LCS, a nondenominational Christian school in Livingston County, Michigan, sought to relocate after operating for several years in Pinckney, LCS entered into a lease agreement to operate its school on the property of Brighton Nazarene Church in Genoa Charter Township. The Township informed LCS that an amended special-use permit was required. The Church applied for a permit on LSC's behalf. The Township denied the application, citing traffic concerns, inconsistency with the surrounding area's single-family residential zoning, the failure of the Planning Commission's proposed conditional approval to mitigate these problems, and the Church's history of noncompliance with the zoning ordinance and with conditions on its prior special-use permits. The district court rejected, on summary judgment, LCS's claim that the denial violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. When a religious institution has an available alternative outside of a desired jurisdiction, and where the distance from the desired location to the alternative property is reasonably close, the artificial boundaries of a particular jurisdiction become less important. The record here does not indicate that traveling roughly 12 miles to Pinckney would be unduly burdensome to LCS's students. Nor does the record demonstrate that LCS's religious beliefs required it to locate within Genoa Township.
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 17a0117p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LIVINGSTON CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, > No. 16-2060 v. GENOA CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:15-cv-12793—George C. Steeh, District Judge. Argued: April 26, 2017 Decided and Filed: June 2, 2017 Before: MERRITT, GILMAN, and DONALD, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Robert K. Kelner, COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. T. Joseph Seward, SEWARD PECK & HENDERSON, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert K. Kelner, COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP, Washington, D.C., Hiram S. Sasser III, Stephanie N. Taub, FIRST LIBERTY INSTITUTE, Plano, Texas, for Appellant. T. Joseph Seward, Lindsey A. Peck, SEWARD PECK & HENDERSON, Royal Oak, Michigan, Carol A. Rosati, Anne McClorey McLaughlin, JOHNSON ROSATI SCHULTZ & JOPPICH, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellee. _________________ OPINION _________________ RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Livingston Christian Schools (LCS) is a private, nondenominational Christian school with a mission of providing a religiously oriented No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 2 education to students in Livingston County, Michigan. After operating for several years in the town of Pinckney, LCS sought to relocate. LCS entered into a lease agreement with Brighton Nazarene Church (the Church), located in Genoa Charter Township (the Township), so that LCS could operate its school on the Church's property. Shortly thereafter, the Township informed LCS that an amended special-use permit would be required before the Church property could be used for the school. The Church then applied for such a permit (hereinafter referred to as the "special-use permit") on LSC's behalf. In a four-to-three vote, the Township Board denied the application. The Board's action prompted LCS to file a complaint against the Township in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. LCS alleged that the denial of the application for a special-use permit violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. The Township moved for summary judgment in its favor, which the district court granted. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual background 1. LCS's attempt to relocate its operations to the Church LCS describes its mission as providing a Christian education "for the Livingston County Community." From 2006 to 2015, LCS carried out this mission at a building in Pinckney (the Pinckney property). Pinckney is located in the southernmost portion of Livingston County, which is outside of the Township. A declaration by LCS's treasurer, Scott Panning, notes that Pinckney is "without easy access to the interstate or major commuter roads," that the Pinckney area is less populated than the central area of Livingston County, and that Pinckney's population is declining. In addition, Panning explained that the building on the Pinckney property needed extensive, costly maintenance. No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 3 LCS asserts that these problems have led to financial difficulties. At a meeting in November 2012, the LCS Board decided that remaining at the Pinckney property on a long-term basis "will end in the dissolution of the school due to lack of enrollment and income." So LCS resolved to search for another location. LCS wanted to relocate to either "the Brighton or Howell area," both of which are within Livingston County. There are both cities and townships by the names of Brighton and Howell; LCS did not specify whether the "area" that it had in mind refers to the city, the township, or both. See Municipalities, Livingston County, Michigan, https://www.livgov.com/Pages/Municipalities.aspx (last visited May 31, 2017). Several options within these areas were explored, but LCS asserts that only the Church property was suitable. LCS then entered into an agreement to lease the Church's building for use as a school. According to Panning, LCS was unaware when signing the lease agreement that the Church would need to amend its special-use permit to allow LCS to so operate. After entering into the lease agreement, LCS prepaid the Church $70,000 in rent and began advertising its new location to prospective students. The Township eventually heard about LCS's plans to operate at the Church and informed the Church that the existing special-use permit would have to be amended in order for LCS to use the Church's building as a school. In March 2015, the Church applied for the permit. Two public hearings were held, where several neighbors of the Church expressed concerns about the application. The primary complaints were that (1) LCS's operations would worsen already heavy traffic, and (2) the Church had a history of failing to comply with its previous special-use permits by using its property in ways that neighboring residents found disruptive. After the second meeting, the Township's Planning Commission reviewed the application and a traffic study submitted by the Church. The Planning Commission then recommended that the Township Board approve the Church's application with several conditions attached. Despite the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Township Board voted to deny the special-use permit in a four-to-three decision at the July 2015 Board meeting. The July meeting minutes did not explain the reasons for the denial, but the August 3, 2015 meeting minutes did. These reasons included traffic concerns, inconsistency with the single-family No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 4 residential zoning of the surrounding area, the failure of the Planning Commission's proposed conditional approval to mitigate these problems, and the Church's history of noncompliance with the zoning ordinance and with the conditions on the Church's prior special-use permits. 2. LCS's use of other properties After the denial of the special-use permit, LCS entered into a short-term lease with the Whitmore Lake School District in August 2015, which allowed LCS to use the District's former public middle-school building located in neighboring Washtenaw County for LCS's school. Counsel for LCS explained at oral argument that LCS is currently using the Whitmore Lake property under what is essentially a year-to-year lease. But the Whitmore Lake School District has informed LCS that the School District might reoccupy the school building at some point in the future. LCS asserts that the Whitmore Lake property is therefore not a viable long-term option for its school. According to LCS, the Whitmore Lake property is also inadequate for several additional reasons. One is that the property is inconveniently located for LCS's students. The conditions of the lease, moreover, inhibit LCS's efforts to recruit prospective students, to effectively run sports programs, to keep the property secure, and to serve lunch to its students. In addition to leasing the Whitmore Lake property, LCS is the owner of the Pinckney property from which it sought to relocate in 2015. Even though LCS owns the Pinckney property, it decided not to continue its operations there when the special-use permit for the Church property was denied. LCS has instead leased the Pinckney property to the Light of the World Academy (LOTWA), a publicly funded charter school, for a term of seven years. The lease was executed on August 20, 2015, after the Township officially denied the Church's application for a special-use permit on August 3, 2015 and after LCS filed its original complaint on August 7, 2015. B. Procedural background In its original complaint, LCS alleged that the Township's denial of the special-use permit violated RLUIPA's substantial-burden provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). LCS later amended its complaint to add alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. But No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 5 neither of these constitutional claims are before us on appeal because LCS has not raised these issues in its brief. LCS filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied. The Township then moved for summary judgment. LCS did not file a cross-motion for summary judgment but, in its response to the Township's motion, LCS informally asked the district court to grant summary judgment in its favor pursuant to Rule 56(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(f)(1) allows the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of a nonmoving party "[a]fter giving notice and a reasonable time to respond." The district court did not act on LCS's request. It instead granted summary judgment in favor of the Township, concluding that the Township's denial of the application did not impose a substantial burden on LCS because LCS had both the Pinckney and Whitmore Lake properties as adequate alternatives to the Church property. Noting that the parties made essentially the same arguments in the summary-judgment proceedings as in the emergency-motion proceedings, the court "incorporate[d] by reference" its ruling denying LCS's motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of review We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment. Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs., 847 F.3d 384, 391 (6th Cir. 2017). Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "We must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party in making this determination." Williams, 847 F.3d at 391. As for the substantial-burden inquiry, the ultimate decision on whether the Township's actions imposed a substantial burden on LCS under RLUIPA is a question of law for us to No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 6 decide. See Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield v. City of Springfield, 724 F.3d 78, 93 (1st Cir. 2013) (explaining that the existence of a substantial burden is a question of law because "the corollary question of whether the government's interest is compelling is generally treated as a question of law," and because of the importance of appellate courts conducting de novo reviews of the legal aspects of First Amendment claims, which are "corollaries" of RLUIPA claims). But see World Outreach Conference Ctr. v. City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531, 539 (7th Cir. 2009) (assuming with little reasoning that the substantial-burden inquiry is a factual question, and noting that no other court at that point in time had specified whether this was a question of law or of fact). B. LCS's leasehold interest is protected under RLUIPA. RLUIPA explicitly protects "leasehold" interests in property. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc- 5(5). "Leasehold" and "ownership" interests are listed in the same provision and are therefore presumably entitled to the same level of protection. LCS clearly possessed a leasehold interest in the Church property by way of the lease agreement. The Township does not dispute that LCS had such an interest. Rather, the Township argues that the district court correctly concluded that the denial of the special-use permit did not violate RLUIPA because the denial did not effectively bar all religious exercise on the Church's property. But the religious institution at issue here is LCS, not the Church, and the land interest at issue is LCS's leasehold interest, not the Church's ownership interest. In addition, LCS persuasively argues that taking into account the Church's ability to use the property for its own purposes as a factor against LCS's RLUIPA claim would result in treating LCS differently from a religious institution that leased property from a secular landlord. We will therefore consider only LCS's ability to exercise its religious mission (and not the Church's) in evaluating whether there was a substantial burden on LCS. No. 16-2060 C. Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 7 The test for whether a substantial burden exists RLUIPA does not define the term "substantial burden." Its only reference to the term is contained in the following provision: No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that the imposition of the burden . . . (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. Nor has the Supreme Court had occasion to focus on the substantial-burden inquiry under RLUIPA in the land-use context, although it has done so in the institutionalizedpersons context. See Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853, 862 (2015) (holding that a prison's policy forbidding a prisoner to grow a beard of a certain length, which the prisoner sincerely believed was required by his religion, substantially burdened the prisoner even though the prison permitted him to engage in other religious practices, such as following a specified diet and keeping a prayer rug in his cell). Even in Holt, the Supreme Court did not articulate a definition of "substantial burden," but rather explained that the ability to engage in other religious practices did not prevent a prisoner from making a substantial-burden claim as to the rule against growing a half-inch beard. We will therefore turn to caselaw from this court and other circuits regarding the substantial-burden inquiry. 1. Sixth Circuit cases There are only two cases in this circuit, both of which are unpublished, that address the question of whether a land-use regulation imposed a substantial burden under RLUIPA. The first is DiLaura v. Township of Ann Arbor, 112 F. App'x 445 (6th Cir. 2004), where this court affirmed the district court's conclusion that a substantial burden existed based on a zoning ordinance that required the plaintiffs, who wanted to establish an overnight religious retreat, to operate as a bed-and-breakfast establishment. Id. at 446. In DiLaura, the court noted that restrictions on such establishments prevented the plaintiffs from serving Communion wine and meals other than breakfast. The plaintiffs would also have been required to charge their guests a fee for lodging. Because the plaintiffs' plan was to operate a prayer retreat that would provide No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 8 free lodging, and to serve lunch, dinner, and Communion wine, the court found that the plaintiffs would be "effectively barred . . . from using the property in the exercise of their religion" if their property were designated as a bed and breakfast. Id. The court did not provide any other explanation for its holding or articulate a test for whether a substantial burden existed. The other Sixth Circuit case is Living Water Church of God v. Charter Township of Meridian, 258 F. App'x 729 (6th Cir. 2007), where this court reversed the district court's conclusion that a substantial burden existed. 258 F. App'x at 742. In Living Water, the plaintiff was a church that wanted to construct an additional building on its property for use both as a religious school and as extra space for the church. Id. at 731. A special-use permit that was needed for the building was granted insofar as it allowed a school on the residentially zoned property. Id. at 732. But the permit restricted the church to a total of 25,000 square feet of floor space amongst all of its buildings, thwarting the church's efforts to construct a single building of almost 35,000 square feet. Id. at 731–32. The court in Living Water explicitly "decline[d] to set a bright line test" to determine whether a substantial burden exists, but announced "a framework to apply to the facts before us." Id. at 737. That framework asks: "[D]oes the government action place substantial pressure on a religious institution to violate its religious beliefs or effectively bar a religious institution from using its property in the exercise of its religion?" Id. The court also stated that a land-use regulation "may make religious exercise more expensive or difficult" without necessarily imposing a substantial burden. Id. Applying this framework, the court concluded that the church had not been substantially burdened because the church remained free to construct a school building. Id. at 738–39. The court concluded that there was no evidence in the record that a new building of the permitted size would be so inadequate as to constitute a substantial burden. Id. at 739. Although the court acknowledged testimony that the church would be burdened by incurring additional expenses to develop plans for a smaller building, and by not having space for a gymnasium, the court concluded that these were "mere inconvenience[s]." Id. In a concurring opinion, Judge Moore cautioned that Living Water's framework was "inadvisable" because the effective-bar prong was "so broad as to swallow the substantial-burden inquiry." Id. at 742 (Moore, J., concurring). We agree. The language of the effective-bar prong No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 9 would mean that, any time that a land-use regulation completely barred the religious use of a property, a substantial burden would automatically exist. See, e.g., Andon, LLC v. City of Newport News, 813 F.3d 510, 516 (4th Cir. 2016) (explaining that any framework that would essentially create an "automatic exemption" from land-use regulations for religious plaintiffs would contravene RLUIPA's intent). Moreover, the effective-bar prong of Living Water fails to take into account circumstances that other circuits have considered in the substantial-burden inquiry, such as whether a religious institution has ready alternatives to carry out its mission, or whether the religious institution's inability to use available land was self-imposed. See Part II.C.3. below. Judge Moore also noted that no other circuit had adopted the effective-bar language. Living Water, 258 F. App'x at 742 (Moore, J., concurring). Nor are we aware of any other circuit that has done so since Living Water was decided. Finally, the court in Living Water was apparently trying to avoid creating a precedent, specifically crafting "a framework to apply to the facts before us." 258 F. App'x at 737. The factual context in the present case is materially different from that in Living Water. We therefore decline to follow the Living Water framework and will instead focus directly on RLUIPA's test of whether the "land-use regulation . . . imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of [the] institution." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. 2. The meaning of "substantial burden" under RLUIPA One principle that clearly emerges from both Living Water and our sister circuits' decisions is that not just any imposition on religious exercise will constitute a violation of RLUIPA. Instead, a burden must have some degree of severity to be considered "substantial." See, e.g., Int'l Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a substantial burden "must impose a significantly great restriction or onus upon [religious] exercise" (quoting San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004))); Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004) (concluding that a substantial burden is "more than an inconvenience"). As this court recognized in Living Water, taking seriously the requirement that No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 10 a burden be "substantial" is necessary in order to avoid an interpretation of RLUIPA that would exempt religious institutions from all land-use regulations. 258 F. App'x at 729, 736 ("If the term 'substantial burden' is not to be read out of the statute, RLUIPA cannot stand for the proposition that a construction plan is immune from a town's zoning ordinance simply because the institution undertaking the construction pursues a religious mission."). Other circuits have persuasively explained that land-use regulations do not typically compel plaintiffs to "violate their beliefs" in the way that, for example, prison rules might require an inmate to engage in conduct that goes against his or her religious tenets. See, e.g., Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery Cty. Council, 706 F.3d 548, 555–57 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the government does not have "absolute control" over religious institutions in the land-use context in the same way that a prison has control over inmates, so that land-use decisions will "rarely" force a religious institution to violate its beliefs). But land-use regulations can prohibit a plaintiff from engaging in desired religious behaviors, causing some courts to define a substantial burden as something that places significant pressure on an institutional plaintiff to modify its behavior. See id. at 555. 3. Several factors from our sister circuits' caselaw are helpful in determining whether LCS was substantially burdened by the Township's action. Our sister circuits have identified several factors that are helpful in determining whether a land-use regulation has imposed a substantial burden on a religious institution. One factor, which the district court properly considered here, is whether the religious institution has a feasible alternative location from which it can carry on its mission. See Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338, 352 (2d Cir. 2007). Whether the religious institution will suffer "substantial 'delay, uncertainty, and expense'" due to the imposition of the regulation is another factor. Id. at 349 (quoting Saints Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895, 901 (7th Cir. 2005). The plaintiff's own actions have also been found relevant in determining whether a burden is considered substantial. Several circuits have held that, when a plaintiff has imposed a burden upon itself, the government cannot be liable for a RLUIPA substantial-burden violation. For example, when an institutional plaintiff has obtained an interest in land without a reasonable No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 11 expectation of being able to use that land for religious purposes, the hardship that it suffered when the land-use regulations were enforced against it has been deemed an insubstantial burden. See, e.g., Andon, 813 F.3d at 515 (concluding that a burden was not substantial because it was self-imposed when the plaintiff entered into a contingent lease agreement for a property despite knowing that the property failed to meet applicable setback requirements and having been informed that the application for a zoning variance would be denied); Petra Presbyterian Church v. Vill. of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846, 851 (7th Cir. 2007) (concluding that the plaintiff was not substantially burdened when it had imposed the burden upon itself by purchasing property in an industrial zone for use as a church after having been informed that its special-use application would be denied because the relevant zoning ordinance banned churches in that zone). Whether LCS had a feasible alternative location, whether LCS faced substantial delay, uncertainty, and expense, and whether LCS's burden was self-imposed are helpful factors for us to consider in determining whether the Township's action placed a substantial burden on LCS in this case. We therefore discuss in Part III.D. below how these factors apply to the case before us. As a final matter to consider, we note one often-cited factor: whether there is evidence that the municipality's decisionmaking process was arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. See, e.g., Westchester, 504 F.3d at 350–51; Guru Nanak Sikh Soc'y v. Cty. of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 989–91 (9th Cir. 2006); Saints Constantine, 396 F.3d at 900–01. We deem this factor irrelevant in the present case because LCS has not argued that it faced a substantial burden as a result of any discriminatory decisionmaking by the Township. LCS instead alleges that the Township's decision was discriminatory only with regard to the Township's purported lack of a compelling interest for denying the special-use permit application. In any event, although several other circuits have taken evidence of alleged discrimination into account in considering whether there was a substantial burden on religious exercise, we decline to adopt this approach. Evidence of improper decisionmaking is more appropriately considered when evaluating whether a governmental action was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest—an inquiry that the court should undertake only after finding that a substantial burden exists. See Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian, 258 F. App'x 729, 741 (6th Cir. 2007) (declining to consider evidence of arbitrary No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 12 decisionmaking by the municipality where the church had failed to first show that a substantial burden existed, noting that proof of the municipality's motive is not relevant to the substantialburden inquiry). RLUIPA, moreover, contains a separate prohibition on discrimination in the implementation of land-use regulations, which does not require that the regulation impose a substantial burden. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1)–(2) (prohibiting governmental entities from "impos[ing] or implement[ing] a land use regulation in a manner that" either "treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution" or "discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination"). Finding a substantial burden due to evidence of discrimination would obviate the need for § 2000cc(b)(1)–(2). See Bethel World Outreach Ministries, 706 F.3d at 557 (concluding that requiring proof of religious discrimination in order to make out a substantialburden claim "would render the nondiscrimination provision superfluous"). D. The district court's grant of summary judgment to the Township was proper because, as a matter of law, LCS failed to put forth sufficient evidence to establish that the Pinckney property was an inadequate location for its religious mission. LCS argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Township on the basis that the Pinckney and Whitmore Lake properties were "ready alternatives" for LCS. Several of our sister circuits have addressed the issue of when the availability of other properties defeats a substantial-burden claim. Where plaintiffs have had access to other properties close to the property affected by the challenged land-use regulation, the courts have generally found that no substantial burden exists. See World Outreach Conference Ctr. v. City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531, 539 (7th Cir. 2009) (concluding that there was no substantial burden when the plaintiff was denied permission to demolish a historic building on its property and construct a new building, given that the plaintiff owned other empty space on its campus where it could construct the building); Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 100 F. App'x 70, 73, 77 (3d Cir. 2004) (concluding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on a substantial-burden claim when the plaintiff was denied a variance for property that it had purchased, reasoning that the plaintiff was able to fully operate at a rented location just across the street from the property at issue); see also Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 13 366 F.3d 1214, 1227–28 (11th Cir. 2004) (concluding that walking a few additional blocks was not a substantial burden where the zoning ordinance required the plaintiff, an Orthodox Jewish synagogue whose members' beliefs forbade them from using motorized vehicles on the Sabbath, to be located a few blocks away from its desired location). On the other hand, RLUIPA plaintiffs have survived a motion for summary judgment where they have raised a genuine dispute as to whether their current location was adequate for their religious mission. See, e.g., Bethel World Outreach Ministries, 706 F.3d at 558 (holding that the plaintiff church had put forth sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment where the already-existing facilities were so overcrowded that the church had to hold four services each Sunday, to shorten each one, to change its Communion and "Altar Call" practices, and to turn people away); Int'l Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059, 1068–69 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the plaintiff church had demonstrated that its current facility was inadequate because the church's "core beliefs" required it to assemble in one worship service, yet it had to hold three Sunday services in its existing facility); Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338, 352 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that there was a substantial burden on the plaintiff school, in part because the school had demonstrated that it was expanding and that its existing buildings did not have sufficient space). In each of the cases ruling in the plaintiffs' favor, the plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were unable to carry out some core function of their religious activities due to the inadequacy of their current facilities. The school in Westchester Day School, for example, presented evidence from architects and other experts that existing buildings did not have enough space to incorporate planned expansions for new classrooms, labs, art and music rooms, and other facilities, all of which would be used for educational purposes that integrated religious teachings. 504 F.3d at 346, 352. In Bethel, the church likewise put forth evidence that Communion and Altar Call practices had to be modified, and that worshippers had to be turned away, due to the fact that the services were overcrowded. 706 F.3d at 558. The church in Foursquare also demonstrated that its current facilities did not provide sufficient space for the congregation to worship in one service, preventing the unity of worship that was central to its beliefs. 673 F.3d at 1069. When such central religious beliefs are in question, courts must be No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 14 especially deferential to testimony from the religious institution about the truth of that belief. Id. (explaining that the plaintiff had clearly alleged that its "core beliefs" were at stake, and that the Supreme Court has cautioned that "while a court can arbiter the sincerity of an individual's religious beliefs, courts should not inquire into the truth or falsity of stated religious beliefs"). Unlike the plaintiffs in the aforementioned cases, LCS put forth only conclusory evidence that the Pinckney property is inadequate, and LCS did not allege that any of its core religious functions cannot be carried out at Pinckney. LCS submitted declarations from its principal and its treasurer as evidence of dwindling enrollment. These declarations state that "the fulfillment of [LCS's] religious mission of operating a Christian school to serve the entire Livingston County community necessitated a move from the Pinckney Property . . . to a facility more centrally located in Livingston County"; that LCS's enrollment increased due to the anticipated move to the Church and decreased upon denial of the permit; that the Pinckney property is "without easy access to the interstate or major commuter roads," making attracting students difficult; that Pinckney is "much less populated than the central area of Livingston County"; that Pinckney's population has recently declined; that the Pinckney property "required extensive maintenance and was in need of expensive repairs"; and that the Church was a superior alternative to the Pinckney property because LCS would be able to attract families affiliated with the Church. LCS also submitted its Board's meeting minutes stating the Board's fear that remaining at the Pinckney property would eventually cause LCS to go out of business. In addition, LCS argues that the Pinckney property is inadequate because LOTWA had to switch its model from being a private religious school to being a publicly funded charter school in order to operate there. Excerpts of a deposition of LOTWA's president, Laura Burwell, are offered in support of this claim. Although the above evidence provides a modicum of support for the proposition that the Pinckney property's location is inadequate, it is not sufficient to meet LCS's burden of surviving the Township's motion for summary judgment. The meeting minutes and other statements fearing that LCS will eventually be forced to close are little more than speculation because they are not substantiated by facts in the record. See Alexander v. CareSource, 576 F.3d 551, 560 No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 15 (6th Cir. 2009) ("Conclusory statements unadorned with supporting facts are insufficient to establish a factual dispute that will defeat summary judgment."). As this court stated in Living Water, whether a substantial burden exists must be evaluated at the present moment, not based on speculation about whether such a burden might arise in the future. Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian, 258 F. App'x 729, 738 (6th Cir. 2007). When faced with the burden of producing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a genuine dispute of material fact existed, LCS had the obligation to provide evidence to substantiate its claims. LCS conceded at oral argument that it failed to provide its financial records to document the extent of its present loss of funds. Likewise, LCS acknowledged that it had not provided enrollment statistics to demonstrate the alleged drop in student enrollment that prompted LCS to relocate. The declarations provided by LCS did establish that 139 students were enrolled during LCS's last year at Pinckney, that 59 new students had enrolled after the announcement of LCS's move to the Church, and that 18 new students and 15 returning students unenrolled after the special-use permit was denied. But the declarations provide no historical enrollment data to indicate how LCS performed before its last year at Pinckney. Moreover, LCS failed to produce evidence that would be admissible at trial about why the alleged drop in enrollment occurred. To make out a substantial-burden claim under RLUIPA, LCS must demonstrate that the land-use regulation implemented by the Township—the denial of the Church's special-use permit application—imposed a substantial burden on LCS. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. LCS cannot prevail if the burden of declining enrollment was caused by something other than its inability to relocate to the Church. See Andon, LLC v. City of Newport News, 813 F.3d 510, 515 (4th Cir. 2016) (explaining that burdens are not substantial if they are self-imposed). Although LCS could have introduced evidence regarding the reasons for its drop in enrollment by providing declarations or depositions from the families of students who unenrolled after the Church's special-use permit was denied, LCS did not do so. Panning's declaration states that Pinckney's remote location was the reason for the declining enrollment. But this explanation of the students' alleged reasons for unenrolling is based on hearsay. The statement would therefore be inadmissible at trial if offered to prove that the actual cause of the declining No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. enrollment was Pinckney's remote location. Page 16 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (providing that an affidavit or declaration may be used as evidence at the summary-judgment stage only if it is "made on personal knowledge" and "set[s] out facts that would be admissible in evidence"); Alpert v. United States, 481 F.3d 404, 408–09 (6th Cir. 2007) (explaining that statements in an affidavit that amounted to hearsay cannot be considered at the summary-judgment stage). Similarly, the evidence about LOTWA's decision to become a publicly funded charter school instead of remaining a religious school is insufficient because it does not explain the reason for LCS's financial difficulties. Even the testimony of LOTWA's president Burwell, on which LCS heavily relies for its argument that the Pinckney property is unsuitable, indicates that LOTWA's experience cannot be compared to LCS's. Burwell stated in her deposition that LOTWA became a charter school because it was "having a difficult time keeping our enrollment numbers up at a tuition-based school" after relocating to Pinckney. When asked whether she knew why the Pinckney property did not fit LCS's needs, however, Burwell stated that "I don't know if Livingston Christian had the same experience." The record contains only five nonconsecutive pages of Burwell's deposition and provides no other context about LOTWA's finances, enrollment statistics, or student demographics that might allow for a persuasive comparison of LOTWA to LCS. And even if we were to assume that LCS's characterization of Pinckney as a remote, inaccessible area is supported by record evidence that would be admissible at trial, we conclude as a matter of law that remaining at the Pinckney property would not have imposed a substantial burden on LCS. The Pinckney property, located at 550 E. Hamburg St., Pinckney, Michigan, is a 12.1-mile drive from the Church, located at 7669 Brighton Road, Brighton, Michigan. See maps.google.com. Because LCS insists that the Church would have been a more convenient location for many students, the Pinckney property's distance from the Church is relevant. In addition, the Pinckney property is 11.1 miles from what the Township pinpoints as the geographic center of Livingston County, whereas the Church is 9.9 miles from that geographic center. We may take judicial notice of maps showing the distances between these locations. See Carpenter v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 145 F.3d 1330 (Table), 1998 WL 199723, at *4 (6th Cir. 1998) (explaining that the trial court can "take judicial notice of general time/distance No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 17 calculations"); Fed. R. Evid. 201, Advisory Comm. Notes (f) (noting that judicial notice "may be taken at any stage of the proceedings, whether in the trial court or on appeal"). Treating the center of Livingston County as the area from which LCS hopes to attract more students, locating its school at the Pinckney property instead of the Church property would increase travel distance by a mere 1.2 miles. And even if the proper distance to consider is the distance between the Church and the Pinckney property, the additional travel distance is only 12.1 miles. Requiring students to travel an additional 12.1 miles is somewhat of a burden, but we conclude as a matter of law that this is not so significant as to "impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of [LCS]." See RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. As discussed above, the Eleventh Circuit has held that walking an additional several blocks would not impose a substantial burden on religious adherents whose beliefs bar motor-vehicle travel on the Sabbath. Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1227–28 (11th Cir. 2004). The Midrash Sephardi court even took into account the mobility difficulties that some members of the synagogue might have and the fact that walking in the Florida summer heat might pose additional problems—but not enough to impose a substantial burden. Id. Likewise, families with especially tight budgets or busy schedules might find burdensome the additional expenses and time constraints of approximately 12.1 more miles of car travel each way, but this does not mean that such additional expense and time is so great as to constitute a substantial burden on LCS's religious mission. This is more analogous to a "mere inconvenience" that would not be deemed a substantial burden under Living Water. See 258 F. App'x 729, 739 (6th Cir. 2007). We also note that LCS has not alleged that any functions of its religious school were unable to be carried out on the Pinckney property. LCS focuses on increasing enrollment and raising revenue, but has not identified any religious activity—or even any traditionally secular one—that could not be performed at the Pinckney property. The present case is therefore distinguishable from Bethel and Westchester Day School, both of which are discussed in more detail above. Even though the expansion in Westchester was designed to serve an existing school population that, like LCS, was not growing, the school in Westchester established that the No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 18 renovations would serve a religious-education mission that could not be performed using its existing space. See Westchester Day Sch. v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 504 F.2d 338, 345–46 (2d Cir. 2007) (explaining how the school's philosophy tied Orthodox Jewish teachings into each and every aspect of the school curriculum, and how the expansion would further this mission). There is no such evidence in the present case. Finally, we note that no credence should be given to any argument that LCS faces a substantial burden because LOTWA now occupies the Pinckney property, thus preventing LCS from returning there. Any such argument would have no merit because LCS leased the Pinckney property to LOTWA only after the special-use permit application by the Church was denied and after this litigation commenced. The fact that LCS cannot now use the Pinckney property due to the seven-year lease is therefore due to LCS's own actions. As discussed above, a burden is not substantial when the plaintiff imposes that burden upon itself. See, e.g., Andon, LLC v. City of Newport News, 813 F.3d 510, 515 (4th Cir. 2016); Petra Presbyterian Church v. Vill. of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846, 851 (7th Cir. 2007). E. As a matter of law, LCS was not substantially burdened even if we assume that LCS could establish that no alternative properties were available within Genoa Township. LCS alternatively argues that it is substantially burdened because there are allegedly no alternative facilities within Genoa Township where LCS can operate its school. If LCS were correct that a substantial burden results whenever a religious institution cannot find a suitable location within a particular local jurisdiction, then LCS's present inability to use the Pinckney property and its concern about the long-term use of the Whitmore Lake property would be irrelevant because both of those properties are located outside the Township. We will assume, solely for the purpose of resolving this issue, that there are no alternative facilities available to LCS within the Township's borders. Nevertheless, we conclude as a matter of law that LCS is not substantially burdened by the absence of such other properties because LCS has the Pinckney property as an adequate alternative. LCS cites Islamic Center of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Starkville, 840 F.2d 293, 300 (5th Cir. 1988), for its argument that being unable to locate anywhere within the Township is itself a No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 19 substantial burden. But that case involved a free-exercise challenge to a zoning ordinance that prohibited all churches within the city limits unless an exception was obtained. Under the zoning ordinance, the city had allowed exceptions to 25 Christian churches, but denied an exception to an Islamic Center. The court stated that "the availability of other sites outside city limits does not permit a city to forbid the exercise of a constitutionally protected right within its limits." Id. at 300 (citing Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 76–77 (1981) (holding that a local government could not constitutionally ban all live entertainment from its borders by relying on the argument that live entertainment was available in neighboring jurisdictions)). In so ruling, the court focused on the extensive evidence of religious discrimination against the Islamic Center and the fact that the city's denial of the exception was not narrowly tailored to an important governmental interest. Id. at 300–03. The language that LCS relies on in Islamic Center and Schad is from a different context than the present case—a First Amendment challenge to laws that categorically prohibited religious assemblies or certain types of speech within a jurisdiction's borders. In the present case, unlike in Islamic Center, there is no evidence that the Township's zoning ordinance has completely banned religiously oriented schools from its borders (or banned them unless they can obtain zoning exceptions). And even if the Township's denial of the special-use permit has effectively barred LCS from the Township's borders, such a consequence does not automatically establish a RLUIPA violation. Our research has revealed only a few circuit cases that address this issue in the RLUIPA context. And most such cases involve challenges to land-use regulations that prohibit plaintiffs from using land in a certain area of a jurisdiction, not in the entire jurisdiction. The most analogous case is Andon, LLC v. City of Newport News, 813 F.3d 510, 515–16 (4th Cir. 2016), in which the Fourth Circuit concluded that there was no substantial burden even though the plaintiff could not find another suitable location within the particular jurisdiction in question. Andon's holding relied primarily on the fact that the plaintiff's burden was selfimposed, as discussed above. But the Fourth Circuit also stated that the unavailability of other land in the particular jurisdiction "will not by itself support a substantial burden claim." Id. at 516. No. 16-2060 Page 20 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Similarly, the Seventh Circuit has held that a land-use regulation does not impose a substantial burden simply because of a "lack of affordable land" in Chicago or for other reasons "incidental to any high-density urban land use." Civil Liberties for Urban Believers (CLUB) v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 761 (7th Cir. 2003). CLUB, however, involved a substantialburden challenge to a zoning ordinance on its face, not a challenge to a specific land-use decision. Id. at 755–56, 763. And the court noted that the plaintiffs had in fact been able to locate in other parts of Chicago. Id. at 761. Because RLUIPA has been held to allow the courts to consider the reasonableness of a plaintiff's expectations in being able to use the land in question for religious purposes, the courts should also be allowed to consider other factors relevant to the substantial-burden inquiry—such as whether the plaintiff had easy access to properties in a neighboring jurisdiction (as LCS had at the Pinckney property). Allowing a plaintiff to make out a substantial-burden claim where the plaintiff has burdened itself or in fact has easy access to suitable property in a neighboring jurisdiction is beyond the protection of RLUIPA. And as the Seventh Circuit has explained, the unavailability of land within a particular jurisdiction can result from the reality of competitive real-estate markets, not the municipality's actions. See CLUB, 342 F.3d at 762. The circumstances of the present case indicate that LCS was not substantially burdened within the meaning of RLUIPA despite the alleged unavailability of other land within Genoa Township. LCS had the Pinckney property as a ready alternative, to which LCS could have returned with little or no expense if it had not leased that property to LOTWA after this litigation commenced. And LCS's stated mission is to serve Livingston County as a whole, not Genoa Township in particular. Genoa Township is relatively small—it has a total area of 36.3 square miles out of Livingston County's total 565.25 square miles. See Genoa Township Profile, Genoa Township, https://genoa.org/community/profile (last visited May 31, 2017); QuickFacts, Livingston County, Michigan, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/26093 (last visited May 31, 2017). The Township is located between Brighton and Howell—two "areas" that LCS has stated would suffice for its school, but that are located at least in part outside of Genoa Township. See Municipalities, Livingston County, Michigan, No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 21 https://www.livgov.com/Pages/Municipalities.aspx (last visited May 31, 2017). We take judicial notice of the geographic map of Livingston County and the corresponding square-mileage calculations. Moreover, the boundaries of jurisdictions on the local-government level are often arbitrary in practice. Holding that a religious institution is substantially burdened any time that it cannot locate within such a small area—even if it could locate just across the border of the town limits—would be tantamount to giving religious institutions a free pass from zoning laws. See Living Water Church of God v. Charter Twp. of Meridian, 258 F. App'x at 729, 736–37 (6th Cir. 2007) (explaining that RLUIPA cannot be construed so as to give religious institutions immunity from zoning laws); see also, e.g., Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield v. City of Springfield, 724 F.3d 78, 96 (1st Cir. 2013) (noting that RLUIPA "does not provide religious institutions with immunity from land use regulation") (quoting 146 Cong. Rec. S7776 (daily ed. July 27, 2000) (joint statement of Sens. Hatch and Kennedy)). In sum, RLUIPA does not automatically require every minor municipality to have at least one religious school within its borders. We therefore conclude that the proper inquiry should be more functional and factually driven. When a religious institution has an available alternative outside of a desired jurisdiction, and where the distance from the desired location to the alternative property is reasonably close, the artificial boundaries of a particular jurisdiction become less important. The record here does not indicate that traveling the roughly dozen miles to Pinckney would be unduly burdensome to LCS's students. Nor does the record demonstrate that LCS's religious beliefs required it to locate within Genoa Township specifically. LCS instead seeks to serve Livingston County as a whole. Under these circumstances, we hold as a matter of law that LCS was not substantially burdened simply because it could not relocate within Genoa Township. Our decision should not be taken to mean that a religious institution can never establish a RLUIPA claim based on the inability to locate within a particular jurisdiction. We simply hold that the determination of whether a substantial burden exists due to geographical limitations is factual in nature. A religious institution, for example, might have a mission of catering specifically to lower-income individuals located in an urban center, which might be thwarted by relocating to a suburb that lacked public transportation. See Islamic Center of Miss., Inc. v. City No. 16-2060 Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp. Page 22 of Starkville, 840 F.2d 293, 299 (5th Cir. 1988) (noting that members of a mosque, many of whom were students living in an urban area located near a university campus, would be substantially burdened if they had to travel to the mosque using an automobile). But the circumstances in the present case simply do not constitute a substantial burden on LCS. III. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does not entitle religious institution to use property within a specific jurisdiction, if alternate location is reasonably close.


This free-of-charge service is available to all Adult Carers and Young Carers of adults and may be of benefit to you in an emergency situation.
You had an accident, became ill or had an emotional crisis?
You had to take care of a family crisis?
You had to attend an exam or job interview at short notice?
Don't worry! You could access free replacement care in situations just like these.
The Carers' Emergency Support Service (County Durham and Darlington) ensures that if you have an emergency, the adult you care for is safe and their care needs are met by; either a nominated friend, or a family member, or an experienced care assistant, who will stay until alternative arrangements can be made.
Registering for the service is quick and easy. Telephone the Carers' Emergency Support Service on 0330 088 2367.


To move up on onwards people have this idea you need to take on more responsibility and get better results and faster. But really how is that possible? Do you see any of your senior management team or CEO running around like a crazy person trying to do more and get more done, probably not. I don't even see directors doing that.
So why is there some idea when people are at the individual contributor level that more is better? It's not, in fact, more is less. The more you do, the less better it becomes. It's a cycle to keeps you at the individual contributor level. What distinguished managers from individual contributors is the ability to let go. To find someone you trust who is capable, who is driven and who will deliver. Once you pass off the work (note: pass off is not equivalent to dumping) you free yourself up to take on new and challenging work that grows you. Sometimes even then you aren't a manager, but the ability to let go is one that great managers have. They hire great people who deliver great work.
Don't know how to let go because you "can't"? Think people require you do to the work you want to let go of? Here is a negotiation trick I learned early in my life, say about 13, you tell the people who want to see you succeed, presumably your boss, that if you cannot let go of the work then the opportunity to take on this new and exciting challenge just won't be possible. Simple right! You will be surprised how well people will respond when you lay out the facts. Great managers will find a way to reshuffle, reprioritize and make a great employee (like yourself) have the opportunity to develop. Remember, your success is actually their success. Happy letting go.


text:
Home promocionales Sean McMorris - Elevated Man
Sean McMorris - Elevated Man
seanmcmorris.com
Singer/songwriter offers sophisticated alternative pop/rock tunes with memorable lyrics & compelling vocals. Shimmering guitars, classic keys, pedal steel, slide, accordion, and vocal harmonies create timeless, melodic music that transcends genres.
Sean McMorris started life as the left-handed "illegitimate" child of an American single mother in Paris, France. Music cast a spell early on, under the auspices of Elvis Presley, the Beatles and the tutelage of both an honest-to-God nun and bebop legend Kenny Clark.
After graduating from the French lycée, Sean headed to the Berklee College of Music with a letter of recommendation from Leonard Bernstein. He dropped out to join Boston rock band Option One, experiencing his first taste of success. He soon relocated to the Big Apple, landing in an East Village apartment adjacent to housing for the deaf, which meant his newly formed band PEG could rehearse in the living room. After the release of their self-titled independent CD, Sean enrolled in City College to pursue a BFA in Jazz Drumming. On campus, he performed for Ron Carter and John Patitucci. He later shared the stage with Tony Award-winner Bill Irwin and rock icon Richard Lloyd, who went on to produce The Blondes, Inc.'s eponymous album, with Sean on drums.
Today, Sean performs around NYC as a solo singer/songwriter and drummer for the Lazy Lions. In 2013, he released his debut album Lo & Behold, thereby fulfilling his lifelong ambition of joining the legion of left-handed drummers, such as Phil Collins and Don Henley, who forged successful solo careers. Elevated Man, his latest release, takes flight on October 23, 2015.
Elevated Man, Sean McMorris' second solo album, makes its debut on October 23rd, 2015. Soaring melodies and rich harmonies take you on a flight that begins with the strange but true story of a man in a flying lawn chair. Sean McMorris reveals deep affection and respect for this unlikely hero and his other characters—whether singing about a man paralyzed by indecision in Lay Down, or the sting of betrayal in Sweet Sarah Ruth. Loaded with lyrical songs and a compelling voice, this album will appeal to fans of Neil Finn, John Lennon, Mike Scott and Elliot Smith.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Breast Cancer Update » Nurse Turned Researcher Looks at Latinas with Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer Update Home
Study Links Walking to Lower Breast Cancer Risk
Breast Cancer Journey Empowers Women at All Stages of Disease
Nurse Turned Researcher Looks at Latinas with Breast Cancer
Breast Cancer Survivor Finds the 'Can' in Cancer
Making Strides Volunteer Hopes to Raise $100,000 in Honor of Society's 100th Birthday
Breast cancer researcher and breast cancer survivor Maryellen Brisbois says she got her sense of humor from her father. And she is thankful for it because laughter, she says, is what helped get her and her family through her battle with breast cancer 7 years ago.
"You are in the middle of this crisis and the world is still spinning. Having a sense of humor saved me and everyone around me because they could laugh with me."
Brisbois, who was a practicing nurse for 2 decades, turned her diagnosis into a career changing moment. After recovering, she decided to pursue her longtime dream of getting her PhD so she could teach other nurses. "I found over the years that there is a need for more nurse educators who are positive and can be mentors and a support system for those in the field."
While conducting research for her doctorate she interviewed 2 Caucasian women who had gone through breast cancer at the same time she had. "I realized their experiences were very different from mine," says Brisbois. "So, I started to think that if their experiences were different from mine then, wow, what would someone else's experience be like?"
That thought sparked an idea for her dissertation. Brisbois became particularly interested in the issue of premature menopause brought on by chemotherapy, a common side effect that women being treated for breast cancer experience. She found that while there was a lot of research on the subject in non-Latina women, there wasn't much about the experiences of Latinas.
With the help of an American Cancer Society Doctoral Degree Scholarship in Cancer Nursing, Brisbois recruited 20 Latinas with breast cancer across 12 states for her dissertation. "I would not have been able to do the project to the extent I did without the scholarship — there is absolutely no way; the work would not have been as comprehensive."
Brisbois describes the experience of the Latinas she studied as "bigger than menopause." In addition to dealing with early menopause, the Latina women had many more physiological, psychological, and social issues going on at the same time.
For example, Brisbois discovered Latinas encountered significant barriers while going through breast cancer treatment. "I started to realize there were many disparities having to do with Latinas that caused worse outcomes than for white women." For example, 2 of the 20 study participants did not speak English. "They felt left behind in the system; they had a lot of difficulty navigating the health system."
Brisbois found that the women who had great relationships with their healthcare providers did better. But those who didn't, struggled. "Many women said their healthcare providers would say: 'OK you are cancer free, what do you want me to do now?'" In this situation, Brisbois says, a lot of the women didn't advocate for themselves, "even though they described in my work that they had emotional symptoms — depression, anxiety, etc. — but they weren't screened for these issues."
Brisbois says better information about these types of problems and more Spanish language resources, such as Spanish-speaking support groups for women with breast cancer, are needed. For health policy, she says, "we need to answer: how do we make things more equitable?"
More Research Updates
Read more about life-saving research funded by the American Cancer Society.
| cancer.org
Home | About Us | Legal & Privacy Information | State Fundraising Notices | Donate
You can always contact us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at 1-800-227-2345 or at cancer.org/contactus.
The American Cancer Society | 250 Williams Street | Atlanta, GA 30303
Copyright 2014 © American Cancer Society


text:
Q: Create a blank copy of each file in directory, with a different extension How can I create a blank .XXX extension for each file in a directory in Ubuntu terminal?  I know how to change extensions of current files, but I don't know how I can create copies with different extensions.

A: [Assuming you are using bash]
Inside the directory you want:
for f in $(ls); do
    touch "${f}.XXX"
done

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Mia is a Micah Fellow serving at Grace Church Medford.
There is a step between saying, "I am a Christian," and doing the real work of acting like a Christian. There is a step between saying, "I will go," and working hard in your father's vineyard. I don't think we should ignore how important and difficult that step can be, and I don't think that Jesus does either. It takes courage to get yourself to the vineyard. It takes courage to accept the fact that you might mess up once you are there, that you may not reach the standard you set for yourself, that you will be criticized no matter what you do.
1. Why did you apply to Life Together? What were you looking for?
At the time I applied to Life Together, I had spent almost half a year out of college, looking for ways to engage my passion for social justice. I had begun to play with the idea of tying faith into that passion, but had no idea how to do so effectively. Life Together, in many ways, seemed too good to be true, but came at the perfect time.
Election day, November 4, 2014, was a tiring but exhilarating day. There are details of the day that I vividly remember. The stacks of clipboards, pens, and Question 4 info cards piled chaotically in our small office; the streams of volunteers walking up and down the hallways, cold but eager to continue knocking on voters' doors; the excitement of reaching my last canvassing door at 7:40pm, with twenty minutes until polls closed, and finding out that a voter had always voted there but didn't have a ride that day. I quickly called a colleague who was driving nearby, and we rushed her to the polling station, realized it was the wrong one, frantically drove to the correct one, and cheered as she scrambled inside just before they closed the doors to the polling station.


Get details about the April 13 launch party and order a signed copy from Quail Ridge Books here.
In this rich and moving celebration of history, culture, and ritual, Kelly Starling Lyons' eloquent text explores the power of family traditions. Stunning illustrations by Coretta Scott King Honor-winner Daniel Minter reveal the motion and connections in a large, multi-generational family.
More about Going Down Home with Daddy . . .


We recruit Student Ambassadors throughout the year to support the work of the Marketing Recruitment and Reaching Wider units on our Carmarthen, Lampeter and Swansea Campuses.
Interview sessions will be held on each campus; please ensure you are able to attend one of these sessions (any campus) before applying.
Following the interview sessions, there will be mandatory training sessions which you must attend before you will be able to take on any ambassador work.
Applicants should complete an Application Form - Student Ambassador and return it to studentambassadors@uwtsd.ac.uk. When completing the application form, please refer to the guidance notes below. If shortlisted, you will then be invited to an interview. Following the interview, successful applicants are required to attend a training session.
In addition to the main responsibilities of the role, some marketing activities focus on particular groups or priorities. We've provided an overview of these below, and ask that applicants tell us what their preferred role is and why they think they may be suitable by describing any similar real-life experiences on their application form. Although not assessed, this information will help us align successful applicants to their preferred role.
Applicants will need to tell us how they think they meet the essential, and where possible, the desirable criteria listed in the job description by describing their relevant real-life experience on their application form.
Please note, we believe that Student Ambassador work should complement your experiences as a UWTSD student and should not interfere with your studies. We expect that all our ambassadors will be up-to-date with their course requirements before volunteering for any ambassador duties.
The main recruitment period is October – December, however applications throughout the year are invited.
If you apply between January and September, you may be required to attend a training or refresher training in November / December.
Support and deliver talks, presentations and workshop activities on and off-campus.
Attend events alongside a member of UWTSD's Widening Participation and Community Engagement team.
At all events, Ambassadors need to be confident and approachable, able to share their own experiences and talk about all aspects of HE life in a positive and engaging way.
Actively support reaching wider events on and off campus working with primary and secondary school-aged children.
Assist the Marketing Recruitment teams' activities in promoting the University's specialist courses and related workshop materials and equipment.
Demonstrate the safe use of specialist equipment or programmes during taster days and events.
Attend events alongside a member of UWTSD's Widening Participation and Community Engagement team, where the use of industry specific equipment is appropriate.
Support the Marketing recruitment team with preparation for events and projects.
Admin support ambassadors should be proficient in the use of Microsoft Office, knowledge of the mail merge function is desirable.
Previous experience of website CMS systems is desirable but not essential.
Attention to detail and an ability to work unsupervised is key to this role.
Assist with delivering presentations and workshops aimed at students returning to education.
Social media content producers play a pivotal role in our marketing and outreach activity, creating blogs, vlogs and rich content for future students thinking about joining UWTSD.
In this role you will be expected to tell your UWTSD story and share top tips through authentic written and/or visual content aimed at prospective students, parents and other influencers.
Produce blogs and/or vlogs and other rich content relevant to the journey of a prospective student and personal to the author/creator, reflecting your UWTSD experiences in a positive light.
Ensure blogs/vlogs is informative and creative with each piece focussing on a specific theme as set out by the Principal Marketing Officer for Social Media as well as contributing ideas for topics and themes.
Experience of using photo or video editing software is desirable.
Social Media Champions are expected to adhere to the University's social media policy at all times.
The purpose of the application form is for you to tell us a little bit about yourself – where you're studying, what you're studying and why you want to be an ambassador.
The form used is the standard application form that all UWTSD jobs use, therefore you may see that there are some sections that are difficult to complete as they don't seem relevant to you.
Section 8: 'Character Reference', please give the name and email of one of your tutors as your character reference.
Section 11: Please add a paragraph (or more if you want) that tells us a little bit about yourself and why you want to be an ambassador. Be sure to add some examples of how you feel you meet the requirements set out in the job description.
Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 are not essential and may not be relevant for some students. If you have feel that there is additional information (relevant to your application) that you would like to provide, you can do so in these sections.


When you hear the term social lead generation, social media probably isn't the first thing that comes to mind…but maybe it should be.
Everyone loves freebies, so consider hosting a sweepstake or offering giveaways on social media. These types of campaigns are something people enjoy sharing on their social channels, and by including an entry form, you'll have the opportunity to capture important lead data. At the end of the form, be sure to incorporate a way for entrants to share the offer via their social channels. This way, participants can spread the word with their community and with every mention, you're able to continue building the relationship by engaging and acknowledging their posts.
Rather than assuming what your audience cares about, just ask them! Your followers can provide you with a wealth of knowledge, and polls offer a unique way for people to express their opinions. This is a fantastic way to get feedback on how people are using your product, what their pain points are, and what they'd like to see on your roadmap. You can even offer incentives to increase the response rate.
This can be tricky, but if you play your cards right, referral campaigns can be a great way to engage your followers. With 92% of buyers trusting the recommendations of their friends and family, referrals are a great way to break the ice with prospects. Create compelling offers for both the referrer and the referees such as gift card or cash incentives. It might be the nudge your customers need to recommend you to their network.
With a social application that's integrated with your marketing automation platform, you can easily set up a referral campaign that extends across major social media platforms, allowing you to grow your customer base fast. Since each shared message will include a special link that tracks the responses at every stage to the conversion event, you'll be able to track the campaign's progression and effectiveness and understand how prospects are helping to get the word out.
For example, Content Marketing Institute offered potential conference attendees a chance to save $100 on their registration by using their limited-time discount code. Want to pack a one-two punch? Discount codes can allow you to get even more granular in your attribution reporting. By assigning unique codes for each social channel, you can track which platform directed the most traffic.
Most leads take only a few seconds to decide whether they'll read a page and give their information, so keep your landing pages simple and design minimal to avoid overwhelming your leads. Here's an example of one of Marketing Prof's latest posts directing to their virtual conference. It's clear what users should expect after clicking through, and the visual is captivating and relevant to the content.
Going live is a great way to directly interact with your followers and engage with them in real-time. By answering questions, gathering feedback, and generating awareness about your products or services, live chats give you the opportunity to position your brand as an expert in the industry. You can also drive cross-channel traffic by directing participants to branded content, landing pages, and offerings.
With recent updates to many social networks' algorithms, advertising on social media platforms is becoming more important than ever. These updates are made to give users a better experience, so they'll see less promotional content and more of the relevant content that they want to see. This means that, as a marketer, you'll need to supplement your organic posts with paid promotion to get your posts seen. Each social platform has unique demographic criteria that allow you to target ads (e.g. location, job title, age, industry, gender, etc.). Leverage the right platform and targeting options to ensure you're going after the audience who will find value in your content and that you're not wasting paid resources on mega phoning.
When you're promoting your posts, be sure to include a strong call-to-action to get the most out of your investment and generate conversions. For example, you can ask followers to download an asset, attend a webinar, or learn about a new product. You want to ensure those seeing your ad have something to click on.
Are you finding success leveraging social media for lead generation? If so, share how below!


text:
Issue title: Cerebral Palsy
Guest editors: Michael M. Green and Deborah Gaebler-Spira
Article type: Editorial
Authors: Green, Michael M.a; * | Gaebler-Spira, Deborahb
Affiliations: [a] Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA | [b] Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Pediatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Michael M. Green, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. E-mail: [email protected].
DOI: 10.3233/PRM-190008
Journal: Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 113-114, 2019
This is a golden moment for Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) in the care of children and adults with cerebral palsy (CP). There are important forces that propel PRM and Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR) forward in clinical care, transition medicine, and research related to caring for people with CP throughout the lifespan. We at the journal of PRM want to lead the way in disseminating such resources, in order to further the care of people with CP.
Children with CP and their families have always been a significant part of the practice of PRM. Children with CP are frequently seen in trans-multi-interdisciplinary settings with PRM playing a significant role in their care (e.g., spasticity management). The practice of spasticity management continues into adulthood as do other functional interventions. We in PRM have a unique understanding and are in an important position to bridge the lifespan gap that exists in other medical communities. Our training in PMR exposes all of us to adults with disability. PRM faculty enthusiastically engage with all PMR residents by teaching and expanding the clinical care for children with CP who are aging into adulthood. Many of us in academic programs have taught the next generation of PMR providers to consider the needs of adults with CP and continue to work with adults to maintain function and independence [1, 2].
In November of 2014, the NIH conference "State of the Science and Treatment Decisions in Cerebral Palsy [6]" brought over 100 scientists, clinicians, advocates, and other stakeholders in CP together to discuss therapeutic interventions, research methodologies, and the needs of patients and families. One of the major goals of this conference was to identify gaps in the evidence for therapeutics and interventions and to create potential strategies to address those gaps. A strategic plan was crafted to address basic and translational research, clinical research, and work-force development [7].
The recent initiation of the CP Registry Network (CPRN), an Electronic Medical Record database network of providers, harnesses the power of stakeholders together with professionals to work towards a multisite inclusive CP research agenda that emphasizes lifespan concerns [3]. Common data elements (CDEs) have been created for CP that can be integrated for both clinical and research endeavors [4]. The emergence of the CPRN and the CDEs were both tangible results from the NIH State of the Science conference. PRM leadership has been engaged in and critical to the success of the NIH State of the Science, CPRN, and the CDE initiative. In addition, the International Classification of Functioning (ICF), which informs PRM and PMR thinking, was universally promoted at the NIH State of the Science meeting and is consistent with redirecting the goals of patient management away from body structure and towards a focus on activities and participation; from acute to chronic care concerns [5].
We play an important role in managing children and adults with CP, including providing early diagnoses, realistic goal setting, and complex comprehensive patient management throughout childhood and into adulthood. PRM is a value-adding partner in the clinical lives of people with CP.
The Journal of PRM will strive to promote and provide a home for publications that are of interest to all providers who care for children with disabilities. This issue represents a CP theme-oriented approach which encompasses input from many disciplines. We hope to promote publications that improve outcomes for individuals with CP through critical thinking and collaboration. There will be a yearly publication on Cerebral Palsy for the Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine (JPRM). We will be sending out a call for publications soon for next year's publication. Please contact us with your suggestions and ideas to make the JPRM CP issue a robust part of your education and practice. We are proud of our past and recent contributions to the field of CP, but most importantly we look forward to the future of PRM scholarship and hope to stimulate this through the JPRM.
Paulson A, Vargus-Adams J. Overview of four functional classification systems commonly used in cerebral palsy. Children (Basel, Switzerland) 2017; 4.
Brunton L. The gross motor function classification system: clinicians need to spread the word. Dev Med Child Neurol 2018; 60: 1197-8.
Gross PH, Bailes AF, Horn SD, et al. Setting a patient-centered research agenda for cerebral palsy: a participatory action research initiative. Dev Med Child Neurol 2018; 60: 1278-84.
Schiariti V, Fowler E, Brandenburg JE, et al. A common data language for clinical research studies: the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine Cerebral Palsy Common Data Elements Version 10. recommendations. Dev Med Child Neurol 2018; 60: 976-86.
Schiariti V, Tatla S, Sauve K, O'Donnell M. Toolbox of multiple-item measures aligning with the ICF Core Sets for children and youth with cerebral palsy. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2017; 21: 252-63.
https://www.ninds.nih.gov/News-Events/Events-Proceedings/Workshop-Conference-Proceedings/Treatment-Decisions-Cerebral-Palsy
https://www.ninds.nih.gov/sites/default/files/NINDS_NICHD_2017_StrategicPlanCerebralPalsyResearch_508C.pdf


Nationally broadcasted variety show featuring a unique blend of musical performances, comedy, and audience interaction.
Live from Here with Chris Thile is a Saturday-night destination for audiences everywhere. This variety show features a unique blend of musical performances, comedy, and audience interaction. Acclaimed musician and songwriter Chris Thile welcomes a wide range of well-known and up-and-coming talent to share the stage and create a beautiful listening experience.
Live from Here is produced and distributed nationwide by American Public Media, and is heard locally on KQED in addition to nearly 600 other public radio stations.
Take your concert experience to the next level with The Cartograph Journey – a private pre-concert wine exploration offered by presenting partner Cartograph Vineyards – only $20 in addition to your concert ticket. A Cartograph is a visual marking of ideas over time and place. The map featured on their label reflects the journey that led Serena and Alan to the adventure of winemaking. Cartograph is known for Pinot Noirs sourced from their own vineyard and outstanding local fruit, made with attentive care and a light hand in the winery. Join the journey and experience some nuanced and subtle wines with this dynamic couple. The tasting begins at 6 P.M. on the Prelude Wedding Lawn and runs until show time.