濮阳东方在哪里(濮阳东方看妇科收费合理) (今日更新中)

A gender discrimination lawsuit filed by members of the US women's soccer team against the US Soccer Federation has been scheduled for trial starting May 5, a spokeswoman for the players said."We are pleased with the expeditious schedule that has been set by the court and we are eager to move forward this case," Molly Levinson, spokeswoman for the players, said Tuesday. "We very much look forward to the trial in May 2020 when the players will have their day in court."We have every confidence that these world champion athletes will get what they legally deserve -- nothing less than equal pay and working conditions."US Soccer declined to comment.The US Women's National Team's lawsuit was filed in March in US District Court in California, with 28 members of the team listed as plaintiffs.The suit alleges US Soccer's payment practices amount to federal discrimination by paying women less than men "for substantially equal work and by denying them at least equal playing, training, and travel conditions; equal promotion of their games; equal support and development for their games; and other terms and conditions of employment equal to the MNT."Mediation talks between US Soccer and the US women's soccer team broke down, Levinson said last week.The players had previously requested a November 2020 trial date, while US Soccer asked that the trial begin in December 2020.The argumentIn one hypothetical case cited in the lawsuit, if the women's and men's teams both won 20 straight games in a season, the women would make 38% what the men do.Last month, US Soccer said the reigning Women's World Cup champions earned more than the US Men's National Team, with US Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro releasing an open letter on Twitter saying that from 2010 through 2018, the federation paid .1 million in salary and game bonuses to the women, compared with .4 million for the men.Those figures did not include benefits, such as health care, that the women receive. Included in the federation's numbers is that US Soccer pays USWNT contracted players a salary to play in the National Women's Soccer League, while the men are paid by their individual teams.The women's and men's compensation structures are different, as those each were collectively bargained.The figures were described as misleading and "utterly false" by Levinson in a July written statement.America's women have been far more successful than their male counterparts, winning four World Cups -- the most recent last month in France -- and four Olympic gold medals.The USMNT said its players, too, "were not impressed" by Cordeiro's letter. "The women's national team players deserve equal pay and are right to pursue a legal remedy from the courts or Congress," the men's team said.Sponsors have added to the pressure to resolve the equal pay fight, with deodorant brand Secret saying in July that it planned to contribute 9,000 to the USWNT players' association.Nike, US Soccer's biggest partner, has also said it's a strong advocate for pay equity. "Regarding gender equality, Nike has been an advocate for women and girls in the US and around the world," a spokesperson said.Minutes after the USWNT's World Cup win on July 7, Nike ran a 60-second ad celebrating the team's victory, centering on the concept that the USWNT's win is about more than winning a soccer title. However, Nike has been criticized for reducing athletes' pay during their pregnancies, a practice it said in May it would discontinue.It emerged this month that US Soccer had enlisted two lobbying firms, FBB Federal Relations and Vann Ness Feldman, to push back against claims of pay disparity after two Democratic senators introduced legislation that would require equal pay for men's and women's national teams.The move had left the team "stunned and disappointed," Levinson told CNN. 3854

A bride from New Orleans went all out for her beach wedding -- enlisting 34 of her closest friends and family to join her as bridesmaids on her big day.Casme Carter tied the knot June 2 in Destin, Florida, with her six sisters and 28 friends by her side.She says that she planned on having 50 ladies but some couldn't make it because of family reasons and an Army deployment.But why -- and how -- so many? Carter says she has a lot of friends from mentoring and participating in women's empowerment groups."I wanted them all to experience the love that they've seen that I've been praying for and wanting. I wanted them to witness it first hand," Carter says.When she told her now-husband, Gary Carter, of her plans, he didn't think she was serious at first, she says."He thought I was joking but then he was like, 'If anybody can do it.' He knows how I am and how many women are around me," Carter said.Carter says her husband's next concern was whether he could match that many women with men. "You don't expect me to have that many groomsmen," she recalls him saying.The bridesmaids were even more surprised than her husband because Carter didn't tell them that there would be 34 women in her wedding.She says she broke them up into a few different group chats to discuss details and told them just to get neutral beach dresses, and bring some bathing suits and khakis.The bride says the surprise went off without a hitch. "When they saw everybody they were like, 'Oh my God, Casme. This is so awesome!'"She was just happy that everyone was able to make it to her wedding. "Their time and their presence was a gift to me, just being there."In addition to holding a massive wedding, Carter says the couple decided to get married only three months after getting engaged.She says she always dreamed of a beach wedding and after being a wedding singer in Destin for at least 50 weddings she knew it was the place she wanted to get married.Carter also had a Pinterest board for her wedding that she had worked on for several years before even meeting her husband so she finalized it printed it out, and went to work to pull the massive event together in a short time.Overall, Carter says the day was perfect and she wouldn't have changed a thing."Everything about this wedding was different," Carter says. "It was so amazing to have them all right beside me."The-CNN-Wire? & ? 2019 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. 2465

A leading US real estate and mortgage insurer, First American Financial Corp., left vulnerable an enormous trove of digital documents, some of which may have contained social security numbers and bank account information.Bad actors only needed a web address to view the documents as they were left without password protection or other encryption, according to a Friday post from the popular cybersecurity blog 422

A law in Italy requiring children to be vaccinated in order to attend school went into affect on Monday, according to the 134

A federal judge in Arkansas blocked abortion restrictions that were set to take effect on Wednesday, dealing a victory to opponents of the laws who argued they violated Supreme Court precedent, were not medically necessary and imposed an "enormous burden" on a woman's ability to access abortion.The laws are the latest in a new wave sweeping across the country from emboldened states attempting to restrict access to abortion. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to take up a similar case out of Louisiana for next term.District Court Judge Kristine Baker of the Eastern District of Arkansas issued a temporary injunction late Tuesday night concluding that the laws "cause ongoing and imminent irreparable harm" to patients. The judge held that the state "has no interest in enforcing laws that are unconstitutional" and that she would block the state from enforcing the laws while the legal challenges play out.Three different provisions were at issue. One effectively barred abortions starting at 18 weeks of pregnancy. Baker held that because the provision "prohibits nearly all abortions before viability," it is unconstitutional under court precedent.Another barred providers from performing an abortion if the woman's decision to terminate was based on a diagnosis that the fetus has Down syndrome. The judge ruled the law "is over-inclusive and under-inclusive because it prohibits nearly all pre-viability abortion based on Down syndrome when there is no record evidence that the Arkansas legislature has availed itself of alternative, less burdensome means to achieve the State's asserted interest through regulations that do not unconstitutionally prohibit a woman's right to choose but instead are aimed at ensuring a thoughtful and informed choice."A third required providers to be certified in obstetrics and gynecology, a provision Baker said "provides no discernible medical benefit in the light of the realities of abortion care, training, and practice in Arkansas and across the county." She noted that had the provision gone forward, it would have left the state with no surgical abortion provider."In recent years, Arkansas has engaged in a targeted campaign against abortion care and the women who need it, enacting more than 25 laws aimed at obstructing and interfering with a woman's access to abortion care in the State, including at least 12 enacted in 2019 alone," lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood argued in court papers on behalf of the Little Rock Family Planning Services clinic.Arkansas defended the laws, calling them "common sense" regulations. "Each regulation benefits society, mothers, and the medical profession in a myriad of ways while imposing no real (or legally cognizable) burden on abortion access," Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas' attorney general, argued in court papers.Holly Dickson, legal director and interim executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, said her group was "relieved.""Personal medical decisions are just that -- personal -- and politicians have no business barging into people's private decisions, shutting down clinics and blocking people from care that they need," she said. 3200

来源：资阳报