鄠邑区全日制学校实力哪里好(蓝田县复读民办高中有哪些) (今日更新中)

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

Loss is incredibly difficult. Those we love are only truly gone if we stop caring. Pat Patterson lived life as it should be lived with passion, love and purpose. He helped so many and always entertained with a story or joke. He will live on in my life always. Love you Patrick.— John Cena (@JohnCena) December 2, 2020 325

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The public now has a chance to see what evidence was presented by Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron's office to a grand jury in the Breonna Taylor decision after roughly 15 hours of recordings were released Friday.The recordings reveal who the grand jury heard from in relation to the case and what was said that led to the decision to charge former Louisville Metro Police Department Detective Brett Hankison with three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment in relation to the March 13 shooting.Police said they knocked repeatedly and identified themselves for a minute or more before using a battering ram to enter Breonna Taylor’s apartment, according to Kentucky grand jury recordings released Friday, then killed her in a rapid hail of gunfire after the first officer inside her door was struck by a bullet.But Taylor’s boyfriend, who fired on the officers, said in a police interview played for the jury that he did not hear them announce themselves. If they had, he noted, “it changes the whole situation because there’s nothing for us to be scared of.”The dueling accounts of the March 13 raid in which Louisville police killed the 26-year-old Black woman were contained in hours of recordings made public in a rare release for proceedings that are typically kept secret. The grand jury did not charge the officers with Taylor’s killing.A court ruled that the content of the proceedings should be made public after the grand jury’s decision angered many in Louisville and around the country and set off renewed protests. The material released does not include juror deliberations or prosecutor recommendations and statements, none of which were recorded, according to the state attorney general’s office.Louisville police Lt. Shawn Hoover said officers with a narcotics warrant approached Taylor’s apartment door and announced themselves as police and knocked three times.“We knocked on the door, said police, waited I don’t know 10 or 15 seconds. Knocked again, said police, waited even longer,” Louisville police Lt. Shawn Hoover said in an interview recorded March 13, the same date Taylor was shot, and later played for the grand jury.“So it was the third time that we were approaching, it had been like 45 seconds if not a minute," Hoover said. “And then I said, `Let’s go, let’s breach it.'”Another officer said they waited as much as two minutes. Whether or not officers announced themselves has been a key issue in the case because Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, said he only fired at police because he feared they were intruders.Police said they used a battering ram to enter the apartment, hitting the door three times before getting inside. Detective Michael Nobles said officers made so much noise that an upstairs neighbor came outside and had to be told to go back inside.According to the grand jury recordings, detective Jonathan Mattingly got shot as soon as he leaned inside the apartment.Mattingly said in testimony, some of which was previously released, that he fired four gunshots as he fell on his backside. Officer Brett Hankison said in a recorded police interview that moments after the doors were broken down he saw darkness and then “immediate illumination from fire.”“What I saw at the time was a figure in a shooting stance and it looked as if he was holding, he or she was holding, an AR-15 or a long gun, a rifle,” said Hankison, who was later indicted by the grand jury on charges of wanton endangerment for firing shots that went into another home with people inside.Walker was, in fact, using a handgun.“We didn’t know who it was,” Walker said in his own police interview shortly after the shooting. “If we knew who it was, that would have never happened.”Hoover said he believed Walker and Taylor were lying in wait for the officers.“We were, in my opinion, we were ambushed,” Hoover said. “They knew we were there. I mean, hell, the neighbors knew we were there.”About five minutes after the gunfire erupted and Taylor was shot, her boyfriend dialed 911.According to the audio of the call played for the grand jury, Walker told a dispatcher: “Somebody kicked in the door and shot my girlfriend.”Walker seemed confused when the police interviewed him later. He said he didn’t know why police would knock on Taylor’s door.Officers had a “no-knock" warrant to search Taylor's apartment for drugs. But Attorney General later said officers announced themselves. It's a key issue because the officers said they opened fire after Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, fired a gunshot at them. Walker said he didn't know the men who burst into the home were police.One law enforcement officer testified that police ultimately never executed the warrant to search Taylor's apartment.“Were drugs money or paraphernalia recovered from apartment 4? ... The answer to that is no,” said Herman Hall, an investigator for the state attorney general’s office. “They didn’t go forward with executing the initial search warrant that they had for Breonna Taylor’s apartment.”Cameron, whose office led the investigation into police actions in the Taylor shooting, did not object to the file's release. But on Wednesday, his office asked for a week's extension to edit out personal information from the material. The judge gave him two days.Cameron released the following statement on the recordings in a news release issued Friday: 5395

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Louisville police officers who fatally shot Breonna Taylor while serving a warrant were told she should be home alone. Officers were told the main target of a large-scale narcotics investigation was elsewhere.Taylor was shot eight times after officers used a battering ram to knock down her door on March 13. Sgt. Johnathan Mattingly spoke to internal investigators about two weeks after the raid. News outlets obtained the interview with Mattingly on Thursday. Mattingly says officers were told Taylor's apartment was a "soft target" and Taylor "should be there alone." Taylor's boyfriend was actually there and shot Mattingly in the leg. 670

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

来源：资阳报