汕头白癜风最便宜的是哪汕尾白癜风可以完全治愈吗,汕头得了白癜风如何护理,汕头看白癜风去哪里看好,白癜风去哪治汕头最好,潮州看白癜风哪个医生,为什么潮州白癜风病人多,潮州白癜风治疗费用是多少

Michigan State University is facing a federal lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan Southern District, accusing the school of not following federal guidelines in a reported rape.The lawsuit was filed by an attorney for a student who claims she was sexually assaulted by three members of the men's basketball team in April 2015, a week after the team lost to Duke in the NCAA Tournament.The team members are identified only as John Does in the lawsuit.According to the allegations in the suit, the unidentified woman was an 18-year-old in her first year at MSU at the time of the assault. She says she was with her roommate at Harper's Bar in East Lansing when most of the MSU basketball team arrived at the bar sometime after midnight on April 12, 2015.The woman alleges that one of the team members approached her and offered to buy her a drink. She says that after she accepted, the man asked if she would like to meet the "other guys" on the team.According to the lawsuit, the woman accepted because, as a sports journalism major, interacting with members of the basketball team was of interest to her.However, the lawsuit says that at no time did she indicate a romantic interest in any of the team members who approached her.As the night progressed, the lawsuit alleges that one of the team members asked the woman to come to their apartment for a party. She says that as incentive, one of the players lied and told her that her roommate was already headed to the party.According to the lawsuit, the woman contends she was having a hard time holding her glass, even though she had not had much to drink at that point.The lawsuit says that, when the woman arrived at the the location of the purported party, it turned out to be one of the team member's off-campus apartment and that few people were actually present. The lawsuit also says that the woman's roommate was not among those present.According to the lawsuit, the woman tried to text, but she was not able to control her thumbs to compose a text. It is at this point, according to the lawsuit, that the woman says the first player pulled her into a bedroom and told her "you are mine for the night." The woman says this made her uncomfortable and she made her way back into the living room, where, according to the lawsuit, her physical troubles continued and she realized something was wrong and that she might have been drugged.The lawsuit contends that at this point, the second player offered to show the woman his basketball memorabilia in his bedroom, where she was thrown down onto the bed and raped from behind.The lawsuit continues with the allegation that once the player, identified only as John Doe 2, finished raping the Plaintiff, the other two players, identified as John Doe 1 and John Doe 3, each came in and took turns raping the woman.The lawsuit says the woman does not remember anything after that, until she woke up on a couch a few hours later.The lawsuit then contends that the woman reported the rape to the Michigan State University Counseling Center, where, once they were informed the three alleged attackers were basketball players, the counselor's demeanor changed and that she told the woman that she needed another person in the room.The lawsuit contends that the staff person told her that her options were to file a police report, or deal with the aftermath of the rape on her own. However, the suit also contends that the staff made it clear that, if she reported the rape, she would face an uphill battle and unwanted media attention.The lawsuit also contends that staff members made comments to the effect of "we have had many other students in the same situation who have reported, and it has been very traumatic for them" and other comments 'implying' that it would not be in the plaintiff's best interest to report the incident to police, specifically "if you pursue this, you are going to be swimming with some really big fish."The lawsuit also contends that the counseling center did not advise the woman to seek STD or pregnancy testing, have a physical exam, or seek medical treatment. They also, allegedly, did not notify the woman of her option of reporting the rape to the Office of Institution Equity, or her Title IX rights, protections and accommodations.According to the lawsuit, this caused thw woman to become so frightened that she did not report the rape and she did not seek help from the Michigan State University Sexual Assault Program for 10 months.The woman was also not informed of her right to have a no-contact order put in place to keep the men out of her dorm, Brody Hall, where the woman says she would often see one or all three of the men in the dining hall.The suit contends that the woman was so traumatized after the rape that she sought psychiatric treatment at Sparrow Hospital in October 2015, stopped attending classes and was forced to withdraw in the fall semester of 2015.The suit seeks damages from the school and injunctive relief to have MSU put steps in place to prevent sexual assault. 5119

Los Angeles-area protests calling for justice for an 18-year-old man shot and killed by police last week ended Sunday when police reportedly fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters.Video from Sunday's demonstrations shows police using chemical dispersants and shooting projectiles at protesters in Compton.One protester told CNN that the confrontation escalated into violence when a demonstrator wouldn't "back down" to police.KCBS reports that six people were arrested for unlawful assembly, and one person was charged with resisting arrest.Demonstrators were calling for justice for 18-year-old Andres Guardado, who was shot and killed by Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies in an alley behind a Los Angeles auto shop on Thursday.Police say Guardado flashed a gun and then fled as officers chased him. CNN reports that a deputy fired six rounds at Guardado. Investigators say they recovered an unregister semi-automatic pistol at the scene that included an illegal extended magazine loaded with live rounds.Guardado's family maintains that he was working as a security guard at the body shop at the time of the shooting, and added that they do not believe he owned a gun. But police officers claim that Guardado was not recognizable as a security guard because he did not have a uniform on and was not wearing a gun belt.California law also requires that security guards be at least 21 years old.Capt. Kent Wegener, the head of the department's Homicide Bureau, says investigators have taken six or seven exterior cameras from the scene of Thursday's shooting. It's unclear if any of the footage contains images of the shooting itself.Guardado's death marked the second fatal shooting by a Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy in a week. 1756

Many people across the country are full of hope now that a few COVID-19 vaccines are showing positive results, and they appear to be highly effective. But will Americans be willing to get a shot?Before Pfizer, Moderna and Astra Zeneca shared their results, Gallup Economics conducted a poll with Franklin-Templeton on what it would take for Americans to be willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine."We decided to dig deeper to why people are skeptical of a vaccine and see what pieces of information make a difference in effecting their decision in getting it or not," said Jonathan Rothwell, the Principal Economist at Gallup. Rothwell says, instead of a traditional Gallup Poll with multiple choice or open-ended questions, the more than 5,000 people surveyed were broken into groups of 200. Each group was asked different questions, proposing various scenarios and hypotheticals about a vaccine."'Imagine there's a vaccine that's going to be widely available in either', and then we varied the timing to be either the end of this year or beginning of next year. We varied whether we disclosed if it came after the FDA did three rounds of clinical trials or mention it was FDA approved," said Rothwell. People were also asked about how effective a vaccine would need to be and who would have to recommend it in order to take it."I would say the most surprising thing was telling people the Food and Drug Administration approved the vaccine after three rounds of clinical trials had a slightly negative, not significant effect relative to just telling them it's just FDA approved," said Rothwell.The results also showed African-Americans and Hispanics were more skeptical of a COVID-19 vaccine and that most people wouldn't resume activities like going to the store without a mask, traveling, or sending their kids back to school just because a COVID-19 vaccine was available.Dr. Bali Pulendran, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University, says news about the high efficacy of two different COVID-19 vaccines is extremely positive, but he understands people's hesitations."It's understandable because this is unprecedented, no one has developed vaccines at such warp speed. But, again, it has to be driven by the data and what the data shows us now is that at least in the short term, we have these vaccines that are in excess of 90% effective and safe," said Dr. Pulendran.Dr. Pulendran says just because it took less than a year to develop an effective COVID-19 vaccine, doesn't mean corners were cut to get there."The methods used to make these vaccines have gone through the same high rigorous standards that have always been used to make any number of vaccines that have been administered and that have been proven to be safe and effective. By that, I mean they’ve gone through phase one, phase two, phase three human trials, multiple independent bodies have looked at the data," said Dr. Pulendran.Gallup hopes scientists, doctors and politicians will use the results of this poll to help guide their messaging to the general public so that most people will be encouraged to get a COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available. 3155

Many businesses across the country have been working to safely reopen their offices. From disinfecting desks to implementing social distancing guidelines, some employers are learning it still might not be enough to bring people back to their desks."There are people who have fears of returning back to work due to safety concerns. Maybe they might be at a higher risk due to a compromised immune system or someone else within their family so they have some concerns about returning. Some employees don’t want to return-- and some employees want to continue to work from home when they were able to do it during this period of COVID," says Amber Clayton, the Knowledge Center Director at the Society for Human Resource Management.Clayton says some reasons for an employee refusing to come back to the office are protected under law. For example, if the employee, or someone the employee lives with, has underlying health conditions that would make them at higher risk for being affected by COVID-19, or they're unable to return due to childcare reasons. Employment lawyers like Ruthie Goodboe agree, citing OSHA and the National Labor Relations Act."An analysis needs to be done by the employer to determine, ‘Am I able to separate that employee if they’re unwilling to return to work, am I required to do or take certain steps’ and then if I do that and they still don’t come to work, do I have a right to separate them," said Goodboe, an employment lawyer with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash Smoak & Stewart.Employers must also make sure they're following regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Family Medical Leave Act."If employers are following guidance from the CDC and from OSHA and limiting their exposure in the workplace, that should be satisfactory. However, there may be times that someone may be infected in the workplace and that employer may be held liable depending on the situation," Clayton said.But for those employees who simply have a general fear of COVID and despite any accommodations the business is taking, still don't feel comfortable coming back to work, it may be a breaking point."There's no federal or state laws that I’m aware of that requires an employer to provide leave based on someone’s fear that they may contract some type of disease whether it’s COVID-19 or something else. But employers should, through their policies and practices, determine what they’ve done in the past and ensure they’re being consistent and fair in their policies," says Clayton.Perhaps the biggest key for employers and employees in getting through this is communication."Stay calm, take a breath and make sure you’re communicating well with your employees to get all of the information. Do you understand what all of their concerns are? Because once their concerns are understood, it may be easy to resolve," says Goodboe.Employees and employers could ultimately find a mutually agreeable working situation to keep everyone comfortable and healthy at work. 2994

Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, is "under criminal investigation," the Justice Department said Friday.In response to Cohen's motion to restrain the evidence collected in Monday's raids of his home and office, the US attorney in New York asserted the raids were authorized by a federal judge to seek evidence of conduct "for which Cohen is under criminal investigation."The filing redacts what Cohen is under investigation for.The filing contains the first details released by the Justice Department on the searches, which covered Cohen's residence, hotel room, office, safety deposit boxes and electronic devices. 648