济南痛风要怎么办啊济南痛风结晶怎么能消除,济南早期痛风病的治疗方法,山东哪个痛风怎么治,北京脚大拇指痛风症状,北京高尿酸饮食大全,济南痛风石怎样检查出来,山东三七可以治疗痛风吗

A district judge in California denied Netflix's attempt to have actress Mo'Nique's discrimination case against them dismissed on Wednesday and said the lawsuit can move forward.The decision was made in the Central District Court in California by U.S. District Judge Andrè Birotte, Jr.Mo'Nique is alleging that Netflix discriminated against her because of her race and gender by offering her a "lowball offer" to perform a one-hour comedy special and then retaliated against her when they “dug its heels in the ground” and refused to negotiate fair pay with her, according to court documents.In his decision, Judge Birotte said that Mo'Nique's allegations are "plausible.""Mo’Nique raises a novel theory here, namely that an employer’s failure to negotiate an “opening offer” in good faith, consistent with its alleged customary practice which typically leads to increased compensation, constitutes an “adverse employment action” for purposes of a retaliation claim," the judge noted.In her lawsuit, which she filed last year, the Oscar-winning actress says she the streaming service offered 0,000, but claimed they paid comedian Amy Schumer "twenty-six times more than her for the same one-hour comedy special on grounds that Schumer had sold out Madison Square Garden and had a recent movie released.""Regardless of whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on (her) claims, dismissing this case under Rule 12(b)(6) is not appropriate," the judge said in his decision. "The plaintiff’s complaint may raise a novel issue, but that does not justify dismissing it at this stage."You can read the entire court documents below: Actress Mo'Nique's discrimination case against Netflix moving forward, judge rules by Sarah Dewberry on Scribd 1751

A federal prosecutor who was helping lead the investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe has resigned from the Justice Department. Nora Dannehy was a top prosecutor on a team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut, who was appointed last year to lead an investigation into how the FBI and other federal agencies set out to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether the Trump campaign had coordinated with the Kremlin. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Connecticut has confirmed Dannehy’s departure but declined to comment further. The Hartford Courant first reported Dannehy's resignation. 669

A federal judge has dismissed adult film star Stormy Daniels' defamation lawsuit against President Donald Trump.Daniels sued Trump after he said Daniels' story of a man threatening her not to come forward with her story of her alleged affair with Trump was "a total con job."Daniels argued Trump's tweet "attacks the veracity of her account" of the incident and that Trump's statement was "false and defamatory, and that the tweet was defamation ... because it charged her with committing a serious crime," District Judge S. James Otero wrote in his opinion Monday.Trump had asked Otero to dismiss the lawsuit."The Court agrees with Mr. Trump's argument because the tweet in question constitutes 'rhetorical hyperbole' normally associated with politics and public discourse in the United States. The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement," Otero wrote.Daniels says she and Trump had an affair in 2006, shortly after he married first lady Melania Trump and she gave birth to their son, Barron. Trump has denied the affair.In addition, Trump is entitled to attorney's fees, Otero said.Trump's attorney Charles J. Harder said in a statement to CNN, "No amount of spin or commentary by Stormy Daniels or her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, can truthfully characterize today's ruling in any way other than total victory for President Trump and total defeat for Stormy Daniels.""The amount of the award for President Trump's attorneys' fees will be determined at a later date," Harder added.Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, responded to the ruling on Twitter and said: "Daniels' other claims against Trump and Cohen proceed unaffected. Trump's contrary claims are as deceptive as his claims about the inauguration attendance.""We will appeal the dismissal of the defamation cause of action and are confident in a reversal," Avenatti continued. 1860

A Dundalk couple says they’re trying to figure out who’s responsible after a carnival accident on Friday.A day at a carnival for David Nagel, his wife Stacy, and their 2-year-old grandson was going great until David and Levi were on board the carnival’s merry-go-round.“I grabbed my grandson,” David said. “Ran away from the [the carousel] and got my grandson over the fence to my wife, and then I went back to make sure that everybody else was ok because there was a young lady with two younger kids behind me.”Part of the merry-go-round collapsed with close to 40 people on or nearby.Stacy watched in horror, capturing the entire incident on her smartphone.“It was his first time ever on a merry-go-round. He’s two. He never wanted to get on before and we didn’t push him. He just wanted to get on the merry-go-round so we had to film it. Thank gosh we did,” she said.Firefighters along with ride inspectors worked on the ride for almost an hour.Then the ride went back into service – not against protocol according to state inspectors.The ride services’ owner, Shaw & Sons Amusements, says the state handles inspections.“A major breakdown is a stoppage of operation from any cause that results in damage, failure, or breakage of a structural or stress bearing part of an amusement attraction,” Matt Helminiak, the Commissioner of Labor and Industry – over the amusement ride and safety inspection division, said.By phone, he said if no one was injured or if there weren’t a major breakdown, the state wouldn’t even be alerted.The incident on Friday wasn’t enough to shut the ride down.Still, Helminiak says the state will look at what went wrong with the merry-go-round.“In the case of a mobile ride, every time that ride is set up, a state inspector inspects it before anybody is allowed to ride it, but the operators themselves have a daily inspection requirement and so they inspect it and keep a log of inspections and then have that available for us,” he said.An unsettling feeling for David, who says he wants to see a change in the inspection process, no matter if someone is injured.“I went, number one, to bring back memories and number two – to share joy. It was supposed to be a joyous time. It was until we got on the merry-go-round,” David said.The state will look at the merry-go-round before it’s set up again.No matter the issue, it’s up to the company to get the ride fixed before anyone is able to get on it again. 2447

A Georgia school decided on Thursday to reverse its decision it made earlier in the week to end the practice of students participating in the Pledge of Allegiance during all-school assemblies, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Earlier in the week, Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School said that the pledge would no longer be recited in such assemblies after some parents and students expressed concerns. The school said that it wasn't outright banning the Pledge of Allegiance from being recited during school hours, but moving the pledge to the school's classrooms. “Over the past couple of years it has become increasingly obvious that more and more of our community were choosing to not stand and/or recite the pledge," principal Lara Zelski said, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "There are many emotions around this and we want everyone in our school family to start their day in a positive manner. After all, that is the whole purpose of our morning meeting.” By late Thursday, backlash from the public and public officials forced the school to reverse its decision. Georgia' Department of Education requires schools to make time for the Pledge of Allegiance, but students are not required to stand or recite it. “Students are offered the opportunity to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance," county superintendent Morcease J. Beasley told the Constitution-Journal. "If they choose to participate or not is their individual and constitutional right and the reason the flag of the United States of America exists. Anything that removes their right to choose to participate as their conscience dictates, in my opinion, is un-American and immoral.”  1740