梅州一般打胎手术费用是多少梅州初中女生怀孕了怎么办,梅州自体脂肪胸填充,梅州处女膜修补有什么好的办法,梅州下垂乳房矫正手术,梅州第一次怀孕流产,梅州手臂溶脂价格,梅州淋菌性阴道炎要怎么治疗

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) – Californians voted to pass Proposition 22 – reclassifying rideshare drivers as independent contractors. But, companies like Uber and Lyft are still battling lawsuits from the state claiming billions in wage theft.The legal battle over rideshare drivers did not end with the passing of Prop 22. The California Labor Commissioner is still suing gig companies for not following current law which classifies drivers as employees instead of independent contractors.The Labor Commissioner’s Office is seeking billions for unpaid minimum wage, overtime, sick leave, and business expenses.Nicole Moore with Rideshare Drivers United led the fight against Prop 22. She says since the new law is not retroactive those lawsuits still stand.“This is about back pay that under the law as it was over the last three years, those drivers are still owed that money,” said Moore. “It was .3 billion that were owed to those drivers. Half of that is damages but the other half is just straight pay that under labor law.”Some drivers had to file for unemployment when the pandemic hit, including those with pre-existing conditions hoping to limit exposure to the virus. Others are unable to drive since they have to stay home with kids now out of school for distance learning.Moore says those unemployment protections won’t last once the new law takes over.“If you don’t have unemployment that’s when people become homeless, that’s when kids go hungry. We need that safety net as workers,” said Moore.As San Diego moves into the state’s purple tier, Tonje Ettesvoll says she’ll have to limit hours to reduce her risk of exposure. She says the move for her own safety may prevent her from qualifying for benefits under Prop 22.“I will not be doing my 60 hours a week. I’ll be doing maybe 30 so I may be one of those people who don’t qualify and will have to be on Medi-Cal,” said Ettesvoll. “And that is an expense that’s not Uber’s and Lyft’s. That is an expense that’s the taxpayer’s and I think that’s very unfair.”Uber and Lyft both declined to respond to our inquiry on the pending lawsuits. Uber did send us this statement: 2136

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - At least two former students of a coding bootcamp in downtown San Diego received refunds after a Team 10 story earlier this summer.Sean Calma and Lane, who declined to give his last name, were enrolled at Origin Code Academy. They both said they were promised one-on-one instruction, which they did not receive. Neither had previous coding experience, so they both asked many questions before enrolling."One time, [the instructor] didn't even know what he was looking at on my computer screen. A second time, he was like, I don’t know what that is. Third time, he asked to go ask another instructor," Lane told Team 10 back in June.CEO Jeff Winkler said coding is difficult, but would be willing to talk to the students about getting their money back. During a previous Team 10 interview, he pointed to many satisfied students and dozens of graduates, including one who recently got a job at Facebook.Winkler did not respond to Team 10's request for comment regarding the refunds.Coding bootcamps are regulated by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE). Origin Code Academy was previously operating without approval. The academy appealed its citation, its fine was reduced, and as of August, it is allowed to operate. As part of its approval, it had to pay back students who asked for refunds.Both Calma and Lane could not talk about their refunds the received after Team 10's story because both had to sign a non-disclosure agreement before getting their money back.A spokesperson for the BPPE told Team 10: "The Bureau encourages Origin Code Academy students who have not yet received a requested refund to contact the Bureau so we can investigate their claims. If any of the subjects in your story are still waiting for refunds please encourage them to reach out." 1809

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — City council leaders unanimously approved a reform to allow local churches to build affordable housing in parking lots.The plan will allow churches and other religious institutions to choose to build affordable housing units in their parking lots to utilize large areas of the property that may go typically unused during the majority of the week.Previously, the institutions were required to offer a certain amount of parking spaces based on the location's capacity.The approval is part of a series of housing reforms the city hopes spark new affordable housing opportunities. City leaders are optimistic the moves will increase local housing supply, attract new construction, and lower costs in the long run.RELATED: Protesters air grievances in an end-of-year 'Festivus' at City Hall“There are so many religious leaders who want to know what they can do as we face a statewide housing crisis that is putting the squeeze on working families,” Mayor Faulconer said in a release. “We have people in need and people who want to help so giving churches the opportunity to build affordable housing on underutilized parking lots makes all the sense in the world.”The idea has been gaining steam since last Spring. The group UPLIFT San Diego led the effort dubbed YIGBY, or "Yes in God's Back Yard.""There are 1,100 churches in San Diego County with over 3,000 acres of property," UPLIFT leader Tom Theisen told 10News in June. "If just 10 percent of those churches, 100 churches, were to build 20-30 units each, we're talking thousands of units of housing."RELATED: Abandoned church in San Ysidro to be turned into affordable housingFollowing Tuesday's announcement, pastor Gerald Brown echoed UPLIFT's sentiment.“Churches in our community want to be a part of the solution when it comes to the housing crisis,” Brown said. “This important reform allows us to continue serving our communities in the best way possible, while providing the affordable housing that is so desperately needed.”City leaders also changed municipal code to allow continuing care retirement communities in zones that currently allow multifamily housing and as a conditional use in single family residential zones. The reforms also removed a requirement of an additional permit for multifamily residential developments that involves arranging to allow underground parking. 2369

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) -- Data obtained by ABC 10News showed there were more than 150 complaints made to 211 involving a Pacific Beach gym’s violations of public health orders.The data regarding The Gym was compiled starting April 8; overall, there were more than 9,300 complaints from that time period involving violations of public health orders throughout San Diego County.Troy Kahle said he and his husband have been members of The Gym, located on 2949 Garnet Ave., for more than 20 years. Kahle is also a COVID-19 survivor, and he said he’s not sure how he contracted the virus.Kahle has not been to The Gym since he went to the hospital. His husband last went on July 3, and decided it was not safe.RELATED: County confirms coronavirus outbreak at Pacific Beach gym"There are no safety barriers, there are no hand sanitizers, no one is wearing a mask, and no one is socially distancing," Kahle said, passing along what his husband told him from his July 3 gym visit.On July 15, public health orders forced several businesses to close indoor operations, including gyms. But Kahle said they noticed The Gym kept their doors open.Kahle and his husband notified 211 about The Gym's indoor activities on more than one occasion. He said their goal was to prevent the spread of the virus."I can't believe they stayed open as long as they have," Kahle said.During Wednesday's news conference, San Diego County Public Health Officer Dr. Wilma Wooten confirmed there was an outbreak associated with The Gym.The county had ordered it to close last week; The Gym closed on Monday."Last week, when we were working with them to close, we didn't know there was an outbreak there," Wooten said. "Once we get the information, we act as quickly as possible." 1748

SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - Another woman has come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct against a former San Diego County Sheriff's deputy. Jane Doe, as she's named in a federal lawsuit, claims Richard Fischer sexually assaulted her in September of 2017. The woman claims she was driving home from her shift as a cocktail waitress, lost control of her vehicle, and crashed into two parked cars. Scared she'd been drinking and driving, she left the scene and called a male friend to drive her to her home in Escondido. According to the lawsuit, as she and the man approached her home, they saw Escondido police cars parked outside. Officers detained her, and she admitted that she'd crashed her car and had been drinking and driving. Police handcuffed the woman and told her she had to wait for San Diego County Sheriff's personnel to arrive. The lawsuit says the responding deputy was Richard Fischer. According to the lawsuit, "Defendant Fischer asked Jane Doe if she had been drinking. She admitted that she had. As he drove Jane Doe back to the accident scene, he asked Jane Doe if either of the two males in the car with her were her boyfriend. Jane Doe answered that they were not. Defendant Fischer then responded, "Good, because you could do much better than them" or words to that effect." The lawsuit says once at the accident scene, deputies questioned Doe about the crash. It says after about 20 minutes at the scene, Fischer asked her if she wanted a ride home. The lawsuit says, "Jane Doe was confused when Defendant Fischer offered her a ride home because she told the officers she had been drinking and driving, she crashed into two parked cars, fled the scene of the accident, did not have a valid driver's license, her friend that picked her up got arrested, and there was an outstanding warrant for her arrest. Jane Doe assumed she was going to jail." The woman says she accepted Fischer's offer for a ride home and got into the patrol car with her hands cuffed behind her back.As they drove to her home, Fischer asked her how old she was, according to the lawsuit. "Deputy Fischer asked if she had gotten a birthday kiss. Jane Doe responded, "What?" Then Deputy Fischer asked Jane Doe if she wanted a birthday kiss. Jane Doe did not respond. Jane Doe became more confused. Jane Doe thought to herself, "What the he** is going on?," the lawsuit stated. The lawsuit says once they got to her house, Fischer opened the rear door where she was sitting. It says, "He then said, "Here comes your favorite part," or words to that effect. He leaned across her to unbuckle her seatbelt. Deputy Fischer then started rubbing Jane Doe's legs as she sat handcuffed in the back of Deputy Fischer's patrol car. Jane Doe was wearing very short denim shorts. Therefore, Deputy Fischer was able to rub the skin of Jane Doe's upper thighs on both legs. As Deputy Fischer rubbed Jane Doe's thighs, he looked at her and said, "Your legs are really soft" or words to that effect. Jane Doe was still handcuffed and could not stop Deputy Fischer's advances." The lawsuit claims once out of the vehicle Fischer stood behind her and started "rubbing her butt". It says, "As the handcuffs were still on, Deputy Fischer then reached between Jane Doe's legs and rubbed her genital area." The woman then went into the house. The lawsuit claims by the time Fischer met the woman, he had "sexually assaulted approximately 19 other women while on duty as a San Diego sheriff deputy." The lawsuit challenges the County of San Diego's complaint process saying it allows very serious complaints to go unanswered, "because a proper system of complaint reporting would have resulted in an Internal Affairs investigation into the complaints, arguably as early as May 4, 2016. Deputy Fischer would have either been terminated then, or placed on administrative leave, as he is currently on, which would have saved Jane Doe and other situationally vulnerable women from his abuse of power as a San Diego sheriff deputy." Fischer is currently facing numerous criminal charges, including sexual battery, false imprisonment, forced oral copulation, and assault by a public officer. He has denied the allegations, telling 10News in September of 2018, "I just want to go on the record and say I vigorously deny these allegations. They are false, and I really look forward to my day in court to fight for myself." According to court records, Fischer's criminal trial is set for September. Attorneys for Fischer did not respond to a request for comment on this federal complaint. 4559