text:
By Vickie Russell Bell
I woke up this morning after sleeping for 8 hours and I felt wrecked, like I’d been hit by a bus. No, I didn’t have too many drinks the night before and I hadn’t even been awake at 3:30 needing to read for awhile to shut off the chatter in my mind. But I had been dreaming vividly. And the dreams were a bit like a post apocalyptic video game. What I knew upon waking was that my mind had been working through some stress. The evening before, I had finally made the decision to be honest with a man that I had been dating for a couple months. We had been having fun together, kind of a “friend’s with benefits” set up. But, I had been having this unsettled, nagging anxiety. After spending an hour quietly practicing restorative yoga, and inviting in this unsettled feeling (the sensation was just a clench in my chest and a hollow feeling in my belly that quickly dissipated as I gave it space) I knew that I needed to stop my current behavior in order to make space for the kind of relationship I truly desire.
Is this a piece about being single or dating etiquette? Not really. This is a piece about what’s often missing in our yoga practice. In the current yoga culture some of us have confused the practice of yoga with working out. Don’t get me wrong, working out is great and has it’s place. But the physical benefits of the practice of yoga are what I consider to be side effects. Long, lean, strong and flexible are wonderful by-products of showing up on our mat.
The other day I was talking with a colleague about the idea “gentle is the new advanced”. I wholeheartedly agree.
Our culture rewards us for going hard all the time. We feel worthy when we push and stress.
I tell myself I am important when I answer the question “how are you?” with the answer “I am so busy!” We learn to ignore our exhaustion, our discomfort and our heartbreak. We learn to abandon our deeper Truths and needs in order to be productive beings.
And there it is BEINGS! For a long time I was a doer who had forgotten how to be. I ignored the young parts of myself that needed my attention and my comfort. I pushed all of that away and ran on adrenaline. Until I couldn’t do it anymore. Slowing down felt scary like a little death.
When I learned about restorative yoga and my nervous system, I felt drawn to it and scared at the same time. How can I stop pushing? Who will I be? What if all those plates I’ve been spinning crash down around me…then what? The ease that I touched kept drawing me back. I craved the comfort of the props and the deliberate stillness and silence. The physical yoga postures feel amazing in my body. It is fun to work hard in practice and to learn new things. The asanas can invigorate and challenge; they can be sensual and soothing. Gripping and protection start to soften and my mind is more clear. After 26 years of practice, this softening and clearing is the entry, the invitation to sit or to lie still. To invite the feelings that have been pushed down or distracted against (that nagging sensation of anxiety that leads me to the tenderness of knowing that I want more from a relationship).
After my quiet practice this morning, I knew that I had made a decision that was filled with integrity and honored all my desires and needs. I also knew that even though I had slept for 8 hours, I had still been exhausted. Sleep and relaxation are not the same thing. My restorative practice honored my night of disturbed sleep and the sadness of disappointing another in order to care for myself.
Some days when I lie down I am faced with a whirlwind of thoughts and an almost pounding sense of my energy. What I know now after years of balancing active asana practice with stillness and meditation is that it takes a little time, a little patience and a light attention on the breath and little by little my whole being starts to quiet down. Some days the ease feels deep and wide, and others, I barely touch it. When the chimes ring after 22 minutes of sitting or watching my breath or doing a restorative pose, I am more spacious, more sane and sometimes I feel like I’ve had a healing vacation.
Give it a try. Silence, stillness and savasana. Set your timer for 20 minutes. Switch gears. Get still and quiet. It will change your life. What’s missing from your yoga practice?
Take time to open up the body, wring out stress and balance winter kapha energy. This practice will center on restorative twists and renewing poses that free the breath to prepare your entire being for springtime. Find more of our restorative and therapeutic offerings here.


The Miracle of Water
Morning Mist on the Canal, C2836
"Morning Mist on the Canal"
Wabash and Erie Canal
Fog embraces the Stone Arch Bridge along the canal. Whispers of birds and frogs are the only sounds heard on an early weekday in spring while the rural town rouses from sleep. Shafts of sunlight will soon burn the mist off the water, and reflections of clouds will bring a promise of a glorious spring day in the Hoosier land.


Tax dollars at “work”: The Biden Administration unilaterally moved $1.9 billion that was set aside for protecting Americans and the country and spent it in a wasteful and unknown manner. At first Biden’s OMB Director Shalanda Young wouldn’t say exactly where $1.9 billion in taxpayer money went but it was clear that the Biden Administration didn’t spend it on the construction of a border wall that would protect Americans. In response to questioning, Ms. Young finally said what the Biden gang did with the money. “We’re actually doing environmental restoration, something that was woefully lacking. We’re also doing community consultation. I think that’s important to many of you who represent constituents.” What the hell is” Environmental restoration”? Or “Community consultation”? And this cost $1.9 billion?
Walt must be spinning in his grave: Disney’s executives have their own agenda. Executive producer Latoya Raveneau said her team implemented a “not-at-all-secret gay agenda” and is regularly “adding queerness” to children’s programming. “I was just wherever I could just basically adding queerness…if you see anything queer in the show… no one would stop me,” Ms. Raveneau admitted. Another Disney corporate president Karey Burke saying she supports have LGBTQ characters in her stories. Burke said all of her children are queer and transgender so she supports Disney shows having as many LGBTQ characters as possible. In fact, Burke vowed more inclusivity in its productions — as the entertainment giant works to make underrepresented groups, such as racial minorities and the LGBTQ community, account for at least 50 percent of its regular characters by the end of the year. Despite the finding that only 4.5% to 5.6% of Americans identify as LBGTQ. They don’t want equality, they want superiority.
Not that important: The Washington Post on Wednesday became the second major news outlet to reverse course and admit that emails from the infamous Hunter Biden laptop are authentic — nine months after it obtained them and a year and a half after the New York Post first reported on them. Other verified emails related to his work for the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings, for which Hunter Biden was paid as much as $83,333 or a month, or $1 million a year. It’s unclear if that material includes the many sexually explicit photos and videos that were stored on the laptop, such as a raunchy, 12-minute clip video that appears to show the future first son smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman. So maybe it’s only a little bit of Russia misinformation. It’s not like it would have had any impact of the presidential election or anything.
Teach teachers not to rape: Recently, 50-year-old Andrew Bert Hammond was arrested in Redmond, Washington. Mr. Hammond (who incidentally offered a plethora of online advice on supporting BLM in the aftermath of the George Floyd incident) has been interacting with 13- and 14-year-old girls over the web and had arranged for a meeting with them specifically for sex in a hotel room in Redmond. He even brought along some of his favorite party supplies, which included handcuffs, duct tape, condoms, and lubricant. Hmmm, those 14 y-o can get kinky. One can only imagine Mr. Hammond’s dismay when he answered the door to find not the realization of his twisted fantasies, but members of the local constabulary who promptly escorted him to the King County Correctional Facility. I am sure that handcuffs did end up playing a prominent role in the evening’s events after all. He was arrested for two counts of attempted rape of a child, and charged with four counts of communication with a minor for immoral purposes, second-degree attempted rape of a child, and third-degree attempted rape of a child. ut wait, there’s more. In addition to his hobbies as a social justice warrior and pervert, Andrew Bert Hammond was a fourth-grade teacher at McMinnville Elementary School in Oregon. Principal Erika Nesvig did alert parents to the incident and told them that Hammond had been placed on administrative leave. She also noted the proper background checks and verifications of Hammond had been completed before Hammond was hired. Oh, and let me point out McMinnville OR is about 240 miles from Redmond, WA. And in another state.
Someone has to say it: Recently a 300+ pound 14 y-o fell from a ride at an Orlando theme park. Evidence now shows the seat harness etc. were still secured after the incident. Right now, the theory is the ride attendant failed to secure the youth properly. I’m gonna throw out a different theory; What if this boy, a teenage “football” player, slipped out of the harness himself in some sort of bravado macho “see what I did” stunt? Like people holding their hands in the air during a rollercoaster ride. Football players that young have a tenancy to take risks proving how tough they are. What if this was an attempt to do something nobody else has? I have no proof, just a theory.
This weekend play list contained Wynonna, Jerry Jeff Walker, Kristofferson, ZZ Top, and a little old Moody Blues. I was also listening to the music of two Swedish sisters “First Aid Kit”. Wow. I’d forgotten how beautiful two voices can be. Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3TzP-o4vhs Enjoy.


text:
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-16-550412)
Darlene Anaya, a 71-year-old school teacher who is half-Hispanic, half-Native American, was elected to serve a three-year term in a part-time position with her union. Following completion of her term, Anaya sued the union and its president, alleging seven California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)-based claims. The essence of the claims were that defendants discriminated against her and failed to accommodate her disability (a limp that made walking difficult), claiming that defendants treated her differently from her predecessor in several respects, including as to access to a parking space and her office and the amount of her stipend. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding that none of Anaya's claims had merit. We reach the same conclusion, and we affirm.
The Parties and the General Setting
Appellant Darlene Anaya is a classroom teacher in the San Francisco Unified School District. She is half-Hispanic and half-Native American, and describes herself as disabled, as she has difficulty walking with what she calls a "very noticeable and obvious limp." She is a member of the United Educators of San Francisco (UESF), and in 2012 was elected to a position in the union in which she served from July 2012 to June 2015. She was 68 years old when her term began, 71 when it ended.
The Proceedings Below
On February 16, 2016, eight months after her term ended, Anaya filed her complaint. It named two defendants, UESF and its president Dennis Kelly (when referred to collectively, defendants), and alleged seven causes of action: (1) disability, (2) race, and (3) age discrimination; (4) failure to reasonably accommodate; (5) failure to engage in good faith interactive process; (6) failure to prevent harassment and/or discrimination; and (7) hostile work environment.
The introduction to Anaya's complaint identified her as a "former employee" of UESF, going on to describe her background in more detail: a "classroom teacher and a long-time labor and union advocate" who, "[i]n her work with various labor organizations, . . . has worked to support, among other things, the housing needs of San Francisco's teachers; to preserve the City College of San Francisco; and to address ongoing issues surrounding education reform. She has participated in numerous campaigns, rallies, and phone banking sessions in support of labor causes and worker's rights.
"3. For example, Plaintiff served as a Member Service Specialist for several years in association with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), where she helped teachers and others resolve problems at their schools by providing information and assistance.
"4. She is a three-time elected delegate to the annual National Education Association (NEA) convention, where current education and labor issues facing our county's schools and teachers are discussed.
"5. She is also a five-time elected delegate to the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) convention. As a delegate to the convention, she assisted in reviewing legislation, supporting proposed resolutions, and helped fight classroom and budget cuts to education."
Anaya's "employment" at UESF was as a result of her having won an election to a three-year term as "Vice-President of Substitutes," in which position she was responsible for assisting substitute teachers employed by the San Francisco Unified School District with any employment concerns. As her opening brief puts it, "Ms. Anaya would answer telephone calls from substitute teachers, respond to their questions, and use the union contract to advocate on their behalf. [Citation.] Ms. Anaya also performed other duties as necessary."
Anaya had prior experience at UESF representing substitute teachers in 2005, specifically as a member service specialist for approximately three years in a program funded by the American Federation of Teachers. In this position, Anaya had worked alongside Sandra Mack, the vice president of substitutes at UESF at the time, and learned how to apply the union contract as it applied to substitute teachers, and generally represented them.
While serving in her part-time position, Anaya continued in her full-time position as a classroom teacher.
Paragraphs 15 through 18 of Anaya's complaint set forth the factual allegations supporting her claims, which included that she was a senior citizen, Hispanic, and with a "disability and/or medical condition" covered by FEHA. These specific allegations followed:
"19. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was subjected to illegal discriminatory and harassing conduct by defendant UESF and its former president, defendant KELLY.
"20. The extent of the discrimination, harassment and misconduct by defendants will be borne out through discovery, but includes, inter alia,
"a) Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by, among other things, exhibiting favoritism towards other employees; scrutinizing and monitoring Plaintiff's access to the office; denying Plaintiff the same wages provided to other similarly situated employees; and denying Plaintiff the benefits provided to other similarly situated employees.
"b) For example, Plaintiff was not given a key to defendant UESF's offices despite a policy or practice of other employees being given a key. On one occasion, Plaintiff, who is disabled and elderly, fell and injured herself while outside and trying to get the attention of other employees to open the door. Plaintiff was treated at urgent care and required medication for the fall.
"c) Plaintiff's access to defendant UESF's offices was monitored and scrutinized by defendants and she was not allowed in the building unless other employees were present.
"d) Plaintiff was paid less than similarly situated employees.
"e) Plaintiff was denied benefits provided to other similarly situated employees.
"f) Defendants knew or perceived that Plaintiff had a disability and/or medical condition, but failed to accommodate Plaintiff.
"g) A reasonable accommodation was available, including, among other things, regular access to the UESF office and a parking space.
"h) Defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations despite Plaintiff requesting the accommodation and/or defendant being aware of the need for accommodations."
On April 18, 2016, defendants filed an answer, and thereafter engaged in discovery, which included interrogatories to Anaya and her deposition.
On January 20, 2017, defendants filed their motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication, set for hearing on April 7. The motion was accompanied by a 75-page separate statement, over 300 pages of supporting evidence, and five declarations, those of: Kelly, president of UESF from June 2003 to June 2015; Elizabeth Conley, twice elected to the position of Vice President Substitutes, her first term being from mid-2009 to mid-2012, the second from mid-2015 to mid-2018, and thus the immediate predecessor of, and immediate successor to, Anaya; Carolyn Samoa, a vice president for United Support Personnel at UESF; Tom Lacey, an employee at UESF in charge of locking the doors to the office; and Eric Hall, a former senior field representative at UESF.
On March 24, Anaya filed her opposition, which included a 13-page memorandum of points and authorities, and two declarations: a four-page, 28-paragraph declaration of Anaya, and one from her attorney, whose declaration attached, and purported to authenticate, 10 items.
Defendants filed a reply, and the motion came on as scheduled on April 7. Following the hearing, the trial court entered a lengthy order granting summary judgment, from which Anaya appealed.
Summary Judgment Law and the Standard of Review
Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c) provides that summary judgment is properly granted when there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As applicable here, moving defendants can meet their burden by demonstrating that "a cause of action has no merit," which they can do by showing that "[o]ne or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be separately established . . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1); see also Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, 486-487.) Once defendants meet this burden, the burden shifts to plaintiff to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); see Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849-850, 853-854 (Aguilar).) A material fact is one that relates "to the issues in the case as framed by the pleadings. [Citation.] There is a genuine issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof." (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 860 (Serri).)
On appeal, "[w]e review a grant of summary judgment de novo; we must decide independently whether the facts not subject to triable dispute warrant judgment for the moving party as a matter of law. [Citations.]" (Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1348.) Put another way, we exercise our independent judgment, and decide whether undisputed facts have been established that negate plaintiff's claims. (Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 487.) As we put it in Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320: "[W]e exercise an independent review to determine if the defendant moving for summary judgment met its burden of establishing a complete defense or of negating each of the plaintiff's theories and establishing that the action was without merit." (Accord, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal.4th 945, 972.)
But other principles guide us as well, including that " '[w]e accept as true the facts . . . in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them.' " (Morgan v. Regents of University of California (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 67.) And we must " 'view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the losing part[y]' and 'liberally construe plaintiff['s] evidentiary submissions and strictly scrutinize defendant['s] own evidence, in order to resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in plaintiff['s] favor.' " (McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 88, 96-97.)
Finally, we note that if Anaya's opposition " ' "rests merely upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, [or] unsupported speculation," summary judgment may be appropriate even where intent is an issue.' " (Nelson v. United Technologies (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 597, 614.) In sum, even though we may not weigh Anaya's evidence or inferences against that of defendants as though we were sitting as the trier of fact, we "must nevertheless determine what any evidence or inference could show or imply to a reasonable trier of fact." (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 856.)
Applying those principles here leads to the conclusion that the trial court was correct and that the summary judgment must be affirmed.
None of Anaya's Claims Has Merit
For some reason, Anaya's brief addresses her causes of action in a random order, beginning with the fifth (for good faith interactive process), followed by the fourth (reasonable accommodation), then by the three discrimination claims, then by the seventh (hostile work environment), and finally by the sixth (failure to prevent harassment and/or discrimination).
The First , Second , and Third Causes of Action Have No Merit
Anaya's first three causes of action were for discrimination, respectively based on disability (first cause of action), race (second), and age (third). Anaya's brief lumps them together, arguing that the trial court erred in "holding that there were no triable issues of material fact regarding Ms. Anaya's discrimination claim."
Generally speaking, a plaintiff in a discrimination claim must prove (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position sought or was performing competently in the position held; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) some other circumstances suggesting discriminatory motive. (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 355 (Guz); see generally CACI No. 2570 [age discrimination].)
Defendants' motion described and distilled Anaya's claims as had been set forth in her complaint and/or as Anaya had described in discovery, essentially that defendants exhibited "favoritism towards other employees," "denying [Anaya] the benefits provided to" other similarly situated employees. Going on, defendants' distillation described that Anaya contended they subjected her to the following discriminatory conduct:
— "Scrutinizing and monitoring [her] access to the office," including by not providing her "a key" to the office or "the code to the building alarm," and not allowing her to be in the office "without other employees present";
— denying her a parking space;
— denying her a cell phone;
— paying her "less than similarly situated employees," including Conley and Samoa, and paying her "less in salary, stipends, and bonuses"; and
— not allowing her to attend banquets.
Anaya's opposition agreed with defendants' description as to what she was claiming—and then some. That is, Anaya's opposition attempted to add several other claims of discrimination because defendants did not offer her various benefits, including: (1) a cost of living increase or raise; (2) paid vacation time; (3) paid sick leave; (4) money for training or education; (5) mileage reimbursement; (6) car insurance reimbursement; and (7) summer employment. This was improper. And unavailing to Anaya.
The pleadings set the boundaries of the issues to be decided on summary judgment. (Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 648.) As confirmed in Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 570, 585. " 'A defendant moving for summary judgment need address only the issues raised by the complaint; the plaintiff cannot bring up new, unpleaded issues in his or her opposing papers.' " (See also Keniston v. American Nat. Ins. Co. (1973) 31 Cal.App.3d 803, 812 [summary judgment declarations "must be directed to the issues raised by the pleadings"].) So, a plaintiff wishing "to rely upon unpleaded theories to defeat summary judgment" must move to amend the complaint before the hearing. (Leibert v. Transworld Systems, Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1693, 1699.)
Anaya did not do this, and so she is not permitted to assert these late-based claims. And thus we analyze her claims based on what she pleaded and contended in discovery.
Addressing Anaya's first three causes of action, for disability, race, and age discrimination, defendants' motion argued that the claims failed as a matter of law, on three grounds: (1) Anaya could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination because there was no evidence of circumstances suggesting discriminatory motive; (2) Anaya could not establish a prima facie case of any discrimination because most of the discriminatory actions alleged were not adverse employment actions; and (3) defendants met their burden to produce evidence of legitimate/non-discriminatory reasons for the alleged conduct, and Anaya could not meet her burden of producing substantial evidence showing both that defendants' stated reasons are false and discrimination was the real reason. The trial court agreed with defendants on all three bases, concluding as follows: "Anaya failed to present specific and substantial evidence showing that animus based on age, race, or disability motivated Defendants' conduct," and that "[t]he evidence considered as a whole is insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact that the Defendants' conduct was motivated by animus based on Anaya's age, race, or disability." We reach the same conclusion.
To begin with, we note that Anaya's opposition did not address most of defendants' arguments: she failed to point to any evidence or circumstance suggesting discriminatory motive as to her age discrimination claim, and she also did not respond to defendants' arguments that the majority of the allegedly discriminatory actions were not adverse employment actions. Not only did Anaya point to no fact or circumstance suggesting discrimination based on age, her response to the interrogatory that asked her to set forth all facts supporting her denial to a request for admission that defendants did not discriminate against her admitted she had no reason to believe Kelly had a bias towards people over the age of 40. Indeed, Anaya testified at deposition that she did not think any action Kelly took towards her, or statements he made to her, were because she was a person over the age of 40. Here, like her opposition below, Anaya's opening brief does not address the trial court's dismissal of her age discrimination claim at all.
In fact, at oral argument Anaya's counsel said she was conceding the age discrimination claim.
As to the race discrimination claim, section J of Anaya's brief says this:
"J. Evidence of racial animus against Hispanics
"Ms. Anaya testified that she believed she was treated differently because she is Hispanic. [Citation.] Ms. Anaya also testified regarding negative interactions that occurred only between Mr. Kelly and other Hispanic individuals. [Citation.] In one instance she witnessed Mr. Kelly get into a heated argument with a Hispanic substitute teacher, Mr. Lagos. [Citation.] It was a 'shouting match' and a 'huge . . . altercation.' [Citation.] The incident was in public with other people around. [Citation.] Mr. Kelly went so far as to call security to 'have Mr. Lagos removed.' [Citation.] She also testified regarding another dispute Mr. Kelly had with another Hispanic individual, Roberto Michel. [Citation.] Ms. Anaya testified that she had never saw [sic] Mr. Kelly have disputes with anybody else of any other ethnicity." Beyond this conclusory claim that Kelly had animus towards Hispanics based on claimed conflicts she witnessed between him and two Hispanic members of UESF regarding internal elections, Anaya's "evidence" was her vague statement that: "We didn't ever have before that time any employees that were Hispanic," in reference to the time period before 2009 or 2012, and her speculation on "how vigorously [Kelly] would defend a Hispanic person as opposed to some other ethnicity." Anaya's subjective belief that Kelly had animus towards Hispanics is at best rank speculation. It is manifestly insufficient.
A second paragraph in section J said this: "At her deposition, Ms. Anaya testified regarding her employment, 'I had a very difficult three years as an officer. I used to cry. I used to go home and cry because—and I know my daughter said, 'Mom, this is taking it toll [sic] on you,' you know, 'maybe you should resign.' And I said, 'Well, I'm not a quitter,' but I used to cry because, you know, I was treated differently. I felt like an outsider. I felt un-trusted. I felt unwanted. . . ." This, of course, has nothing to do with race.
Finally, as to her disability discrimination claim, Anaya was asked whether there were statements or actions taken by Kelly that made her think he had animus or a negative view of her because she had a medical condition or disability. Her answer: "I really don't know."
As to defendants' second basis for summary judgment, the lack of adverse employment actions, the trial court ruled that of the discriminatory conduct alleged by Anaya, "[o]nly the allegations of differences in Anaya's pay and benefits constitute actionable adverse employment actions." As to this, the court held, "Defendants present[ed] evidence that there were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the differences in Anaya's pay and benefits." And, the trial court added, "although the denial of a key, alarm code, or permission to stay late at the office do not amount to actionable adverse employment actions, Defendants present[ed] evidence that there were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for those actions as well."
In Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1054-1055 (Yanowitz)—a case, not incidentally, cited by Anaya on several occasions—the Supreme Court observed as follows: "As the high court recognized in Harris [v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) 510 U.S. 17], the determination of what type of adverse treatment properly should be considered discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment is not, by its nature, susceptible to a mathematically precise test, and the significance of particular types of adverse actions must be evaluated by taking into account the legitimate interests of both the employer and the employee. Minor or relatively trivial adverse actions or conduct by employers or fellow employees that, from an objective perspective, are reasonably likely to do no more than anger or upset an employee cannot properly be viewed as materially affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment and are not actionable, but adverse treatment that is reasonably likely to impair a reasonable employee's job performance or prospects for advancement or promotion falls within the reach of the antidiscrimination provisions of [Government Code] sections 12940(a) and 12940(h)." Or, as Yanowitz earlier described it, in discussing Title VII, an "employee must demonstrate that he or she has been subjected to an adverse employment action that materially affects the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, rather than simply that the employee has been subjected to an adverse action or treatment that reasonably would deter an employee from engaging in the protected activity." (Id. at p. 1051.)
In Thomas v. Department of Corrections (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 507, the court observed that " '[w]ork places are rarely idyllic retreats, and the mere fact that an employee is displeased by an employer's act or omission does not elevate that act or omission to the level of a materially adverse employment action.' " And, the court continued, an adverse employment action must be " 'more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. A materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits [or] significantly diminished material responsibilities . . . .' [Citation.] The employment action must be both detrimental and substantial." (Id. at p. 511; accord, Malais v. Los Angeles City Fire Dept. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 350, 357 ["Not every change in the conditions of employment, however, constitutes an adverse employment action. ' "A change that is merely contrary to the employee's interests or not to the employee's liking is insufficient." ' "].)
To sum up, except for the claimed discrepancy in the stipend she was paid, none of Anaya's claims of disparate treatment involves an adverse working condition. But not only were the claimed items of discrimination not adverse working conditions under the law, they had no effect on Anaya's ability to do her job.
As to the key, Anaya admits that she "worked more in the field and at home" than at the UESF office; that on average she worked for UESF between 20 and 30 hours a week, most of which were from home; that she usually worked at the UESF office from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. three days a week; and that the doors to the office were unlocked if she arrived prior to 5:00 p.m. (which she did not find difficult to do).
Anaya could recall only three instances where she found herself locked out of the UESF office prior to 5:00 p.m., only one of which she could place on a specific date. That one instance occurred when Anaya left the office a little before 5:00 p.m. to make a trip to her car, found she was locked out when she returned, threw pebbles and then her key at a window to get someone's attention, and then fell. Anaya stated in a January 22, 2013 email to Kelly that this fall took place January 17, and that the office doors were locked at 5:10 p.m. Anaya could not remember the date when she was locked out on the other two occasions, but stated she "usually would wait," but could not call because she did not have a cell phone.
As to the claimed decision not to allow Anaya in the office when others were not present, Anaya states she "tried to work from 3:30 to 5:30 minimum at the office," and could not stay later due to her perceived lack of access. This is at best an inconvenience, and again, we note, most of her work was done out of the office.
As to the alarm code, Anaya conceded that in the past she had the code and she never asked for it again. Moreover, had she asked, Kelly would have told her it never changed. Finally, as Anaya admitted, access to the alarm code had nothing to do with her "staying at the office."
As to the alleged failure to provide Anaya with assigned parking, it made no material change to Anaya's working conditions. Again, this was at most an inconvenience. (See Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2011) 813 F.Supp.2d 1167, 1171 [threats that a supervisor allegedly made to an employee to stop parking in the disabled parking area where the employee had previously parked did not constitute an adverse employment action because the change was an inconvenience rather than a material loss of benefit].) And while Anaya at times had to park some blocks away, she admitted at deposition that there was no single instance where she could not find parking.
Further, denial of an assigned spot did not mean, as Anaya suggests, that she did not have access to the garage parking spots assigned to union members. Anaya admits Kelly sent her an email on January 22, 2013, shortly after the fall outside the office, informing her that "[p]eople who don't have parking places frequently call ahead and ask if there is an open spot in the garage due to an illness or someone being out at a site for the end of the day," and advising that perhaps they should arrange for her to have the same allowance for a cell phone that other staff members have. Despite Anaya's claim that her access to the garage was critical, she admitted she did not follow up on this offer to explore with Kelly the possibility of a cell phone allowance.
Finally, to Anaya's claim that defendants' discriminatory conduct included not allowing her to attend banquets, Anaya testified she was told she would have to check with Kelly regarding a signup sheet for certain banquets. As to this, Kelly explained that officers and staff could sign up to attend any banquet via a signup sheet kept at the UESF office; and to Kelly's knowledge, all signup sheets were also passed around at the executive board meetings in which Anaya participated. Kelly never prohibited Anaya from attending a banquet; was not aware of any banquet she was prohibited from attending during her tenure; and in fact Anaya regularly attended banquets while she was Vice President Substitutes.
On appeal, Anaya does not directly address the court's conclusions that most of the allegedly discriminatory acts were not adverse employment actions. Instead, she asserts that the court erred because the court "should not individually assess whether each alleged adverse employment action constitutes an adverse employment action in and of itself." Making such an argument, Anaya cites several times to Yanowitz, supra, 36 Cal.4th 1028, which she describes as holding that adverse employment actions must be considered "collectively." But Yanowitz is a retaliation case, and it is such cases the Supreme Court has said must be reviewed collectively. (See, for example, Yanowitz, at p. 1055 ["pattern of systematic retaliation"]; p. 1058 ["retaliatory course of conduct"].) Anaya does not allege retaliation.
While it was not necessary below, or here, Kelly also explained that there were good reasons for what Anaya asserted were items of disparate treatment. Thus, for example, as to the cell phone, the UESF staff and officers who used their personal cell phone received a stipend, not a cell phone. In an email Kelly sent to Anaya on January 22, 2013, he brought up the possibility of giving her a cell phone stipend. Kelly explained that Anaya told him she did not have a cell phone, and in response he suggested that "despite [her] shorter work time," "[p]erhaps we should arrange for [her] to have the same allowance for a cell phone that other staff members have . . . so she could be in better contact with the office and know if there are available parking spots in the afternoon when she arrived. As noted, Anaya never followed up on Kelly's suggestion. And had she done so, Kelly would have given Anaya a cell phone stipend.
As to the lack of a key, no part-time employees at UESF had a key to the front glass door or to the second floor office door. These individuals, like Anaya, did not regularly arrive in the morning, and thus did not need keys. Kelly also testified that he did not recall any conversation in which Anaya asked him for any key to the building or office, and had he realized Anaya felt she needed a key, he would have given her one.
As to the alarm code, Kelly was not aware that Anaya did not have the code or wanted it, and Anaya never asked him for it. He knew Anaya had the alarm code in 2005 (when she worked with UESF in a different capacity) and that between June 2003 and June 2015 the alarm code never changed.
As to the issue of assigned parking, Kelly's decision was based on the fact she worked only part-time and, historically, the people who worked part-time were never given assigned parking, as the limited available parking in the office garage was assigned only to full-time staff. In fact, not even all full-time staff could be offered assigned parking in the garage. In sum, Anaya's claims of discrimination included five items, four of which were not adverse employment actions, failing Anaya's burden at the first stage of the analysis.
Notably, Anaya's lack of an assigned spot in the garage did not mean she could not park there on occasion. Throughout Anaya's term as vice president of substitute teachers, there was a swing parking spot that individuals who did not have assigned parking could sometimes use. In his email of May 7, 2014, Kelly offered Anaya a garage key so she could check to see if the swing spot or an assigned spot was available. --------
The above leaves only the pay and benefits issue as the basis for the discrimination claim. And as to this, Anaya compares herself primarily to Conley who served as Vice President of Substitutes from 2009-2012, immediately preceding Anaya's term. As Anaya describes it, "Ms. Conley performed the same work and had the same responsibilities as laid out under the UESF constitution and bylaws. [Citation.] The number of substitute teachers that Ms. Anaya and Ms. Conley were responsible for stayed roughly the same during their respective tenures as Vice President of Substitutes. [Citation.] [¶] Ms. Conley was paid a $1,000.00 monthly stipend during her employment as Vice President of Substitutes. [Citation.] Ms. Anaya was paid a $200 monthly stipend during her employment as Vice President of Substitutes. [Citations.] Ms. Conley was permitted to consistently work three days a week. [Citation.] Ms. Anaya was never allowed to work more than two days a week. [Citations.] Working two days a week was not enough time for Ms. Anaya to complete her duties in the office and it was necessary for Ms. Anaya to work evenings and weekends to keep up with her work, time that she was not compensated for. [Citations.] Ms. Conley was permitted to work over the summer. [Citation.] Ms. Anaya was not permitted to work over the summer. [Citations.] [Fn. omitted.]"
Beyond the stipend issue, Anaya also contends that Conley had a key, while Anaya did not, and also had "the benefit of an employment contract," while Anaya did not. As Anaya sums up: "The contractual benefits that Ms. Conley was contractually entitled to during her first term as Vice President of Substitutes included a cell phone stipend, paid vacation time, paid sick time, mileage reimbursement, automobile insurance reimbursement, and a training and education fund. [Citation.] Ms. Conley's benefits were consistent with the benefits provided to other Vice Presidents of UESF. [Citation.] Ms. Anaya did not receive, nor was offered, any of these benefits."
Kelly testified at length as to why Conley was given a larger stipend than Anaya, essentially because she had more skills, was more available, had less paid time off, and had fewer benefits because she was a retired employee of the school district. By contrast, Anaya had fewer skills and training, she was not as available, and was still a full-time employee of the school district who received benefits from it. Kelly also explained that Samoa received more pay and other benefits than Anaya because Samoa held a completely different position with different responsibilities based on the needs of the membership she represented.
In light of this, Anaya's claim fails under the three-step analysis required by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 for allocating burdens of proof and producing evidence, which Anaya necessarily concedes is used in California for disparate-treatment cases under FEHA. Under that analysis, the employee must first present a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to produce evidence of a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. At that point, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the employer's stated reason was in fact a pretext for a discriminatory act. (See Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 333.)
Following Guz, numerous cases have held that "It is not sufficient for an employee to make a bare prima facie showing or to simply deny the credibility of the employer's witnesses or to speculate as to discriminatory motive. [Citations.] Rather it is incumbent upon the employee to produce 'substantial responsive evidence' demonstrating the existence of a material triable controversy as to pretext or discriminatory animus on the part of the employer." (Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 862; accord, Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 591.) "The employee's 'subjective beliefs . . . do not create a genuine issue of fact; nor do uncorroborated and self-serving declarations.' [Citations.] The employee's evidence must relate to the motivation of the decision makers and prove, by nonspeculative evidence, 'an actual causal link between prohibited motivation and [the adverse action].' " (Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1159, quoting King v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 426, 433; see generally Hicks v. KNTV Television, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 994, 1003 [employee must show employer's stated reason for allegedly discriminatory conduct false and that real reason is discrimination].)
As we explained in Morgan v. Regents of University of California, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 75: "At this point, to avoid summary judgment, [Anaya] had to ' "offer substantial evidence that the employer's stated nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action was untrue or pretextual, or evidence the employer acted with a discriminatory animus, or a combination of the two, such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude the employer engaged in intentional discrimination." ' [Citation.] An employee in this situation can not 'simply show the employer's decision was wrong, mistaken, or unwise. Rather, the employee " 'must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them "unworthy of credence," [citation], and hence infer "that the employer did not act for the [. . . asserted] non-discriminatory reasons." [Citations.]' [Citations.]" [Citation.]' " (Accord, Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶¶ 5:1650-5:1652, p. 5(II)-31.) This, she failed to do.
Anaya appears to disagree with Kelly's stated reasons for differences in Anaya's pay and benefits as compared to Conley. But the wisdom of Kelly's decisions is not at issue here. As the leading practical treatise puts it, "It is not enough for the employee to raise triable issues of fact concerning whether the employer's reasons for taking the adverse action were sound (e.g., refuting claims of poor job performance): 'The employee cannot simply show that the employer's decision was wrong or mistaken, since the factual dispute at issue is whether discriminatory animus motivated the employer, not whether the employer is wise, shrewd, prudent or competent.' [Hersant v. California Dept. of Social Services[ (1997)] 57 [Cal.App.4th 997,] 1005 . . . ; see also Guz v. Bechtel Nat'l, Inc. (2000) 24 [Cal.4th] 317, 358 . . . .]" (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2018) ¶ 10:268.30, p. 10-128.)
Finally, Anaya asserts that the trial court's "finding of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the disparate treatment is contradicted by the trial court's finding of pretext," and that "the trial court's order cites material facts, but these same material facts were negated based on Ms. Anaya's showing of pretext." But this assertion conflates the last two stages of the three-stage burden shifting analysis, and mistakenly assumes that defendants' burden to produce a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the allegedly discriminatory conduct is the same as Anaya's burden to produce substantial evidence of pretext.
The Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action Have No Merit
Under FEHA, an employer must engage in a "timely, good faith, interactive process" with a disabled employee to explore reasonable accommodations to accommodate a disability. (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (n).) Anaya's fourth cause of action alleged a failure to engage in this interactive process, and her fifth a failure to provide reasonable accommodation.
Failure to engage in the interactive process is a separate and independent FEHA violation from an employer's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. (Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 61 (Gelfo).) "While a claim of failure to accommodate is independent of a cause of action for failure to engage in an interactive dialogue, each necessarily implicates the other." (Moore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216, 242.) And as Gelfo notes, "Two principles underlie a cause of action for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. First, the employee must request an accommodation. [Citation.] Second, the parties must engage in an interactive process regarding the requested accommodation and, if the process fails, responsibility for the failure rests with the party who failed to participate in good faith. [Citation.]" (Gelfo, supra, at p. 54.)
In order to prove a claim for failure to engage, Anaya had to prove eight elements, among which are that she had a disability known to defendants and the failure to engage in the interactive process caused her harm. (See CACI No. 2546.) Anaya's position is that defendants knew of her disability and that they did not dispute that they failed to engage in the interactive process. In claimed support, Anaya asserts "it is undisputed that Ms. Anaya had mobility issues," that she had difficulty walking, which was a physical condition that limited a major life activity. (See Sandell v. Taylor-Listug, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 297, 311 [evidence that person required a cane to walk establishes disability].) As she puts it later in her brief, "At all relevant times during her employment with UESF, Ms. Anaya had a disability parking placard issued by the State of California. [Citation.] After her fall outside the UESF building, Ms. Anaya requested normal access to the UESF office and a parking space in the UESF building so she could be close to the office. Defendant/respondent UESF maintains parking spaces in its building, but Ms. Anaya was not provided with a space."
"FEHA's reference to a 'known' disability is read to mean a disability of which the employer has become aware, whether because it is obvious, the employee has brought it to the employer's attention, it is based on the employer's own perception—mistaken or not—of the existence of a disabling condition or, perhaps . . . the employer has come upon information indicating the presence of a disability." (Gelfo, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 61, fn. 21.) Defendants' position on this issue was that they were unaware of any limitation, quoting from Anaya's deposition to support their position. There, asked whether Kelly had knowledge of her disability or medical condition because he participated in meetings with a field representative who helped address her disability issues with the San Francisco Unified School District, Anaya testified, "I believe that he knew." Anaya also testified that she and Kelly "talked about it," that "he also has diabetes and he has mobility problems so we were just talking, yeah, it's kind of hard when you get older and you have all these things to deal with, and I know it's meant changes in my life and yours, so, yeah, he knew."
But whether Anaya's evidence was sufficient to put UESF on notice that Anaya had circumstances requiring a reasonable accommodation, one thing was certain, as her counsel admitted below: Anaya could perform her job. As Anaya's own brief describes it: "[I]t is not in dispute that Ms. Anaya was able to perform her job." That ends the inquiry. As Justice Chin's commentary puts it: "If a disabled employee can perform the essential functions of the job without reasonable accommodation, failure to provide an accommodation suggested by the employee or the employee's doctor (e.g., to make the position less stressful) does not support a claim for failure to provide reasonable accommodation. [Hooper v. Proctor Health Care Inc. (7th Cir. 2015) 804 [F.3d] 846, 852—disabled employee capable of performing essential job functions despite physical or mental limitations is qualified for the job, and thus 'employer's duty to accommodate is not implicated.']. " (Chin et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, supra, ¶ 9:670, pp. 9-67 to 9-68.)
Beyond that, the record demonstrated that while defendants had no obligation to engage in the interactive process or provide a reasonable accommodation, they in fact attempted to grant Anaya the accommodations requested, especially as to a parking space. As shown above, Kelly sent Anaya an email on January 22, 2013, informing her that "[p]eople who don't have parking places frequently call ahead and ask if there is an open spot in the garage due to an illness or someone being out at a site for the end of the day," further advising that perhaps they should arrange for Anaya to have the same allowance for a cell phone that other staff members have, "despite [her] shorter work time." Kelly raised the idea because Anaya did not have a cell phone that would enable her to call the office before arriving. Despite Anaya's claim that her access to the garage was critical, she testified she did not follow up with Kelly.
The Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action Have No Merit
Government Code section 12940, subdivision (k) provides that it is an unlawful employment practice "[f]or an employer, labor organization . . . to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring." Anaya's sixth cause of action, entitled failure to prevent discrimination and/or harassment, is based on that subsection. However, before Anaya can prevail on that claim, she must demonstrate actual discrimination or harassment. (Dickson v. Burke Williams, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1314.) Failing this, she has no claim. (Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 287-289; CACI No. 2527.)
As discussed above, Anaya has not demonstrated discrimination. So, this cause of action turns on Anaya's ability to demonstrate harassment. A required element of harassment is that the conduct complained of must have been sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. It must interfere with a reasonable employee's work performance, and seriously affect the psychological well-being of a reasonable employee, who must prove she was actually offended. (Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121, 130; Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 608; Etter v. Veriflo Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 457, 464-465; CACI Nos. 2521A, 2521B.) As Anaya herself describes it, "Whether an environment is 'hostile' or 'abusive' can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. Lyle v. Warner Brothers (2006)  Cal.4th 264." Anaya's showing does not measure up.
Anaya's brief describes the "claimed hostile work environment" as follows: "Ms. Anaya testified in her deposition that she was subjected to a [sic] abusive and threatening work environment by Eric Hall, a fellow UESF employee. Mr. Hall would 'throw' 'books' and yell. [Citation.] On one particular occasion, Mr. Hall referred to Ms. Anaya as 'Fucking Darlene.' [Citation.] Mr. Hall frequently used profanity in the office, 'Jesus, fucking Christ' and 'God damn it.' [Citation.] Mr. Hall is a large man and was described in deposition testimony as being 'six feet, maybe six-one . . . .' [Citation] Ms. Anaya emailed Mr. Kelly that, 'This bullying is a return to what occurred last year when I began work at UESF, dismissive and condescending remarks and yelling were aimed at me.' [Citation.] [¶] After this conduct, Ms. Anaya did not feel safe being in the office alone with Mr. Hall. [Citation.] Ms. Anaya testified that she was subjected to this harassment by Mr. Hall because she was a woman and that Mr. Hall was emboldened to mistreat Ms. Anaya because she was treated as 'person [sic] non grata' by Mr. Kelly. [Citation.] In her deposition, Ms. Conley acknowledged that she had personally seen Eric Hall angry and had seen Mr. Hall cuss. [Citation.] Mr. Kelly acknowledged in his deposition that he had personally seen Eric Hall use profanity and that Mr. Hall does 'become passionate.' "
While Hall's language is not to be condoned, it is not enough to demonstrate unlawful harassment, as it is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Anaya's employment and create an objectively abusive working environment. (Rehmani v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 945, 951.) But even if it were, Anaya does not demonstrate that the language used was in connection with any protected characteristic. (Serri, supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 871 [to prevail on a harassment claim, a plaintiff must link the conduct to a protected characteristic]; CACI No. 2521A.) And finally, Anaya admitted at deposition that Kelly told her he would talk to Hall about his conduct after she complained about Hall, and defendants offered evidence showing that Kelly engaged in reasonable follow up with Hall in response to Anaya's complaints about him. This negates Anaya's claim.
In light of our resolution of the issues as above, concluding that none of Anaya's claims has merit, we need not discuss the issue of whether Kelly could be personally liable for any of Anaya's claims.
The judgment is affirmed. Defendants shall recover their costs on appeal.
Richman, J. We concur: /s/_________
Kline, P. J. /s/_________

domain: law


text:
How would you like to radically change your money conversations to include sacredness, playfulness and sexiness?
Bari is a Financial Therapist, Mama-preneur and founder of The Art of Money. She has
guided thousands of people to new, more loving and refreshingly honest relationships with money, and now she’s sharing her wisdom with us on The Alchemist’s Heart!
Also, like me, Bari loves to DANCE! We have a beautiful discussion of the power of dance therapy I know you’ll want to hear.
Personally, I’m all about radical acts of self-love, because I know this alchemy changes all our relationships in the world for the better!
So come on over and….
Harness the power of Bari’s delectable strategies to restore love and compassion to your financial life.
Explore enlightening ways to alchemize money conversations with your partner. (Money dates, anyone?)
Discover the incredibly healing Art of Money course that is open for early registration right now. This is alchemy that will transform your entire life, and I would LOVE to connect with you there!

domain: psychology


text:
Live surgery and hands-on with the masters in their own institutes plus online mentoring and on-demand learning at your own pace and location.
This comprehensive implant curriculum is composed of 100 hours of learning in four blended online and offline modules, covering all aspects of implant dentistry. It is unique due to the fact that each module covers a whole range for several specific topics of implant dentistry. For each specific topic, a focus module has been designed including a hands-on exercise. The overall course covers diagnostic, thorough planning, ideal implant placement, grafting (both basic and advanced), prosthetic planning and construction, soft tissue manipulation, complications management, as well as implant maintenance.
During each module, the participants will have the opportunity to practice their new skills on hands-on casts, porcine models, and to watch or assist live surgery.
More details coming soon
First of all I wanted to thank you for your superior class course, didactically and in content. The Faculty gave me after twenty seven years working in the surgery a wake up call
I am impressed what kind of treatments we are able to do today. The four days lessons were very intensive, but at least, it opened my tunnel view
It was a real pleasure for me to take part
The procedures that dr. Steigmann and Prof. Wang have invented and shared with us in tissue management and implant placement were grateful and gave me a lot of inputs. Last not least, thank you for your hospitality
I have been pursuing implantology intensively for almost 15 years, I have attended numerous international conferences and seminars and, then, in only a few days I come to understand how simple some things are. Dr. Steigmann’s systematic reasoning and perfectly designed protocol provides an approach to implantology procedure that enables us to expand the procedure at any given situation depending on the circumstances
Steigmann Institute DLGM Dental GmbH
Westendstraße 21, 60325 Frankfurt
Amtsgericht Frankfurt, HRB: 80955
Phone: +49 (0) 6223 73819

domain: medical


text:
Photo via Wikicommons
You know that conspiracy theory they threw out in Zeitgeist and on CNN about the US absorbing Canada and Mexico into a North American Union without borders? While it may seem like an unlikely prospect to most, the last couple of weeks have proven how real 21st century manifest destiny might actually be.
First of all, south of the border at an NSA conference supposedly held to quell the privacy shit-storm unleashed by Edward Snowden’s leaked documents, Senator Diane Feinstein lumped Canada and Mexico with the US into one big blue continent called the “homeland.” Then, through an access to information request, the Canadian Press uncovered an internal document from the RCMP that says the US doesn’t want to be subject to Canadian law when their officers operate in Canada.
Wait, you didn’t know US officers working for organizations like the CIA and DEA were allowed to usurp Westphalian sovereignty and just come to Canada with guns and arrest people? Even if you did know, both governments have been really hush-hush about the Beyond the Border agreement that is said to make us more safe.
Since these two “staunch allies, vital economic partners, and steadfast friends” signed the declaration in 2011, the two countries have been taking “baby steps” towards implementing a new superior security team—cue the Orwellian doublespeak—which is seriously called the Next Generation policing project.
Then they amended Canada’s Criminal Code to allow for the Shiprider program to let US coast guards go through Canadian waters and arrest people as long as an RCMP officer is on board.
The third step was creating Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBET) also known as Border Enforcement Security Teams (BEST) where teams of officers from both countries work together on each other’s land to catch security threats. With that step, they also allowed US customs officers to work in Canada to pre-clear shipments going south.
And now the step that is worrying a lot of people is when these IBET/BEST teams move inland. It was supposed to have started last year, but the reason it hasn’t happened yet is because the US wants to be given diplomatic immunity like they have in Afghanistan.
The problem isn’t with Americans and their terrible human rights record, questionable policing/detainment tactics, history of torture and refusal to sign on to the International Criminal Court…wait no, never mind, that is the problem. How can Canada trust a country that since 9/11 has infringed on the privacy and human rights of so many of their own citizens as well as foreigners in the name of the fight against terrorism?
The US hasn’t even trusted us to try our own homegrown terror suspects. I’m talking about Maher Arar who in 2002 was extradited to Syria and tortured for a year despite having lived in Canada for 15 years prior to being detained. There’s also Omar Khadr who at 15 years old was a Canadian citizen held in Guantanamo Bay for ten years before finally being tried and repatriated to his home country of Canada in 2012.
If Team America World Police is allowed free reign in Canada, how will officers who break Canadian law be treated if they aren’t subject to our laws? Will they just scurry on home without punishment if they do something like shoot a civilian without reasonable cause?
In this April 2012 list of recommendations, Canada does well to emphasize that it will stick to it’s own laws regarding the privacy of its citizens within this partnership. They have also underscored the fact that Canadian information will be held within our borders. But, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, we already know from the NSA scandal that our information goes through American servers. If we do catch US security forces doing something wrong do we actually have the marbles to say anything? I highly doubt it.
Canada’s interest in this whole thing is to encourage the US to keep doing business with us instead of buying their imports from elsewhere, but economically it has always been clear that we need them more than they need us. If a controversial situation arises such as an infringement on our privacy based on US laws not our own, the country that makes the final call is most probably not going to be the country with a population ten times smaller with a fraction of the defense force.
If you’re pissed off about this, hesitate a second before you blame the Conservative government. Talks about a North American Union date back to the Liberal government when Paul Martin took part in the Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in 2005 to the anger of thousands of protesters in Montebello, Quebec. Similarly, Christy Clark’s Liberal government in British Columbia has commended Harper and Obama for signing the Beyond the Border agreement showing that this isn’t a partisan thing between Canada’s two oldest political parties.
This agreement comes at a time when it’s been really hard to trust our own security and disciplinary forces. With laws like the protestor mask ban and when a guy like officer James Forcillo has yet to be charged for putting nine bullets into 18-year old Sammy Yatim, including six when he was already on the ground, our draconian and questionable legal systems do start looking depressingly similar.
Creep Joel on Twitter @JoelBalsam
More on North American Union Security:


text:
Best Cryptocurrency IRA Reviews For 2020
What is a Cryptocurrency IRA?
If you want to invest in Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin by using your retirement savings, then it is known as Cryptocurrency IRA. This is a self-directed IRA, but unlike precious metals, stocks, bonds, and other assets, you can invest in various cryptocurrencies.
If you want to invest in Cryptocurrency IRA or convert your existing IRA to cryptocurrency IRA, then a Cryptocurrency IRA Company will be required. It is a new type of investment option, and that's why a limited amount of companies for a selection is available.
Whether you want to invest in Bitcoin Ethereum, Litecoin, Ripple, or any other cryptocurrency, the chief factor is to select a reliable cryptocurrency IRA Company. The company must offer the best options for you and as per your budget and have the potential to solve all your queries related to cryptocurrency IRA.
It's free to open an account and registration takes less than a minute. There's no obligation to trade.
What are the benefits of investing in Cryptocurrency IRA?
When you are open your Cryptocurrency IRA, you have the chance to get the numerous benefits on your saving which is not possible at traditional retirement account. Some benefits are:
- It's Tax Free: Cryptocurrency within IRA doesn't a subject of taxation. So, when you make a withdrawal from your cryptocurrency IRA or make gains within your IRA, it will be tax-free. Sometimes the price of your cryptocurrency becomes double within a few months, and it is like a Casino.
- Diversification: Generally, the power of traditional IRAs is limited to stocks and bonds, and their value goes down when the stock market is crashed. On the other hand, cryptocurrency IRAs allows you to protect your retirement saving by adding more property; not only cryptocurrency but you can also add precious metals and real estate.
- High Investment Potential: Due to adoption of cryptocurrency by big names and high earners investors, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are high in demand. Like gold, cryptocurrency have a limited stock which mean, limited supply increase its price. Those who are early investing in cryptocurrency can get benefits in future.
- Convenience: Electronic payments are the future; it is fast, secure, and more convenient. Cryptocurrency perfectly adaptable with all these electronic payments and transfer, and unlike cash and card payments, it offers various benefits.
- No Bank Restrictions: Cash into your traditional IRA and your savings are totally under the central and private banks. On the other side, cryptocurrencies are decentralized assets and no bank, or other authority can change its value, can't seize them or compromise with your savings.
Best cryptocurrency to invest in 2020
Bitcoin: Bitcoin widely famous and the largest cryptocurrency currently used. In 2008, a programmer named Satoshi Nakamoto, introduce Bitcoin's original code and concepts. In 2009, he put the software out for the digital world and individuals to work with the system. Bitcoin is managed by decentralized servers and it is free from regulations, or company rules to make any changes. Bitcoin is currently a highly famous and valued cryptocurrency.
Litecoin: Litecoin is much similar to Bitcoin regarding transfer and coding, but it is faster and cheaper. Like Bitcoin, Litecoin has set a limit on Litecoins, at 84 million, which is higher than Bitcoin. The difference of code and process of Litecoin, make it four times faster than Bitcoin and lower in transaction fees.
Ethereum: Ethereum is an open-source platform that uses blockchain technology to run its decentralized application (dapps). These applications enable the users to make agreements, conduct transactions to buy, or sell directly with each other, and trade goods and services without the involvement of a middle man. Ethereum runs by a network of computers located globally that works together to form a supercomputer. Experts claim that Ethereum has the potential to outpace the Bitcoin and set itself as a new standard.
Ripple: Ripple is known as a corporate cryptocurrency. The main focus of Ripple is to offer a more secure and fast digital currency at lower fees to the financial institutions like banks. Unlike Bitcoin, Ripple has set a maximum limit to its currency is 100 billion tokens. Ripple holds its 60% tokens, and there is no mining system like other cryptocurrencies. Recently there is a sharp spike in the price of Ripple.
|Cryptocurrency||Source||Number of Coins||Released Year|
|Bitcoin||Open Source||21 million||2009|
|Litecoin||Open Source||84 million||2011|
|Ethereum||Sponsored & Open Source||Unlimited||2015|
|Ripple||Corporate Based||100 billion||2012|
Top 10 reasons to consider Cryptocurrencies in your IRA
There are lots of cryptocurrencies are available, but Bitcoin and Ethereum, both are two digital currencies that achieved the highest price in 2020. Below, we will look at some solid reasons to invest your retirement savings in cryptocurrencies.
- Cryptocurrencies are ten years old: According to the experts, cryptocurrencies are a new and young type of investments and it has a higher potential to grow in the market.
- Cryptocurrencies has higher profit potential: Such digital currencies have more potential to earn a higher profit margin. The prediction of fluctuations is more predictable unlike stock and forex.
- Cryptocurrencies are impossible to Counterfeit: It is impossible to copy cryptocurrencies. For instance, no one can replica Bitcoin because it is generated in the block by using crypto-mining.
- Cryptocurrencies are made for long term investment: Investors, who are looking to diversify their retirement savings then, they can view cryptocurrencies as a long term investment option. Most of the cryptocurrencies are remain high from past few years till now. This means they are rising up and offer a great investment opportunity for investors.
- Cryptocurrencies are unregulated: Bitcoin and Ethereum both are unregulated digital currencies and are not issued by any central bank. This is like gold, silver, and other precious metals.
- No holding and transaction fees: Cryptocurrencies are decentralized currencies and there are no holding and transaction fees like banks and other financial institutions.
- Cryptocurrencies are safe heaven like gold: When there is a crisis-hit such as economic, financial, and political, then assets like gold, silver, and other precious metals, and now cryptocurrencies have to get less impact while cash, stock, bonds, etc. are negatively impacted. It is possible to print the paper money again, but it impossible to reproduce gold, and cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
- Limited supply, high in demand: It shows that prices can increase in the future. There is a limited quantity of 21 million Bitcoins are available and can't be produced again. It makes the cryptocurrencies rarer like gold and other precious metals. Cryptocurrency in IRA always is a great investment for the future.
- Cryptocurrency for your retirement portfolio: Commonly, your retirement portfolio will be loaded with stocks or bonds. But successful investors recommend that you should never put all your eggs with the same basket. Cryptocurrency gives you a viable asset option to diversify some portion of your retirement savings.
- Protection against declining value of dollar: Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are available in limited stock and their prices are not deficit easily like the dollar. Both precious metals such as gold and cryptocurrencies provide the best guard against the weakening value of the dollar and other currencies.
Visit our Gold IRA Rollover Guide page to learn more about
What to look in cryptocurrency IRA companies?
When you are choosing a cryptocurrency IRA company for the investment, consider the below points:
- Ratings: It is good to go with a cryptocurrency IRA Company that has lots of positive customer reviews. Check out the authorized websites such as Better Business Bureau (BBB), Business Consumer Alliance (BCA), and Trustlink. Also check out the feedbacks at Yelp, Complaint Board, and Yellow Pages (YP). These are websites where customers honestly speaking about companies.
- Safety: The major risks with Cryptocurrency investment are Hacking. Discuss with your cryptocurrency IRA Company about the measure they use to secure your assets against such threats. Do they use the Cold Storage facility? Do they use multi-sign technology? Ask them before choosing them.
- Efficiency: Many clients are waited for months to set up their IRA accounts and ready for the purchases. The cryptocurrency market is moving very fast, and such types of delay may cost you hundreds of dollars more to buy BTC or Ethereum tokens. Try to choose a company that quickly processes the account setup request and also has good customer support.
Best Cryptocurrency IRA Company- All in one solution!
After seeing all of the above criteria, we found Regal Wallet (introduced by Regal Assets) on the top. Regal Wallet not only has highest positive customer ratings, but it also handles entire process very efficiently. This company also builds high reputation among Gold IRA Companies.Regal Wallet (From Regal Assets)
Regal Assets mainly deal with precious metals IRAs, but due to the highest popularity of Cryptocurrency, they introduced themselves in this digital currency world under the name of Regal Wallet. This company already has a good reputation in the area of Gold and Silver IRAs, so they didn't face any difficulty to reach the top position in the cryptocurrency industry.Why Choose Regal Assets for your Crypto IRA Investment?
- Supports All Major Cryptos
- Express Account Opening Option
- Highest Industry Ratings
- Expert & Crypto Savvy Account Managers
- Ability to Diversify with Physical Bullion
- Fully Insured Investment by World Renowned Insurance Company
The company has the highest A+ Better Business Bureau Rating (BBB), AAA rating from Business Consumer Alliance (BCA), and 1000+ five star reviews from TrustLink. Security is a major part of Cryptocurrency investments and Regal Wallet uses the topmost and modern security to protect their client's assets. They offer their services at lower fees and with insurance.
Interested to invest with Regal Wallet? Follow the below steps:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Can I use my IRA to buy cryptocurrencies?
Yes, you just need to rollover the funds of your existing IRA to Cryptocurrency IRA, or Bitcoin IRA. Some eligible retirement accounts that can be invested in Cryptocurrencies are:
- Roth IRA
- Traditional IRA
- SEP IRA
- SIMPLE IRA
- Pension plans
- Various annuity plans
- TSP (Thrift Savings Plans)
What is a Bitcoin IRA Rollover?
If you want to move your exiting retirement account or IRA into cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin, then a Bitcoin IRA Rollover is needed.
Is investment in cryptocurrency is smart strategy?
The demand for cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin is increase day by day. Due to limited supply is available; experts predict that the value of cryptocurrencies will become more stable as compared to paper currencies. So, it's a smart long term investment.
What cryptocurrencies can I store in my IRA?
Here is the list of cryptocurrencies that you can store into your IRA:
- Bitcoin (BTC)
- Ethereum (ETH)
- Litecoin (LTC)
- Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
- Ripple (XRP)
- Dash (DASH)
- Stellar Lumens (XLM)
- Monero (XMR)
- Ethereum Classic (ETC)
- Zcash (ZEC)

domain: economics


Dallas writes, “Hey, I just saw this ad in on a local newspaper website. Glamour shots has apparently ‘changed.’ I guess they think there might be a market for people who will pay for nudie pics of themselves.”
Thanks for participating in our comments beta test. While we review your feedback, you can stay connected and share tips. Please take this survey to share what we're doing well, what needs work, and what you'd like to see!
Founded in 2005, Consumerist is an independent source of consumer news and information published by Consumer Media LLC, a not-for-profit subsidiary of Consumer Reports.


text:
Brockton Guardian Angels host turkey dinner for homeless
BROCKTON – Paul George and his wife, Beverley, served up a turkey dinner to local homeless along railroad tracks off North Montello Street Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving.
“We’re giving them what they need,” said George, 56, who is the captain of the Brockton chapter of the Guardian Angels, a volunteer citizen crime watch group.
His wife, Beverley, did all the cooking. The pre-holiday dinner included a 20-pound turkey, corn bread, stuffing, gravy, apple cider, bottled water, and ice.
“We figured it’s the day before Thanksgiving, the people were waiting for their meal tomorrow, so I thought ‘Let’s give them one today too,’” Paul George said.
About 25 people homeless people ate the turkey feast at lunchtime Wednesday and then walked to Tent City, a wooded area nearby where homeless congregate.
Richard Monk, a member of the Brockton Guardian Angels, helped the Georges serve the homeless.
“I just wanted to help,” said Beverley Sterling-George, 55, of Brockton. “Now that I’m here, I’m feeling good when I see the people (eating). They’re hungry. They’re normal people but they’re down on their luck.”
The Brockton Guardian Angels donated some of the food, along with Stop & Shop and Easton Ice donated 30 pounds of ice, George said.
The Brockton Guardian Angels also host a blanket and clothing drive during winter months to donate items to the city’s homeless.
“We also give them food and warm clothes and jackets,” Sterling-George said. “It makes me feel good.”
Reach Maria Papadopoulos at email@example.com or follow on Twitter @MariaP_ENT.

domain: sociology


text:
We brought you a few teaser pics of Matt Haber’s “The Little Voyageurs” coming together at The Bldg in Covington, Kentucky a week or so ago, and since Matt got home to Brooklyn, he sent us some flicks of the work from the show. This exhibition is the largest collection of work that Haber has shown to date, and his first solo since 2005, so we had been waiting a long time to see what Matt would bring with this body of work. AM loves […]
Tag Archives: The BLDG
Brooklyn based artist Matt Haber opens a brand new solo show this week at The Bldg in Covington, Kentucky. We’ve followed Matt’s work for a number of years with his regular showings at Jonathan Levine in New York. However, this is his first showing in the Bluegrass state, and the latest in an exciting line of new contemporary exhibitions The Bldg have been bringing over the last year, following the UK’s Prefab77 and everyone’s favorite monochrome dynamic duo, The London Police. Haber’s folk art inspired […]
Sometime tomorrow, Kentucky-based gallery/print house The BLDG will be releasing a new silkscreen print by Brooklyn artist Matt Haber, who is currently participating in Jonathan LeVine Gallery’s summer group show Beach Blanket Bingo (covered). The 15.5″ x 20″, 9-color, handpulled print, entitled Sniper, is an edition of 100 and will be priced at $125. Available here.

domain: news


text:
by LemonTree | Aug 8, 2013
In 2013 the Paediatric Oncology Unit treated 8 boys and 1 girl with Osteosarcoma (bone cancer).
We then realised that in a Government Hospital a very long waiting list for prostheses exists and the 2 boys that were fortunate to receive prostheses never wore them due to extreme discomfort.
At ‘Camp Footprints’ the doctors met a boy with Osteosarcoma who received treatment at another hospital. He had an amputation and received a prosthetic blade that enables him to walk, run and jump!! He was able to join the children on his blade in all the activities at the camp!! So, we got a solution – we need BLADES for our children!!
We had a meeting with the Company (icexpress) a few weeks ago and they are willing to help us, but we need funds. Now we are looking for sponsors to see if we can solve this problem!!
If you would like to get involved, please get in touch with us!


text:
For the past two years rent control has been one of the top legislative trends in the rental housing industry. While the industry has seen both victories and losses on this front, the fight against tenant-popularized rent control bills continues. Which cities are being targeted next? If you have properties in California, Illinois, or Providence, R.I., you’ll want to look out for these rent control initiatives.
What is Rent Control?
To recap – rent control (also known as rent stabilization) would allow local and/or state governments to control and regulate the rental amount you charge. While many states have legislation in place that ban rent control, some local governments have been able to bypass this via rent stabilization ordinances. Additionally, there have been several initiatives to remove these state-wide bans (although none have been successful so far).
Rent control is not a new idea. In recent times it’s been popularized by multiple tenant’s rights groups who believe it can help alleviate the rising rental rates in major metros. However, this is only a temporary solution to a much larger problem: a rental housing shortage.
The Rent Control War in California
If you’ve been following the ApplyConnect blog for a while, you’ll know that California is in the midst of an all-out rent control war. After AB 1506 (BLOOM), a bill that would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Act, was defeated in committee earlier this year, activists have doubled down on their efforts to put rent control on the 2018 ballot. Cities currently targeted are Glendale, Inglewood, Long Beach, Pasadena, Sacramento, and Santa Cruz. The majority of these groups in the above cities are still collecting signatures. None have officially made it to the ballot yet.
Keep in mind that the ordinances proposed in each city differ. For example, the rent control proposal in Glendale caps annual rent increases at 4%, while the proposal for Pasadena caps increases at 4.5%. Beyond a difference in rent increase caps, some proposals (like Long Beach) also introduce ‘just cause’ eviction requirements and would require all landlords to pay an annual rental housing fee.
The Beginnings of Illinois Rent Control
While Illinois is in the early stages of rent control legislation, their two bills (HB 2430 and companion bill SB 2310) are no joke. Both bills aim to repeal the Rent Control Preemption Act, which currently prohibits local governments from enacting rent control. Additionally up to 10 wards in the city of Chicago will see a proposal on the topic on the March 20th primary ballot. The Gazette Chicago reports that this includes the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 12th, and 25th wards. The Chicagoland Apartment Association strongly opposes this bill, citing that “it hurts lower-income residents more than it helps, benefits higher-income renters, and causes larger economic disruptions in the affordable housing market.”
Rent Control Might Be Coming to Providence, R.I.
According to The Associated Press (AP), tenant activists are aiming to put a rent-control initiative on the fall 2018 ballot. During a protest against the eviction of an elderly couple, one activist stated that the Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE) organization in the area has started collecting signatures.
Since our last update, Washington State’s HB 2583 died in committee after failing to meet the legislative cutoff date. The city council of Santa Ana, CA also decided to reject rent control measures. While these two victories are significant, it isn’t over yet. Rent control legislation has proven to be a resilient trend within the housing industry and it will continue to spread. As rent control makes its steady crawl throughout the nation, have your Senator’s and your Congressmen’s contact information ready.

domain: geography


text:
Note: There are affiliate links in this article. My opinions are my own. Purchasing from these links sends money to fund my blogs with no extra cost to you.
Food and I have a very personal relationship.
I was raised in a home where eating out was something special, something we did maybe twice a year. My mother cooked three meals a day — from scratch. I think we used potato flakes once in my life and Pappie knew what we had done and we never did it again. Every night for dinner we had three courses and sometimes four if I made dessert, which was often.
We always began dinner with setting the table.
My sisters and I were responsible for preparing the table; complete with water and wine glass for my dad, his cloth napkin, we used appetizer plates, and always a full set of flatware. While we placed the olives, cheese, salami, and bread on the table, my mom would have been preparing dinner for at least an hour already. She would have one pot of pasta water boiling, and one pot for sauce or topping for the pasta. On another burner there would be a pan ready to go for the second course meat selection, and another pan for some kind of cooked vegetable.
The salad was prepared one of two ways depending what was for dinner: salt, two spoon fulls of olive oil and one balsamic vinegar, or, salt, two spoons of olive oil and a squeeze of lemon juice.
Appetizer on the first plate, salad in its own bowl, and the main course on the dinner plate. You can imagine the aftermath of dishes we kids were responsible for every night.
We always at traditional italian foods. The only time we ate a foreign food was when my dad would travel to a food convention which happened once a year.
Though I grew to love the crafted meals we had, I longed for foreign spices, textures and flavors. When I left for college and got my hands on my own kitchen I felt like I was reborn.
My childhood reality became challenged when I moved in with Jamie and his kids.
When I became a part of Jamie’s life, complete with his kids, cooking at home every night was not their usual. I would become anxious at how often we would eat out, about twice a week, worried that we would taint the children’s health and wellbeing.
After a long days work, picky eaters, and at one point in my life, a bakery to run, I quickly deemed the idea of eating out being an okay thing to do.
Happy that this balance of home-cooked vs. eating-out has come over me, I recognize that cooking a lavish meal can be daunting, but a few key healthy-ish fast meals are the ticket to every-day living.
My top 5 back-pocket meals are inspired by using few ingredients, pantry staples, and achievable in about 30 minutes. All from scratch. Take that 1950’s!
- Sudado Do Pescador
- A quick and hearty fish stew, recipe inspired by a Peruvian restaurant in Florida. It means fish sweat, but its amazing! 🙂
- Beef Pho
- For beef lovers, packed with good for you antioxidants and flavor.
- Pasta Primavera
- A traditional Italian spring dish. It’s a bit like a deluxe alfredo.
- Pasta con Matarocco
- Classic Sicilian dish we eat in the summer when the tomatoes and basil are at their best!
- Spring Rolls
- Thanks to full gardens and sharing neighbors, this fast meal or snack is as fun to eat as it is to make.
More links to these recipes soon to come!

domain: food


text:
Inspired by the era of pirates, this harness takes inspiration from the 18th century. Made with Vegan Leather and the best quality of imitation suede! Antique signature hardware.
The harness has been redesigned for better comfort and fit while never forgetting the fashion. Signature hardware with snap closures. The straps, breastplate and back plate have suede padding on the inside of the harness for comfort.
Available in sizes XS-L.

domain: design


Vzense 3D ToF camera is more in line with your industrial needs.
Let’s jump into this short article to learn more about the applications of ToF cameras in various fields.
By adopting the appropriate algorithm, ToF camera can differentiate pallets from other objects in the environment based on their 3D shape and size in real time, enabling the AGV to quickly react and adjust its approach to the pallet more efficiently and accurately in warehouse environments.
ToF camera can capture depth information of the environment in real-time to accurately detect obstacles in its path. This allows the AGV to adjust its route or speed to avoid collisions.
RGB-D ToF Camera provides accurate depth information of the objects in the robot’s workspace, which can be used to accurately position the robot’s end-effector to pick up objects of different shapes and sizes on the fast-moving convey.
This enables the robot to perform tasks like sorting, packaging, and assembly more efficiently and accurately.
Using ToF camera can quickly acquire 3D point cloud data of each parcel and calculate the volume based on the 3D data. Support the simultaneous use of multiple cameras to deal with the volume measurement of oversized or irregular objects.
RGB-D ToF camera can accurately detect parcels in the sorting area, including small and irregularly shaped parcels. Process various types of packages in an orderly manner to achieve efficient and accurate automatic separation of packages.
By adopting appropriate algorithm, ToF camera can differentiate pallets from other objects in the environment based on their 3D shape and size in real-time, enabling the AGV to quickly react and adjust its approach to the pallet more efficiently and accurately in warehouse environments.
Tracking and counting the number of people when they enter and exit a specific area makes ToF cameras a useful tool for people counting applications, such as in retail stores, museums, or other public spaces. Vzense also develops its own people-counting software and provides customized solutions for different scenes.
When ToF cameras are equipped with specialized algorithms which can analyze the changes in the distance and velocity of objects in the camera’s field of view and determine whether they are consistent with falling.
This can help the camera differentiate between intentional movement and accidental falling.


Pile Driving Analyzer® (PDA) System
High strain dynamic load testing and pile driving monitoring system. Perform dynamic load testing on most types of deep foundations.
Earn 6.5 PDHs
State of Practice Seminars
New York, Maine, and Rhode Island
Home | FAQs
We have answers. Take a look through our FAQs for some quick solutions.


How are external Public Safety radio signals retransmitted within a building?
A very important question that comes to the mind of any building owner: what if an emergency occurs in your building? How can you make sure that the people inside are able to communicate with emergency responders outside? Are occupants able to dial 911 from their cell phones? What if there is an urgent need to evacuate the building?
These questions are made all the more urgent by the fact that many buildings are made of materials that can impede cellular or communication signals.
So how do you make sure that your building is safe for its occupants? How do you guarantee that first responders can communicate with building occupants seamlessly and efficiently?
The answer is simple: you get a certified & professional company to install an ERRCS in your building.
What are ERRCS, in a nutshell?
An Emergency Responder Radio Communications System, or ERRCS, is an important radio transmission tool that ensures reliable two-way communication for first responders within building structures.
It’s an in-building communication system designed to improve critical communications within a building as well as allowing flawless communication with the outside.
Seeing the importance of this, ERRCS systems are mandated by the NFPA and local Authority Having Jurisdictions (AHJs).
Most buildings that meet a specific size and occupancy threshold, which varies from city to city, must have an ERRCS system installed and be subjected to Annual Testing and Recertification (ATR).
But how do ERRCS work, exactly?
An ERRCS uses a donor antenna to receive the radio signals from the local first responder network – signals that operate on private frequencies used by first responders.
These signals are then re-amplified within the building at the required locations to make sure there are no blind spots when it comes to connectivity.
ERRCS systems use communication tools compatible with existing public safety radio frequencies to ensure that first responders, paramedical professionals, and public safety personnel are able to communicate safely and efficiently, without being limited or restricted by signal existence or strength.
What do ERRCS guarantee?
Installing an ERRCS system provides a safer world for us all. Its presence in the building is a safeguard against catastrophes happening because of lack of radio signals or proper connectivity.
It helps first responders to manage any dangerous situation, from manmade disasters such as a raging fire or an explosion, to natural disasters like flash floods or typhoons. ERRCS ensure the safety of both the people in danger and the people trying to help them.
As such, it is vital to have a knowledgeable party install your ERRCS and perform ERRCS testing to check it for any maintenance issues regularly.
ERRCS systems are a vital lifeline that extends between people in any sort of danger within any building, and the heroes who risk their lives trying to save them every day.
That is why we take our work extremely seriously and aim to provide nothing but the most flawless communications systems available today.
Get in touch with us to get a detailed quotation for your ERRCS installation.