太原晋源区肛门疙瘩山西肛门痔疮怎么得的,太原痣疮疼怎么办,山西医治长期痔疮医院,山西女人痔疮怎么办,山西微创治痔疮要多少钱,山西大便带很多血,太原小孩拉不下来屎怎么办

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - Two women who worked as massage therapists at the Grand Del Mar are suing the resort’s parent company, claiming the spa allowed them to be sexually harassed by male clients. Christina Murphy and Madeline Flores made allegations this week of sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment, wrongful termination, and retaliation against FHR GDM Hotel Management Company LLC. The women’s claims involve two spa clients, Steve Hodsdon and Juan Pablo Mariscal, who the women say made inappropriate advances during scheduled massage appointments. The Grand allowed clients to disregard protocols for keeping themselves covered and repeatedly exposed themselves to therapists, according to a court document filed by the women’s attorney. The male clients also made sexually suggestive comments and gestures and propositioned their therapists for sexual favors, the document said. The legal complaint also details issues Flores and Murphy said they addressed to the spa’s lead massage therapist, manager, director, and human resources representative. The Grand “ignored the complaints and tried to brush them under the rug to keep these male clients coming to the Spa,” the document reads. Both Flores and Murphy used administrative channels to make complaints in Aug. 2018, filing sexual harassment complaints with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. On Feb. 26, 2019, Murphy and Flores amended their complaints to include a claim of construction discharge in violation of FEHA or wrongful termination, respectively, and the DFEH closed their cases. The women say they suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame.In a statement sent to 10News, Murphy said, "From the beginning, the Grand Del Mar makes it clear that as massage therapists, we should feel privileged to work on such high-end clientele. This creates a power differential where the guests have all the power and the therapists are powerless to challenge inappropriate conduct. The sexual intimidation by these male clients caused me so much fear – fear of what these men were capable of and fear of retaliation by the Grand for reporting them. But I had to speak up to protect myself and my coworkers. When it became obvious that the Grand was not going to protect me, I did the only thing I knew would keep this from happening to me again – I quit."Flores said in the same statement, "What happened to me and Christina never should have happened. The Grand should have taken action to stop this harassment the first time it received complaints about these men. But the Grand did nothing and we ultimately paid the price. The Grand made me feel unsafe at work when they were supposed to be the ones to protect me. This was a profession that I went to school for and that I loved, and now, I have lost my passion for it. I was scared to come forward but ultimately, I felt I had to come forward because I do not want what happened to me to happen to other massage therapists."Their attorney, Alreen Haeggquist, with Haeggquist & Eck, LLP said, “The law is simple and straightforward: an employer has a duty to protect its employees from harassment. But in the face of multiple detailed complaints by its female massage therapists over a period of years, the Grand has chosen to instead protect the perpetrators. The Grand has made a clear choice: the tens of thousands of dollars its predatory male clients spend at the Hotel is far more important than the safety of its female employees. For the right amount of money, the Grand will ignore clients who remove all draping, grind on the massage table, expose their erect penises and ask its therapists for prostate massages. Over the past few years, the Grand has refused to accept any responsibility for its systemic failures. They have had multiple opportunities to do the right thing and protect their female massage therapists – and time after time, they’ve failed to do so. Well, time’s up.”The plaintiffs believe no fewer than six massage therapists may have been victimized, the court document says. The hotel responded in a statement of its own, "Fairmont Grand Del Mar acts diligently to investigate employee complaints and is confident that there was no wrongdoing by the hotel in connection with this matter. The safety of our guests and our colleagues is a top priority and providing a healthy work environment remains paramount. As this matter is currently in litigation we are not able to further comment."10News attempted to speak with Hodsdon and Mariscal and were turned around at the gate to their neighborhood. 10News also attempted to contact Hodsdon at his workplace and he was not there. 4736

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- When entering most newly reopened businesses in San Diego County, customers will need to sign in with their name and phone number.The change only applies to businesses now offering indoor services; the county’s public health order was updated to reflect the changes now in effect for the following sectors:Hair Salons & BarbershopsPersonal Care ServicesGyms & Fitness CentersRestaurants, Wineries, Bars, Breweries, and Distilleries that serve food.“It’s a very modest step that can aide in our close contact investigation, and I think can help slow the spread and help these businesses stay open,” said County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher.Many people already give their name and phone number when making a reservation at a restaurant or booking a hair appointment; this won’t look much different, just more widespread, and businesses will also keep the sign-in sheets for three weeks.“In the event, there is an outbreak or exposure, I think most people would want to know if they’ve been exposed so they can quarantine or potentially get tested,” said Fletcher.If a COVID-19 outbreak happens, customers who visited will be notified if they were possibly exposed. The county will not collect or save the information.“It would only be used in the event there was a public health risk,” said Fletcher.Fletcher said the new plan could have possibly helped with contact tracing during the last wave or reopenings.“It’s certainly something we could have been done before, maybe a lesson learned from earlier, I think this could really aide in helping more quickly in letting folks know if they’ve been exposed," Fletcher said.Some people may have privacy concerns and be reluctant to give their personal information.Cybersecurity expert Ted Harrington, who is an executive partner at Independent Security Evaluators, says that while giving an email address would feel less invasive, the risk of providing a phone number and name is still minimal.“There’s no doubt what this order is doing is giving more information for people who don’t yet have a process to safely protect it, so we should accept that is the reality of what’s happening,” said Harrington. “But, is that a strong enough reason to not go to a restaurant or get your haircut or whatever? I wouldn’t be any more concerned than you might normally be with giving your phone number to a restaurant when you leave a reservation.” 2417

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -  Two local elected officials are among 15 from California invited to the White House next week.The discussion will center on a hot topic: California's immigrant sanctuary laws.President Trump has made border security one of his highest priorities, with San Diego a focal point and his border wall prototypes a visible sign of that.RELATED: 381

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Wednesday, the San Diego District Attorney's Office has released its findings on four officer-involved shootings and one in-custody death in San Diego County.The shootings took place between June 11, 2019, and Feb. 27, 2020. In each instance, the DA found that the officers involved "acted reasonably under the circumstances and bear no state criminal liability for their actions."An analysis of each case from the DA's Office release is included below:Suspect in stolen car shot by officer in El CajonOn February 12, 2020, two El Cajon police officers responded to a report of a stolen vehicle and located the car parked on South Johnson Avenue. An officer approached the car, which was occupied by Keith Crenshaw, 21, who appeared to be asleep in the driver’s seat. There was no one else in the car. A third El Cajon police officer arrived and also approached the vehicle. A Psychiatric Emergency Response Team (PERT) clinician was with the third officer. The PERT clinician stood behind the patrol vehicle because the scene was not secured. As Crenshaw appeared to wake up, one of the officers drew his gun and directed Crenshaw to show his hands, put his hands up, and get his hands out of his shirt at least ten times. The other two officers on scene directed Crenshaw to put his hands up or get his hands out of his shirt at least five times. Crenshaw’s hands were concealed under his clothing. Crenshaw did not comply with the officers’ orders, instead telling the officers, “Shoot me.” Crenshaw moved his right hand towards his waistband and made jolting and jerking movements toward one of the officers through the open passenger door. The officer fired two rounds, striking Crenshaw in the upper body and arm. Crenshaw remained conscious after he was shot telling the officer to, “Kill me please.” The officer continued to give Crenshaw commands to get his hands out of his shirt. Crenshaw complied and was removed from the vehicle. Officers provided medical assistance to Crenshaw until paramedics arrived and Crenshaw was taken to the hospital where he was treated for non-fatal gunshot wounds. A search of Crenshaw and his vehicle revealed that he possessed no weapons at the time of the incident. Fortunately, Mr. Crenshaw survived. He gave a recorded statement confirming the officer’s observations that he simulated actions wanting the officer to believe he had a gun because he wanted the officer to shoot him. In reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the call, Crenshaw’s failure to abide by commands to show his hands, Crenshaw reaching for his waistband with right hand and jerking towards the officer, viewing the situation in light of an objectively reasonable officer, the officer would have reason to believe that there was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, either to himself or others, that needed to be instantly confronted. Therefore, the officer was justified in his actions and bears no state criminal liability.The DA’s detailed review can be found here.Officers responding to a reported attack are confronted by man wielding a shovelOn August 24, 2019, San Diego Police received a call from a citizen about her nephew’s erratic behavior. SDPD dispatched two officers, telling them that Dennis Carolino, 52, had thrown a brick at his aunt. Two San Diego police officers responded and interviewed the victim, who told officers Carolino was diagnosed with schizophrenia. Officers attempted to locate Carolino to evaluate him for a mental health referral. As officers made their way into a backyard and toward a shed that Carolino had been living in, the door to the shed suddenly opened and Carolino charged toward officers holding a long-handled shovel. Officers told Carolino to drop the shovel, but he continued to advance on officers and ignored their commands. Both officers believed Carolino was going to hit them with the shovel. One officer deployed his taser while the second officer fired his handgun, striking Carolino five times. Life saving measures where attempted but Carolino was pronounced dead at the scene. A review by the District Attorney found the officer used his gun in defense of himself, the civilian witness and the other officer.Based on these circumstances, the officer who fired his handgun acted reasonably and bears no state criminal liability for his actions.The District Attorney’s detailed review can be found here.Man dies from methamphetamine toxicity after being detainedOn June 11, 2019, a man called San Diego Police to report a burglary, saying he found a man he did not know inside his home who had apparently broken in.The first responding officer arrived with a civilian PERT Clinician and contacted Buddie Nichols, 40. The officer attempted to handcuff Nichols, but he began to resist the officer’s handcuffing efforts. Two more officers arrived, and it took all three officers to handcuff Nichols. Nichols resisted enough that the officers used physical force in order to take him into custody by hitting him with a flashlight on his shoulder. During the time the officers were handcuffing Nichols, he displayed symptoms of being under the influence of a controlled substance and continued to do so after he was handcuffed. Nichols was screaming and thrashing about and the officers held him in place on the ground to limit his movements.The officers requested paramedics respond to the location. As the paramedics arrived, the officers noticed Nichols appeared to be unconscious. Fearing he may be in medical distress, the officers removed the handcuffs. Paramedics could not detect a pulse from Nichols and began CPR. Nichols was transported by ambulance to UCSD hospital where he was pronounced deceased.The medical examiner determined Nichols’ cause of death was resuscitated arrest due to sudden cardiac arrhythmia due to excited delirium while intoxicated on methamphetamine. He also stated the manner of death was accident.Based upon a review of the facts and circumstances surrounding Nichol’s death, the law enforcement personnel involved in his restraint acted reasonably under the circumstances and bear no state criminal liability for their actions.The DA’s detailed review can be found here.Man reportedly grabs officer’s gun during struggle fatally shotOn January 24, 2020, two San Diego Police Officers observed Toby Diller, 31, illegally holding an open container of alcohol. Officers stopped the patrol vehicle to speak to Diller who immediately began running away and into lanes of busy traffic on 54th Street. The officers chased Diller on foot, giving him multiple commands to stop. Diller tripped while running through a planter, got back up and was tackled in the middle of a frontage road. Both officers were positioned over Diller as a violent struggle ensued.During the struggle, Diller grabbed the holstered gun on an officer’s duty belt. Diller managed to break the gun from the officer’s duty belt. The officer saw the holster in Diller’s hand, and it appeared Diller was trying to remove the gun from the holster. The officer yelled, “He has my gun, shoot him.” Another officer fired one shot striking Diller on the left side of his cheek. Diller was pronounced dead at the scene by medics. An autopsy showed methamphetamine in Diller’s system.Due to the imminent nature of the threat posed by Diller’s possession of the loaded handgun, it is objectively reasonable that an officer in the same situation would believe that Diller had the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to cause death or serious bodily injury to the officer and his partner.Based on these circumstances, Officer Johnson acted reasonably and bears no state criminal liability for his actions.The DA’s detailed review can be found here.Non-fatal shooting of a man in a homeless encampmentOn February 27, 2020, San Diego Police Officers were working a joint operation with the Chula Vista Police Department, San Diego Park Rangers and Environmental Services. Officers and Park Rangers went into the encampment and located Carlos Soto, 70, the only person in the encampment, inside one of the structures. San Diego Police Officers identified themselves and told Soto to come out of the structure. As Soto was coming out the officer could see the butt of a handgun in Soto’s right front jacket pocket. A second officer also saw the gun, which later was determined to be a “BB” air pistol.Both officers gave Soto multiple commands to get on the ground. Instead, Soto grabbed the gun from his jacket pocket and both officers fired. Soto sustained three gunshot wounds which were non-life threatening.Based on the totality of the circumstances the officers reasonably believed Soto presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to each of the officers. He removed what appeared to be a firearm from his pocket after they had given him several opportunities to come out of the tent and get down on the ground. In light of all the facts, the officers were justified in their actions and bear no state criminal liability for them.A copy of the DA’s detailed analysis can be found here. 9145

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) – With Thanksgiving just days away, local health officials are seeing long lines at San Diego County COVID-19 test sites with many San Diegans hoping to get tested before the holiday.With the sudden surge of testing, some experts, such as UC San Diego Chief of Infectious Diseases Dr. Davey Smith, warn that getting a test is not enough to minimize the risk of spreading the coronavirus.“There’s a worrisome reason that people are planning to go visit their older relatives and they think they’re going to be 100 percent safe,” Smith said.Smith also said getting a test now could still give out a false negative result.“If I get tested now, it doesn't mean that I'm not infected, it just means that I'm not actively shedding the virus,” Smith told ABC 10News.On Monday, at San Diego International Airport, ABC 10News spoke to travelers who had the same thought.“I got tested about a week ago, just to make sure that everything is OK. And I know you can have it without having symptoms, so I did as much as I could to prepare before I came,” said Dana McLin.And along with getting a test, these travelers made sure they brought everything else they need to stay health while traveling this Thanksgiving holiday.Jan McLin said, “We are wearing our masks and we use hand sanitizers, sanitizing wipes, washing out hands constantly. This is necessary travel; when it’s necessary, you have to do everything not only for yourself but everyone around you as well.” 1481