Postulate 3: Fred’s district is follows this because they are considering several sources of data before reevaluating (pg. 85). Fred’s teacher filled out a Teacher Rating Scale and they are going to re-test him before consideration. They are also allowing students in their district to be considered during different points in their school careers (p85). Fred was not identified in second grade, but they are beginning the process for him to be considered two years later.
The move towards an intersectional approach is evident in several Supreme Court rulings. “Some courts and tribunals have started to acknowledge the need to make special provision for discrimination based on multiple grounds and to recognize the social, economic and historical context in which it takes place” (Ontario Human Rights Commission). Although still in its infancy the court’s understanding of the intersectional approach has provided the Supreme Court of Canada to include comments on multiple grounds of discrimination and intersecting grounds. The Mossop case SCR 554 was the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to consider equality rights for gays. Madam Justice L’Heureux-Dubé remarked, “it is increasingly recognized that categories
On 6/2/16 at about 7:30 PM, RAD 1 associate Christopher Veizaga (veizaga) asked security if he would be able to leave out of the B building bypass with a large box. The box contained 17 TC-55 also known as dolphins. Shift Supervisor (S/S) Enmanuel Cabrera then asked Mr. Veizaga, why exactly did he have to remove the box out of the building? Mr. Veizage stated that it was a last minute shipment to another site and did not think that he needed to put an asset removal form because it is not product. S/S Cabrera quickly spoke with Operation Manager (O/M) Thomas Gerlach about the situation at hand. O/M Gerlach stated to let the gentlemen leave with the box but to just document the individual’s information and take pictures of the content of
FUTRONICS Inc. is a private company located in Lexington mainly categorized for modems, monitors, disk drives and terminals. It is moreover in to sales and services. This case is about the replacement of Futronics’s central office stores by an outside service provider. In this case supply management manager have an opportunity for investigating selected outsourcing in-house services.
There are a few OSHA violations that call for concern such as 1910.334(a)(1) and 1910.334(a)(2)(i) Portable cord and equipment should be inspected before use to ensure that there is no internal or external damage to cause any safety hazards.
On July 2, 2015, the CP left a message at 11:41 a.m. regarding the missed intake appointment. She stated that she did not know the appointment time, the date of her last appointment, and her address changed. On July 6, 2015, the intake supervisor returned a telephone call to the CP; a left voicemail for the CP at 8:00 a.m. regarding an appointment rescheduled for August 3, 2015. On July 16, 2015, a letter was mailed to the CP for an intake appointment on August 3, 2015. On July 30, 2015, the intake supervisor received a telephone call from the CP regarding verification that she was at work on May 5, 2015. The CP was advised that the only information received from her was the Report/Request Form on May 28, 2015. The CP stated that she turned in a letter from her employer in June. The intake supervisor discussed with the CP that she had missed two intake appointments. The CP stated she would turn in documentation from her employer regarding the two missed appointments. The CP stated she did not know of the July 1, 2015 appointment. The intake supervisor asked the CP about her mailing address. The CP stated that she was staying at the Avon Street address and
Part number of Televisions listed on Vendor Invoice does not match Purchase Requisition and Receiving Report. Is only off by one letter and the price matches that of the item ordered and received in the Master Price list. Verified with Thomas that this is a typo on the Vendor’s part. No notation of discrepancy was made upon client’s review of Vendor Invoice.
Prizes are not normally ordinary income unless they are the direct result of an income earing activity or reward for a particular skills or achievement. For a prize to be classified as an ordinary income, they should be resulted of business activity or the degree of personal exertion and skill used should outweigh the element of being a chance.
Mr. Dextor Balleram visited the centre for an intake interview. The client stated that he took his brother Mr. Francis Balleram to court for violent threats and damages done to his personal belongings (toaster over, security uniform, cloths mattress etc). He added that his brother put out all his personal items out of the family house that his father built for his children. Mr. Dextor recalled several issues surrounding his childhood and reiterate that his brother Mr. Francis physically abused him which instill fear in him towards his brother. Mr. Dexter indicated that he is afraid of venturing back home because his brother threatens to kill him.
When the blue sheet was returned to the front desk, I noticed that it did not have a clean print out attached. The document was emailed back to the attorney without the note stating that the document was being submitted for a cold read.
We appreciate you stopping by the office of Frolick and Detour, LLP. After reviewing the information you have given us, we have recapped our meeting for you to keep on file for your convenience.
According to Bernardin & Russell, the Dynamic Duo’s owners were surprised with two citations from a compliance officer that did not communicate his or her focus of the inspection, nor was the compliance officer assisted by a valid member of management on the inspection tour, which is concerning (Bernardin & Russell, 2013).Moreover, on the same day, five (5) employees injuries, and illness was reported (Bernardin & Russell, 2013). Furthermore, the Dynamic Duo’s owners need to become aware of their responsibility as employers to their employees, which will ensure that the employer apply the needed safety and health measures to protect its employees, and its overall business process (Bernardin & Russell, 2013). Thus, investing time to become educated and trained in the Dynamic Duo’s owner’s responsibility to its employees will protect it from needless citations.