basin Trust together already hold the other 49 per cent of the Waneta expansion.The project was completed in 2015 and has the capacity to produce 335 megawatts of power. Fortis says the sale will help finance the growth of its regulated utility business.FortisBC will continue to operate the facility and purchase its surplus capacity.The deal, which is subject to customary closing conditions, is expected to close within 90 days.
New Delhi: The government has once again extended the deadline for mandatory testing and certification of mobile phones and telecom equipment to August 1, 2019. Department of Telecom (DoT) had in 2012 for the first time fixed April 1, 2013 as the deadline for mandatory testing and certification of telecom equipment (MCTE), and has deferred it many times since then. “It has now been decided that certification of all telecom equipment under MCTE shall be mandatory with effect from August 1, 2019,” Telecom Engineering Centre (TEC), technical arm of DoT, said in a notice dated March 12. According to a previous order in September 2018, TEC said some of the equipment like wi-fi access points, satellite equipment, telephone instruments, etc, can be sold only after testing and obtaining certificate from authorised agencies from January 1, 2019.
New Delhi: A Delhi court Saturday framed various charges, including criminal conspiracy to commit rape and penetrative sexual assault, against all accused persons in the Muzaffarpur shelter home sexual assault case. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Kulshreshtha put 21 accused on trial, saying there was prima facie enough evidence against them. Besides rape (376) and criminal conspiracy, the court also framed charges under various sections of the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act and other charges. Also Read – Uddhav bats for ‘Sena CM’ All the accused, who appeared before court, pleaded innocence and claimed trail. Brajesh Thakur, alleged mastermind and strongman in the case, was charged with serious charges under the POCSO Act, including Section 6 (aggravated sexual assault). The offence carries punishment of minimum 10 years and maximum of life imprisonment. All 20 accused were charged with criminal conspiracy to commit rape and penetrative sexual assault against minors. Also Read – Farooq demands unconditional release of all detainees in J&K The Court will hold trial for the offences of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, drugging of minors, criminal intimidation among other charges. Key accused Thakur and employees of his shelter home, as well as Bihar department of social welfare officials were charged with criminal conspiracy, neglect of duty, failure to report assault on the girls. The charges also included offence of cruelty to child under their authority, punishable under the Juvenile Justice Act. On February 7, the Supreme Court ordered authorities to transfer the case from Bihar to a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) court in Saket District Court complex in Delhi, which would conclude the trial within six months by holding preferably day-to-day hearing. Several girls were allegedly raped and sexually abused at an NGO-run shelter home in Muzaffarpur, Bihar. The issue had come to light following a report by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS).