text:
Angela Jackson v Eagle View Lofts, LLC
72415_Jackson v. Eagle View Lofts.pdf
PARTIES TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT:
EAGLE VIEW LOFTS, LLC
5665 Greendale Road, Suite A
Johnston, Iowa 50131-1592
THE HANSEN COMPANY, INC.
SLINGSHOT ARCHITECTURE, INC.
305 East Court Avenue
ANGELA JACKSON, COMMISSIONER
400 East 14th Street, Room 201
Complainant's Allegations:
Complainant is a member of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC). As a member, Complainant has the authority to file a complaint alleging a discriminatory practice in violation of the "Iowa Civil Rights Act of 1965," Iowa Code Chapter 216. Complainant alleged Respondents designed and constructed covered multifamily dwellings in violation of the design and construction accessibility requirements of the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). Complainant alleged Respondents violated "accessible and usable public and common use areas," the "light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations," and the "usable kitchens and bathrooms."[1] Complainant specifically alleged, in Units 719 and 720, 210 SE 6th Street, Eagle View Lofts("Eagle View"), four features in the common areas and three features within two of the covered units appeared inaccessible to a person utilizing a wheelchair for mobility , as listed below:
(1) The height of the midlines of the keyholes of the fifth row from the top of the mail compartments at the wall-mounted mailbox station were measured at 54 ⅜", so the top five rows of mailboxes are higher than the 54"-maximum allowed for a parallel approach by persons using a wheelchair.
(2) There is no accessible route from the access aisle to the building entrance because of a safety bollard that blocks the route.
(3) The width of the access aisle measured 57 ⅞", which is less than the 60"-minimum required.
(4) The signage required to be mounted on either a pole or on a building in front of the parking spaces reserved for use by persons with disabilities was missing.
(5) The heights of the thermostat top controls were measured at 54" in Units 719 and 720, which is more than the allowed maximum height of 48".
(6) The clearance from the midline of the kitchen sink to opposing countertop was measured at 17" in Unit 720, which is less than the 24"-minimum clearance required for a parallel approach needed because the cabinet below the sink as observed by the tester was not easily removable.
(7) The clearance from the midline of the range to opposing countertop was measured at 19" in Unit 719, which is less than the 24"-minimum clearance required for a parallel approach needed because a forward approach is not possible.
References to Respondents Throughout Agreement
Throughout the agreement ICRC refers to "Respondents" as a group to include Eagle View Lofts, LLC., The Hansen Company, Inc., and SlingShot Architecture, Inc. However, where this agreement imposes an obligation on Respondents to perform retrofits and/ or reporting of the completion of retrofits, those obligations are the sole responsibility of Respondent Owner, Eagle View Lofts, LLC under this agreement. Respondents The Hansen Company, Inc. and SlingShot Architecture, Inc. have no obligation under this agreement to perform retrofits and/ or report the completion of the proposed retrofits to ICRC. This paragraph is only referencing access to the property and reporting responsibilities to ICRC. All other contractual obligations and responsibilities between the respondents are still current and this settlement agreement does not supersede those previous agreements. All parties listed in this settlement agreement agree to cooperate to correct the items in this settlement agreement. The parties intend to enter a separate agreement to memorialize their role and responsibility to complete the items in this settlement agreement.
Description of the Subject Property
Subject Property
Eagle View consists of one building located at 712 SE 6th Street. The residential floors of the building and common use / public areas will all be required to meet the same accessibility requirements of the ICRA and FHA. The building at Eagle View was issued a Certificate of Occupancy signed by Terry Berk, Building Official for the City of Des Moines on November 28, 2017.
The scope of the current agreement includes all of the dwelling units and the public and common use areas, including the fitness room, community gardens, lobby area, elevator, dumpsters, coffee-bar area, and the wall-mounted mailbox units adjacent to the main entrance.
The dwelling units at Eagle View consist of five floor-plan types, which have been grouped by Respondents based on their floor-plan configurations.[2] Respondents' reorganization of the unit types has resulted in four separate groups of units, which are all 1BR/1BA units.
The table below lists the unit types that were grouped together. It also provides the unit numbers for the inspected units, and the total number of units by group.
Unit Type(s)
Inspected Unit Numbers and Types
Total Units Per Group
701 (B)
C and E
719 (C)
718 (D) [Test Unit]
Respondents' Defenses
When asked in the questionnaire what was true or false about the allegations, Respondents answered:
No response at this time.
Report of Preliminary Findings:
ICRC Investigators inspected five units at Eagle View, as well as the public and common use areas in and surrounding the complex. After conducting an onsite inspection of the units listed in the table from the previous page, and the public/common use areas, ICRC Investigators found and reported the following deficiencies:
1) The widths of all four parking spaces designated as reserved for use by persons with disabilities and the three adjoining access aisles in the uncovered and covered parking areas were measured by ICRC Investigators in the manner required by Section 502.1 of the "2010 Standards for Accessible Design" ("ADAAG").. The measured widths and the widths found in the plans are listed in the following table in order from north to south, with the non-compliant parking features highlighted in bold:[3]
PARKING FEATURE
(COVERED / UNCOVERED)
MEASURED WIDTH
DESIGNED WIDTH
Space (uncovered)
Access aisle (uncovered)
Space (covered)
Access aisle (covered)
(to bench)
ICRC Investigators observed a bench that occupies part of the width for the access aisle. In the area between the covered parking space and the bench, the width of the access aisle is 76" as reported in the table above. The width of the access aisle is 97 ½" in the portions east and west of the bench, which would have made the access aisle compliant with the 96"-minimum requirement if the access aisle remained at 97 ½" wide for the entire length of the parking space. However, the bench creates an obstruction that reduces the width of the access aisle – in the portion between the bench and the parking space from 97 ½" to 76" – and makes it too narrow because it is less than the 96"-minimum width required. No instructions or diagrams were found in the construction plans that required the installation of a bench in this access aisle.
If the parking spaces and access aisles were striped according to the construction plans, they would have been compliant with the width requirements from Section 502.2 from the ADAAG previously cited. However, as striped, the widths for the access aisle and the parking space furthest to the south in the uncovered area and the access aisle in the covered area are less than the minimum widths required. Although the other parking spaces and access aisles reported in the table above are wide enough to meet the respective width requirements for cars, the north access aisle in the uncovered area and the south access aisle in the covered area not wide enough for access aisles serving vans. The insufficient widths of the parking spaces and access aisles make these parking features unusable by persons with disabilities.
2) Signage meeting the requirements from Section 502.6 of the ADAAG is missing from the four parking spaces reserved for use by persons with disabilities, including the signage designating the covered parking space as "Van-Accessible."[4] The missing required signage is likely to result in these four parking spaces not being available to persons with disabilities.
3) ICRC Investigators measured 32" for the clear width between the safety bollard and the access aisle that is closest to the main building entrance. Therefore, the information gathered by ICRC Investigators does not support the allegation in the current complaint that the route from the access aisle to the building entrance is inaccessible. No further action is required by Respondents in response to this alleged deficiency.
4) According to the construction plans, the height of the top edge of the highest mailbox compartment was designed to be installed at 71 ¼", and each mailbox was designed to be 3 ¼" high. The midline of each mailbox compartment corresponds to the midline of the keyholes, which is the height measured by ICRC Investigators at each row of mailboxes.
The heights to the midline of the keyholes at the top five rows of mailboxes were measured, and are listed in the following table:
MAILBOX ROW
69 ⅝"
66 ⅛"
The mailboxes were installed at the same heights as indicated in the construction plans. The top five rows of mailboxes – as designed and installed – exceed the 54"-maximum allowed for a parallel approach by ANSI 1986, and render these mailboxes inaccessible.[5]
5) ANSI requires the opening force for interior-hinged doors to be no greater than 5 pounds. The door to the waste dumpsters required 7 pounds of force to open and the door to the Fitness Center required 7 ½ pounds.[6] Both are interior-hinged doors that, according to Respondents, are not required to be fire doors, and which required more than 5 pounds of force to open.
The force required to open the doors to the waste dumpsters and the Fitness Center exceeded the 5-pound maximum limit allowed by ANSI 1986 for interior-hinged doors. These doors require too much force to open, which makes them unusable for persons with disabilities who have diminished strength to push or pull.
A review of the construction plans submitted by Respondents did not reveal any instructions or diagrams about the door-opening force for doors
6) ICRC Investigators took measurements of the clear opening width at the secondary doorways within all inspected units. The clear opening width of the doorways that were narrower than the 31 ⅝-minimum required are listed in the following table, along with the corresponding clear opening widths of these doorways as based on the construction plans.
MEASURED CLEAR OPENING WIDTH
DESIGNED CLEAR OPENING WIDTH
710 [A]
701 [B]
719 [C]
31 ⅜"
718 [D]
Except for the walk-in closet at Unit 718 [D], the doorways reported in the table above were designed to be sufficiently wide to be compliant with the 31 ⅝"-minimum width requirement. However, as built, the clear opening widths of these secondary doorways are less than the 31 ⅝"-minimum width requirement. As designed and built, the clear opening width of the doorway at the walk-in closet in Unit 718 [D] is less than the 31 ⅝"-minimum width requirement. Therefore, all the doorways listed in the table above are too narrow, rendering them unusable by persons using wheelchairs.[7]
7) The height of the top control buttons of the thermostats in all inspected units was measured at no less than 53", which exceeds the 48"-maximum height.[8] The thermostats are too high, rendering them unusable by persons using wheelchairs.
8) Measurements were taken by ICRC Investigators from the midline of the kitchen sink to the closest opposing countertop in each of the inspected units to verify compliance with either the 15"-minimum required for a forward approach if the cabinets are removable and have sufficient knee space once the cabinets are removed; or with the 24"-minimum required clearance for a parallel approach when the cabinets are not removable.
The base cabinets appeared to be removable to ICRC Investigators at three of the four inspected because they observed the presence of side brackets underneath the sink to support the sink in the event the base cabinets are removed. Also, ICRC Investigators verified the dimensions of the knee space area under the sink are compliant with the dimensional requirements from the Manual previously cited.
However, ICRC Investigators observed the wall behind and under kitchen sink in Unit 701 [B] has a visible area where paint is missing.[9] Therefore, this sink would need to meet the 24"-minimum clearance requirement for a parallel approach to the sink because it is not complying with the requirement for removable cabinets that requires all surfaces underneath the sink to be fully finished. The distance from the midline of the sink to the opposing countertop is 16 ¼" at the kitchen sink in Unit 701, which is less than the 24" minimum clearance required for parallel approach. If the wall area missing paint underneath the sink is painted with the same type and color of paint as the surrounding area, all surfaces would be finished, and the space in front of the sink would be compliant with the 15"-minimum that is required for a forward approach.
9) Based on the scaled drawings found in the construction plans for Eagle View, the midline of the range was designed to be about 16" away from the adjacent opposing countertop.[10] The midline of the range was measured to be 16 ½" away from the opposing countertop in Unit 719 and 16 ¼" in Unit 718, which is less than the 24"-minimum required for a parallel approach by someone using a wheelchair.[11] As designed and built, the kitchens in Units 719 and 718 are unusable because the midlines of the ranges are too close to the opposing countertops to allow tenants using wheelchairs to make the required parallel approach.
10) In Unit 701, the midline of the bathroom sink was measured to be 13 ⅞" from the adjoining wall, which is less than both the 24"-minimum requirement if the base cabinets are not removable and the 15"-minimum requirement if the base cabinets are removable.[12] Respondents maintain the bathroom vanity cabinet is removable. In order for a cabinet to be designated as removable, the Guidelines require (i) that the cabinet be easily and quickly removed; and (ii) the floor under the sink and the wall surrounding the space under the sink to be finished.[13] The base cabinets in the bathroom of Unit 701 appeared to be removable to ICRC Investigators because they observed the presence of side brackets underneath the sink to support the sink in the event the base cabinets are removed. Also, ICRC Investigators verified the dimensions of the knee space area under the sink are compliant with the dimensional requirements from the Manual previously cited in this report.
So, the bathroom sink in Unit 701 would be compliant with if the midline of the sink were at least 15" away from the wall. However, as previously reported, the midline of the bathroom sink in Unit 701 is too close to the adjoining wall because it is less than 15" – which renders it unusable by persons using wheelchairs.
11) According to the reach requirements in ANSI 1986, the maximum high reach for a parallel approach without obstructions is 54 inches. The heights of the towel hooks in the bathrooms in all inspected units were all measured at 60". [14] The towel hooks in all inspected units are too high because they exceed the 54"-maximum height allowed by ANSI, rendering them unusable by persons using wheelchairs.
Respondents' Response to Report of Preliminary Findings:
Following is a summary of Respondents' responses to the reported deficiencies:
1) Respondents will install signage meeting the requirements from Section 502.6 of the ADAAG at the four parking spaces reserved for use by persons with disabilities, including the signage designating either the south covered parking space that is adjacent to the main entrance or the south uncovered parking space as "Van-Accessible."
2) Respondents will either (i) restripe the uncovered parking spaces and access aisles reserved for use by persons with disabilities, as necessary, so as to increase the width of the north access aisle to no less than 96" – as measured in the manner required in Section 502.1 of the ADAAG; or (ii) remove the bench located near in the access aisle serving the parking space designated as reserved for use by persons with disabilities to increase the usable width of the access aisle to 97 ½" – which will result in an access aisle and parking space that is compliant with the 96"-minimum width required at van-accessible parking spaces and access aisles.
3) After exploring all possible options, Respondents were not able to find available locations for installing additional mailboxes because the only possible locations would have either fundamentally altered the use of the common areas for the tenants, or included the surface slopes the would have exceeded either the 5%-maximum running-slope or the 2%-maximum cross slope. Therefore, Respondents will send notices to current and future tenants advising them about the option to have Management swap out for a mailbox compartment at a reachable height if required because of a disability.
4) Respondents will adjust the self-closers of the interior doors to the Fitness Center and the waste dumpster area to decrease door-opening force of these doors to no more than the 5-lb. maximum allowed.
5) Respondents maintain that the doorways of walk-in closets are actually compliant because they have wire shelves that allow for clothes to be hung on hangers, and the distance to the clothes hangers is less than the 21"-maximum reach-depth allowed by ANSI 1986 clothes-hanger rods in closets.[15] Respondents also maintain the doorway to the bathroom in Unit 719 is compliant because – as based on photographs they submitted to ICRC – the clear opening width is 31 ⅝".
However, Respondents will retrofit the doorways to the other doorways reported as being less than the 31 ⅝"-minimum width in the table on page 5 of the current agreement – to widen these doorways and bring them into compliance with the 31 ⅝"-minimum width requirement.
6) Respondents maintain that the thermostats measured during both the test and inspection of Eagle View are not operable thermostats but are instead "read only" units, which only sense the temperature in the unit. Respondents stated that the thermostats with control buttons are actually installed in compliance with the 48"-maximum height and will submit photos to document their height. Respondents submitted photographs indicating the height of the thermostat is 54" and the height of the ventilation controls is 48".
7) Respondents will paint the wall below and behind the kitchen sink in Unit 701 in compliance with the requirements for removable cabinets from the FHA and the ICRA.
8) Respondents will relocate the range further away from the adjacent corner in Units 718 and 719, so that the midline of the range will be no less than 24" away from the adjacent opposing countertop, and provide sufficient clear floor space for a parallel approach by someone in a wheelchair.
9) Respondents will retrofit – in a manner currently being determined – the bathroom sink in Unit 701, such that the midline of the sink will be no less than 15" away from the adjacent wall, and provide sufficient clear floor space to allow for a forward approach to the sink, which is possible because there is sufficient knee/toe space under the sink.
10) Respondents maintain there is no requirement indicated in the Manual about the height for towel bars. Therefore, Respondents will notify current and future tenants about contacting Management to have them install a towel hook in the bathrooms of all units with bathrooms that have towel bars with heights exceeding the 54"-maximum height.
Assessment of Deficiencies:
According to the construction plans submitted by Respondents, all units were built in accordance with the scoping requirements of the 2012 International Building Code [IBC 2012], which incorporates the standards of the 2009 American National Standards [ANSI 2009] for guidance on the technical requirements [i.e., the dimension requirements].[16] Neither the IBC 2012 nor the ANSI 2009 is one of the safe harbors accepted by HUD.[17] Therefore, the Manual and the Guidelines, which incorporate ANSI 1986 for some of the technical requirements, must be used to assess and determine compliance with the ICRA and FHA, not IBC 2012 or ANSI 2009.
The public areas must meet the requirements of the ADA in addition to those of the FHA, as people other than residents or residents' visitors will visit or frequent those areas. The common use areas, however, such as the fitness room, community gardens, dumpsters, coffee-bar area, and the wall-mounted mailbox units adjacent to the main entrance are governed by the FHA since they are only for use by the residents of Eagle View and their guests. The ADA will only be referenced in the current report for the public areas, which include lobby area, elevator, interior hallways, and both the covered and uncovered parking areas.[18] Finally, the requirements of the ADA will be presented as stated in the "2010 American with Disabilities Act Standards: 2004 ADAAG for Titles II and III Facilities" ("ADAAG"). See 42 U.S.C. 12204, Part 1191, Appendix A, and 42 U.S.C 12186(b); 28 CFR Part 36, Appendix B.
Following is the assessment of Respondents' proposed retrofits and determination, based on the scoping and technical requirements of the 2010 ADAAG and the Manual:
1) ICRC agrees with Respondents' proposal to either (i) restripe the uncovered parking spaces and access aisles reserved for use by persons with disabilities, as necessary, so as to increase the width of the north access aisle to no less than 96" – as measured in the manner required in Section 502.1 of the ADAAG; or (ii) remove the bench located near in the access aisle serving the parking space designated as reserved for use by persons with disabilities to increase the usable width of the access aisle to 97 ½" – which will result in an access aisle and parking space that is compliant with the 96"-minimum width required at van-accessible parking spaces and access aisles.
ICRC will require this retrofit to be completed within 90 days from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC.
2) ICRC agrees with Respondents' proposal to install signage meeting the requirements from Section 502.6 of the ADAAG at the four parking spaces reserved for use by persons with disabilities, including the signage designating either the south covered parking space that is adjacent to the main entrance or the south uncovered parking space as "Van-Accessible."
3) ICRC concurs with Respondents determination that – after exploring all possible locations for additional mailboxes at the subject property – there are no available locations for installing additional mailboxes because the only possible locations would have either fundamentally altered the use of the common areas for the tenants, or included the surface slopes the would have exceeded either the 5%-maximum running-slope or the 2%-maximum cross slope.
Therefore, ICRC agrees with Respondents proposal to send notices to current and future tenants advising them about the option to have Management swap out for a mailbox compartment at a reachable height if required because of a disability. ICRC will also require Respondents to permanently install the same notice permanently in the area adjacent to the wall-mounted mailbox units.
ICRC will require the notices to tenants and the permanent notice to be installed adjacent to the wall-mounted mailbox units within 60 days from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC.
4) ICRC agrees with Respondents proposal to adjust the self-closers of the interior doors to the Fitness Center and the waste dumpster area, so as to decrease door-opening force of these doors to no more than the 5-lb. maximum allowed.
ICRC will require these retrofits to be completed within 90 days from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC.
5) ICRC concurs with Respondents' determination that the doorways of walk-in closets are actually compliant because they have wire shelves that allow for clothes to be hung on hangers, and the distance to the clothes hangers is less than the 21"-maximum reach-depth allowed by ANSI 1986 clothes-hanger rods in closets. ICRC also concurs with Respondents' determination that the doorway to the bathroom in Unit 719 is compliant because – as based on their photographs – the clear opening width is 31 ⅝".
ICRC agrees with Respondents' proposal to retrofit the remaining doorways reported as being less than the 31 ⅝"-minimum width in the table on page 5 of the current agreement – to widen these doorways and bring them into compliance with the aforementioned minimum width requirement.
ICRC will require these retrofits to be completed within 18 months from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC, or sooner if requested by a tenant with a disability.
6) ICRC disagrees with Respondents' claim that the thermostat exceeding the 48"-maximum height requirement at each inspected unit is a read-only thermostat, and the operable thermostat is compliant with the 48"-maximum height requirement, as based on their photos. Although Respondents' claim that the 48"-maximum height requirement is limited to the operable portion of environmental controls is accurate, the additional information and photos submitted by Respondents indicate that the environmental controls installed at or below the 48"-maximum height are actually ventilation controls, and the thermostat in the photo from Respondents is installed at a 53"-height that exceeds the 48"-maximum height.
Therefore, the thermostats are out of compliance with the 48"-maximum height requirement. ICRC will require the thermostats to be relocated at or below the 48"-maximum height allowed by the Manual. ICRC will require these retrofits to be completed within one year from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC, or sooner if requested by a tenant with a disability.
7) ICRC agrees with Respondents' proposal to paint the wall below and behind the kitchen sink in Unit 701 in compliance with the requirements for removable cabinets from the FHA and the ICRA. ICRC will require Respondents to verify that the wall surface behind the kitchen sink in each of the 41 remaining "B" units is fully finished, and finish painting the wall of any kitchen with walls that are not completely finished.
ICRC will require the verifications – and if necessary, this retrofit – to be completed within one year from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC, or sooner if requested by a tenant with a disability.
8) ICRC agrees with Respondents' proposal to relocate the range further away from the adjacent opposing countertop in Units 718 and 719, so that the midline of the range will be no less than 24" away from the adjacent opposing countertop, and provide sufficient clear floor space for a parallel approach by someone in a wheelchair. ICRC will require Respondents to also complete the same retrofit at any of the 11 other "C" and "E" units, and at any of the 23 other "E" units where they verify that the midline of the range is less than 24" away from the adjacent opposing countertop.
9) ICRC agrees with Respondents' proposal to retrofit – in a manner currently being determined by Respondents – the bathroom sink in Unit 701, such that the midline of the sink will be no less than 15" away from the adjacent wall, and provide sufficient clear floor space to allow for a forward approach to the sink, which is possible because there is sufficient knee/toe space under the sink. ICRC will require Respondents to complete the same retrofit in any of the 41 other "B" units that Respondents verify has bathroom sink with a midline that is less than 15" away from the adjacent wall.
ICRC will require the verifications – and if necessary, this retrofit – to be completed within 18 months from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC, or sooner if requested by a tenant with a disability.
10) ICRC acknowledges that although it makes sense for towel bars and hooks to be a reachable feature of bathrooms, there is no specific direct requirement in the Manual for the maximum reachable height of towel bars and hooks. Therefore, ICRC does not require Respondents to correct the height of the towel bars/hooks because of the lack of a specific requirement for the maximum height.
A complaint having been filed by Complainant against Respondents with ICRC under Iowa Code Chapter 216 and there having been a preliminary inquiry, including an on-site inspection of the subject property, the parties do hereby agree and settle the above-captioned matter in the following extent and manner:
1) Respondents agree there shall be no discrimination, harassment, or retaliation of any kind against Complainant or any other person for filing a charge under the "Iowa Civil Rights Act of 1965" (ICRA); or because of giving testimony or assistance, or participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing under the ICRA; or because of lawful opposition to any practice forbidden by the ICRA. Iowa Code § 216.11(2).
2) Respondents acknowledge the ICRA makes it unlawful to discriminate in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the dwelling because of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, disability, or familial status. Iowa Code § 216.8(1)(b).
3) Respondents acknowledge the ICRA makes it unlawful to sell, rent, lease, assign, sublease, refuse to negotiate, or to otherwise make unavailable, or deny any real property or housing accommodation or part, portion, or interest therein, to any person because of the race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, disability, or familial status of such person. Iowa Code § 216.8(1)(a).
4) Respondents acknowledge the Fair Housing Act (FHA) makes it unlawful to sell, rent, lease, assign, sublease, refuse to negotiate, or to otherwise make unavailable, or deny any real property or housing accommodation or part, portion, or interest therein, to any person because of the of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(1)(a) (§ 804(f)(1) of the Fair Housing Act).
5) Respondents acknowledge the FHA and ICRA make it unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when the accommodations are necessary to afford the person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling and to the extent that the accommodation does not cause undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the provider's operations. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(b) (§ 804(f)(3)(b) of the Fair Housing Act); Iowa Code § 216.8A(3)(c)(2).
6) Respondents acknowledge the FHA and ICRA make it unlawful to discriminate against another person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the dwelling because of a disability. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(2)(a) (§ 804(f)(2)(a) of the Fair Housing Act); Iowa Code § 216.8A(3)(b)(1).
7) Respondents acknowledge as owners, developers, builders, or managers of covered multifamily dwellings – ground-floor units in buildings with no elevator or all units in buildings with an elevator, and consisting of four or more dwelling units built for first occupancy after January 1, 1992 – must build those dwellings in compliance with specific design and construction accessibility requirements, in accordance with the FHA and ICRA. Iowa Code §216. 8A(3)(c)(3); 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(3)(C).
HUD has described these accessibility requirements via regulation and in several publications, including the "Final Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines." 24 C.F.R. Part 100.200 et seq.; 56 Fed. Reg. 9,472. In the "Guidelines," HUD presented the seven specific requirements as:
Requirement 1 – Accessible building entrance on an accessible route.
Requirement 2 – Accessible and usable public and common areas.
Requirement 3 – Usable doors.
Requirement 4 – Accessible route into and through the covered dwelling unit.
Requirement 5 – Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental
controls in accessible locations.
Requirement 6 – Reinforced walls for grab bars.
Requirement 7 – Usable kitchens and bathrooms.
8) The parties acknowledge this Predetermination Settlement Agreement is a voluntary and full settlement of the disputed complaint. The parties affirm they have read and fully understand the terms set forth herein. No party has been coerced, intimidated, threatened or in any way forced to become a party to this Agreement.
9) The parties enter into this Agreement in a good faith effort to amicably resolve existing disputes. The execution of this Agreement is not an admission of any wrongdoing or violation of law. Nor is the execution of this Agreement an admission by Complainant that any claims asserted in her complaint are not fully meritorious.
10) The parties agree the execution of this Agreement may be accomplished by separate counterpart executions of this Agreement. The parties agree the original executed signature pages will be attached to the body of this Agreement to constitute one document.
11) Respondents agree the ICRC may review compliance with this Agreement. And as part of such review, Respondents agree the ICRC may examine witnesses, collect documents, or require written reports, all of which will be conducted in a reasonable manner by the ICRC.
12) Because, pursuant to Iowa Code §216.15A(2)(d), the ICRC has not determined that disclosure is not necessary to further the purposes of the ICRA relating to unfair or discriminatory practices in housing or real estate, this Agreement is a public record and subject to public disclosure in accordance with Iowa's Public Records Law, Iowa Code Chapter 22. See Iowa Code §22.13.
13) Complainant hereby waives, releases, and covenants not to sue Respondents with respect to any matters which were, or might have been alleged as charges filed with ICRC, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, or any other anti-discrimination agency, subject to performance by Respondents of the promises and representations contained herein. Complainant agrees any complaint filed with any other anti-discrimination agency, including the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, which involves the issues in this complaint, shall be closed as Satisfactorily Adjusted.
Fair Housing / Accessible Design and Construction Training
14) Respondents agree that:
(a) Jason Eveland and David Voss will receive training on the accessible design and construction requirements of State and Federal Fair Housing Laws within 180 days from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC. The training will address the Fair Housing accessibility requirements that must be met in order to design and build covered dwellings and common use/public areas that are accessible and usable to individuals with mobility and visual impairments.
The training shall be conducted by a qualified person, approved by ICRC or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Additionally, this term may be fulfilled by scheduling a training session with ICRC via email at BuilItRightIowa@iowa.gov, or by attending one of the training events offered by Fair Housing Accessibility First – information about which is available online at http://www.fairhousingfirst.org/training/calendar.html.
(b) Send documentation to ICRC, verifying the fair housing / accessible design and construction training has been completed, within ten days of completing the training.
15) Respondents agree all persons identified in paragraph 14 of the current section will:
(a) Review and become familiar with the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines, 56 Fed. Reg. 9472 (1991) and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing Act Design Manual, A Manual to Assist Builders in Meeting the Accessibility Requirements of the Fair Housing Act, (August 1996, Rev. April 1998), which may be obtained online at http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/PDF/FAIRHOUSING/fairfull.pdf.
(b) Submit separate signed written statements via email from the persons identified in paragraph 14 of the current section indicating:
i. They have reviewed and become familiar with the Fair Housing Act Design Manual.
ii. They understand what the Seven Main "Design Requirements of the Guidelines" are by listing them in the written statement.
iii. They acknowledge their responsibility to ensure all design and construction at all future covered properties will be performed by their employees and/or agents in compliance with the Seven Main "Design Requirements of the Guidelines."
(c) Complete the requirements in "a" and "b" paragraphs of the current section within 120 days of the date of the Closing Letter from the ICRC.
Required Retrofits
16) Respondents agree to make the following retrofits to the subject property:
Accessible and Usable Public and Common Use Areas – Van-Accessible Parking Space and Access Aisle
(a) The parties agree that either the access aisle serving the covered parking space that is adjacent to the main entrance or the south uncovered parking space and the adjoining access aisle – as reported in the table on page 3 of the current agreement – are too narrow because their measured widths are less than the minimum widths required for "Van Accessible" parking spaces and access aisles, as specified in Sections 502.2 and 502.3 of the ADAAG.
(b) Respondents agree they will either remove the bench from the access aisle serving the covered parking space or restripe the uncovered parking space and the adjoining access aisle – as described in "(a)" paragraph above – such that the widths of the parking space and access aisle are each no less than 96", as specified in Sections 502.2 and 502.3 of the ADAAG, which is available online at: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAStandards.pdf.
(c) Respondents agree that they will comply with the retrofit required in paragraph "(b)" above by measuring the widths of the north parking space and access as required in Section 502.1 of the ADAAG.
(d) Respondents agree to complete the retrofits required in the current subsection within 90 days from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC.
Accessible and Usable Public and Common Use Areas – Accessible Parking Signage
(a) The parties agree that (i) the four parking spaces referenced in the table on page 3 of the current agreement are missing the required signage designating them as reserved for use by persons with disabilities; and (ii) that either the south covered parking space that is adjacent to the main entrance or the south uncovered parking space – which is dependent upon which of these parking features Respondents retrofit as required in the previous retrofit term – is also missing the signage designating it as "Van-Accessible," as required in Section 502.6 the 2010 ADAAG.
(b) Respondents agree they will install (i) the signage designating the four parking spaces in the table on page 3 of the current agreement; and (ii) also include "Van Accessible" signage at the spaces described in "(a)" paragraph above such that the bottom edge of the sign is no less than the 60"-minimum required in Section 502.6 of the 2010 ADAAG.
(c) Respondents agree to complete the retrofit required in the current subsection within 90 days from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC.
Accessible and Usable Public and Common Use Areas – Mailboxes
(a) The parties agree that the mailbox keyholes at the mailbox compartments in the top five rows of all wall-mounted mailbox units exceed the 54"-maximum height allowed by ANSI 1986.
(b) Respondents agree they will permanently install a written notice in a conspicuous location adjacent to the wall-mounted mailbox units, which will inform tenants with mailbox compartments assigned in the top five rows of mailbox compartments of each wall-mounted mailbox unit about the following concepts:
a. Tenants with mailboxes assigned in the top five rows of the wall-mounted mailbox units – who are not able to reach their mailbox compartment because of a mobility impairment – have the option to swap mailbox compartments with a tenant who does not have a mobility impairment, and who has a mailbox compartment in the rows below the top five rows.
b. The tenants described in paragraph "a" immediately above are advised to contact Management arrange for their mailbox compartments to be swapped in the manner described in "a." paragraph above such that their new mailbox location for the tenant with a mobility impairment will have a keyhole with a midline at a maximum height of 54".
(c) Respondents agree the written notification referred to in paragraph "(b)" will be worded in the following manner:
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS
Please notify the leasing office if you have a mailbox in the top five rows and are unable to access it. Management will assign you a new mailbox for your use during your residency at Eagle View.
(d) If Respondents prefer to change the wording for the written notification required to in paragraph "(b)" and described in paragraph "(c)" above, Respondents agree to send the alternate wording of the notice to ICRC via email at emigdio.lopez-sanders@iowa.gov for review within 30 days from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC. ICRC agrees to review the alternate wording and respond to Respondents within three business days from the date of the email from Respondents.
(e) Respondents agree they will deliver the same notice required in paragraph "(b)" above to each current tenant with a mailbox compartment assigned in the top five rows of mailboxes at each of the kiosks.
(f) Respondents agree they will include the same notice required in paragraph "(b)" above with the documents given to new tenants at the time each lease agreement is signed for all future tenants occupying units with mailbox compartments assigned in the top five rows at the wall-mounted mailbox units.
(g) Respondents agree they will install the notice adjacent to the mailbox kiosks and deliver the notice to current tenants required in paragraphs "(b)" and "(e)" above within 60 days from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC.
Usable Doors – Door Opening Force
(a) The parties agree the door-opening force for the doors to the Fitness Center and the waste dumpsters exceed the 5-lbs. maximum force allowed by ANSI 1986.
(b) Respondents agree to adjust the self-closers at the doors to the Fitness Center and the waste dumpsters to reduce the opening force at these doors to no more than 5 lbs. to bring them into compliance 5-lbs. door-opening force maximum allowed by ANSI 1986.
(c) Respondents agree to complete the retrofits described in the current subsection within 90 days from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC.
Usable Doors – Clear Opening Width for Secondary Doorways
(a) The parties agree the following interior doorways of the inspected units – as reported on page 5 of the current agreement and as described on paragraph 5 on page 9 of the current agreement – have a clear opening width that is narrower than the 31 ⅝"-minimum required by the Manual: bathroom of Units 701, 710, and 718; and bedroom of Unit 719.
(b) Respondents agree they will replace the existing door hinges with swing-clear hinges – described in page A.8 in Appendix A of the Manual available and is available online at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf/fairhousing/fairappA.pdf – at the non-compliant interior doorways in all the units reported on page 5 of the current agreement to increase the door-opening width to ≥ 31 ⅝".
(c) If a 31 ⅝"-minimum clear opening width is not achieved at any of the non-compliant doors after replacing the hinges as described in (b) paragraph above, Respondents agree they will also retrofit and widen the doorways that are still non-compliant to achieve the 31 ⅝"-minimum clear opening width.
(d) Respondents agree to measure the similarly situated interior doorways of all other units as. If the clear-opening width of any of the interior doors at the units inspected by Respondents is < 31 ⅝", then Respondents agree to retrofit the interior doorways in the manner as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) above to bring them into compliance with the ICRA and FHA.
(d) Respondents agree to complete the retrofits described in the current subsection within 18 months from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC, or sooner if requested by a tenant with a disability.
Light Switches, Electrical Outlets, Thermostats, and Other Environmental Controls in Accessible Locations – Thermostats
(a) The parties agree the height to the top control buttons of the thermostats in all inspected units was measured at no less than 53", which exceeds the 48"-maximum height allowed by the Manual.
(b) Respondents agree they will relocate the thermostats in all inspected units at a height that does not exceed the 48"-maximum allowed by the Manual, as measured to the top operable buttons.
(c) Respondents agree to complete the retrofit described in the current subsection within one year from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC, or sooner if requested by a tenant with a disability.
Usable Kitchens – Sinks
(a) The parties agree the distance from the midline of the kitchen sink to the nearest obstruction in Units 701 [B] was measured 16 ¼", which is (i) more than the 15"-minimum required by the Manual for a forward approach, which is possible if the cabinets under the sink are removable; and (ii) less than the 24"-minimum required by the Manual for a parallel approach that is the only possible approach by someone using a wheelchair if the cabinets are not removable.
(b) The parties agree the cabinets underneath the kitchen sinks in these units are removable only as long as the wall behind and the flooring underneath the sink are finished with the same type and color of wall paint, and same style of flooring as the currently exposed surfaces.
(c) The parties agree the wall surface behind and underneath the kitchen sink in Unit 701 is not entirely finished.
(d) Respondents agree to finish painting the unfinished wall surface described in paragraph"(c)" above, to match the exposed surfaces adjacent to the sink and bring the kitchen sink into compliance with the ICRA and FHA.
(e) Respondents agree to inspect the wall surface underneath and behind the kitchen sink in the other 41 "B" Type units, and, if necessary, complete the same retrofit as required in paragraph "(d)" above.
(f) Respondents agree to complete the retrofit described in the current subsection within one year from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC, or sooner if requested by a tenant with a disability.
Usable Kitchens – Clear Floor Space at Range
(a) The parties agree the distance from the midline of the range to the nearest obstruction in was measured at 16 ¼" in Unit 718 and at 16 ½" in Unit 719, which is less than the 24"-minimum required by the Manual.
(b) Respondents agree they will modify the kitchen base cabinets and counters adjacent to the range at Units 718 and 719 – and in all similarly situated "C," "E," and "D"-type units – and then move the range further away from the nearest obstruction to increase the distance from the midline of the range to the nearest obstruction to no less than the 24"-minimum required in the Manual.
(c) Respondents agree they will complete the retrofit described in the current subsection within 18 months from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC, or sooner if requested by a tenant with a disability.
Usable bathrooms – Bathroom Sinks
(a) The parties agree the midline of the sink in the bathroom of Unit 701 – which has removable cabinets – is 13 ⅞" away from the adjacent wall, which is less than 15"-minimum for bathroom sinks with removable cabinets, as required by the Manual.
(b) Respondents agree to submit a retrofit proposal to ICRC via email at emigdio.lopez-sanders@iowa.gov to increase the distance from the midline of the sink to the adjacent wall to no less than 15" – as required in the Manual for sinks with sufficient knee and toe clearance to allow for a forward approach by persons using a wheelchair – no more than 60 days from the date of the closing letter from ICRC, and allow ICRC three business days from the submittal date of Respondents' retrofit-proposal email to determine whether the proposed retrofit is approved.
(c) Respondents agree they will measure the distance between the midline of the sink and the adjacent wall in the other 41 similarly situated "B"-type units.
(d) If the midline of the sink is away from the adjacent wall by less than the 15" minimum required by the Manual, Respondents agree to retrofit the noncompliant bathroom sinks in the same manner as the accepted-retrofit proposal email from ICRC – which is described in (b) paragraph above – to bring them into compliance with the ICRA and FHA.
(e) Respondents agree to complete the retrofit described in the current subsection at Unit 701 and any other non-compliant "B"-type units within 18 months from the date of the ICRC-approved retrofit proposal email, or sooner if requested by a tenant with a disability.
Retrofit Requests
17) Respondents agree to notify all current tenants, via a letter, within 30 days from the date of the Closing Letter from ICRC about the option to have any of the above-required retrofits performed in their unit because of a disability for at no charge to the tenants.
18) Respondents agree to complete all retrofits requested by a tenant due to a disability within a reasonable amount of time based on the complexity of the retrofit and no later than 30 days from the date the request is submitted by the tenant.
19) Respondents agree that those tenants who request retrofits to be performed in their unit because of a disability will be allowed to remain in their units while the renovations are being completed, so long as their continued stay is safe and does not unduly disrupt the renovation work. If their continued stay is not safe or unduly interferes with renovation work, Respondents agree to make available an alternative unit or reasonable accommodations at alternative location on a temporary basis, until the unit is made safe or the renovation work is completed. Respondents agree to pay all costs generated by such accommodations.
Mandatory Reports
20) Respondents agree to notify ICRC when they have completed the required retrofits for each of the units and the public and common use areas. Such notification shall be made within 90 days of completion. These required notifications to ICRC after each unit or common area is modified or retrofitted will continue until all required retrofits have been completed in all 120 units.
21) Respondents agree to send a copy to ICRC of all written requests for retrofits that they receive from tenants in response to the written notice sent to tenants that is required in Term 17.
22) Respondents agree to retain copies of any written objections to the retrofits required in this agreement which may be received from tenants for a period of one year after the date of the Closing Letter from the ICRC. Upon request by ICRC, Respondents shall, within 30 calendar days of such request, provide copies of these written objections. Such request shall not be made by ICRC more than 15 months after the date of the Closing Letter.
23) Respondents agree, as the required retrofits are made to a particular unit ICRC may then inspect such unit, and then report the results of its inspection, addressing any outstanding deficiencies, in writing and within 30 days of the inspection to Respondents. If the inspection indicates outstanding deficiencies, Respondents shall correct all such deficiencies within a reasonable period of time as determined by ICRC.
24) Respondents agree to send all reports and written statements required in this agreement to ICRC (Attn: Emigdio Lopez-Sanders; Iowa Civil Rights Commission, 400 East 14th Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0201, OR via email at emigdio.lopez-sanders@iowa.gov).
25) The sale or transfer of ownership, in whole or in part, by any owner of the subject property will not affect any obligation to modify or retrofit the properties as specified in this agreement, unless Respondents have obtained, in writing, as a condition of sale or transfer, the purchaser or transferee's commitment to be bound by the terms of this agreement to complete all required retrofits as specified in this agreement.
________________________________________________ __________________
Eagle View Lofts, LLC . Date
The Hansen Company, Inc. Date
SlingShot Architecture, Inc. Date
Angela Jackson, Commissioner Date
________________________________________________ _____________
Linda Grathwohl, Interim Executive Director Date
[1] See Iowa Code §§216.8A(3)(c)(3)(a) [Requirement 2 – Accessible and Usable Public and Common Use Areas]; 216.8A(3)(c)(3)(c)(ii) [Requirement 5 – Light Switches, Electrical Outlets, Thermostats, and Other
Environmental Controls in Accessible Locations], and 216.8A(3)(c)(3)(c)(iv) [Requirement 7 – Usable Kitchens and Bathrooms].
[2] See Appendix B for floor plans.
[3] See Appendix A, Photos 1C, 1D, 1E, 1G, 1H, and 1I.
[4] See Appendix A, Photos 1A and 1B.
[6] See Appendix A, Photo 3A.
[7] See Appendix A, Photos 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, and 3G.
[10] See Appendix B.
[11] See Appendix A, Photos 6A and 6B.
[13] See Manual at page 7.12.
[14] See Appendix A, Photo 7C.
[15] Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 116, Friday, June 15, 1990, page 24458., Section 4.23.
[16] https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2012/chapter-35-referenced-standards (Last visited on Jan. 24, 2019).
[17] http://www.fairhousingfirst.org/faq/safeharbors.html (Last visited on Jan. 24, 2019).
[18] The ADAAG defines "Public Use" as "[I]nterior or exterior rooms or spaces that are made available to the general public. Public use may be provided at a building or facility that is privately or publicly owned." See "Definitions" on page 47 of ADAAG available online at http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAStandards_prt.pdf. Therefore, since the hallways and parking spaces are available for use by prospective residents, who are part of the general public, these areas are deemed to be "Public Use."


Sportbox.ru starts to write about the sport disciplines that are included in the program of the Winter Deaflympics. The first discipline is ice hockey – one of the most popular and prestigious sports in Russia.
There's only one medal event but 25 champions — probably that's why ice hockey tournament stands apart from other disciplines of major international complex winter sport competitions. Although in 2014 on Olympics in Sochi Russia was the leader of the unofficial medal count, the biggest disappointment of our sport fans was a bad performance of our ice-hockey team. As for Russian sledge-hockey team that has won silver of Paralympics, very soon they have become the heroes of the country. That's why it is obvious that ice-hockey tournament will be one of the main events of the forthcoming Deaflympics that will take place in Khanty-Mansiysk and Magnitogorsk from March'28 till April'05.
Ice-hockey was included in the program of the Deaflympics in 1975 on the Games in Lake-Placid. Then for 16 years tournaments in this discipline were not conducted. The return of this sport in Deaflympics was in 1991 in Banff, Canada. However, to the great disappointment of local ice-hockey fans, it's not Canadian team that became the champion of the tournament but team of the USSR. Obviously that tournament was the last one for the Soviet team. The team of Russian Federation was not yet able to renew this success, though Russian ice-hockey team was participating in Deaflympics four times, three of them our team was a medal-winner. So this is especially important for our squad to become a champion of Deaflympic ice-hockey tournament for the first time in 24 years in our home country.
Five national teams of Russia, Canada, USA, Finland and Kazakhstan will participate in ice-hockey tournament on "Arena Ugra". They will play with each other in group stage and then 4 best teams will meet in semifinals.
At the moment the only outsider of the tournament is team of Kazakhstan. Allotherparticipatingteamshaveverybigchancesforthemedals.
Russian team is the current world champion and has a big experience. The most experienced athletes of the team are Oleg Danilenko and Stanislav Khakimov. Tis will be the fifth Deaflympics in their sport career! Their debut in the national Deaflympic ice-hockey team was in 1995. The athletes are two time silver medalists and bronze medalists of the previous Deaflympic Games.
Other six team members — Dmitry Arsenyev, Andrei Proudnikov, Vyacheslav Kazantsev, Yury Izmaylov, Stanislav Ilichyov and Roman Tchernov — will participate in the Deaflympics for the third time. On the last Deaflympics in Salt Lake City in 2007 they were playing together with Andrey Vasilevsky. The famous goal-keeper of the past, whose son is now playing in NHL, will come to Khanty-Mansiysk as a chief coach of Deaflympic ice-hockey team.
— The team was formed in 2014 in accordance with the results of the National Championship,- says Andrey Vasilevsky, - 7 regional teams were paerticipating in the Championship, for the first time in history the winner was team of Tver region. Silver medal was won by team of Moscow, Bashkortostan was on the third place. Our national team mostly consists of athletes from these 3 regions.
The main venue for training of the national ice-hockey team is the "Oka" training centre, that was build several years ago in Alexin, Tula region. That's where the last training session was held in February. The final training camp before the Deaflympics will take place from March'11 till March'23.
Dmitry Arsenyev, Vadim Mazurskiy, Vitaliy Mokhov, Andrei Proudnikov, Arthur Shimarov (all athletes are from Tver region), Sergey Berlizov, Rustam Gafurbaev, Orhan Kazimov, Roman Lukyanov, Vladimir Mashkov (all athletes are from Moscow), Konstantin Gamayurov, Pavel Yevtushenko, Stanislav Ilichyov, Sergey Kikin, Vyacheslav Sidorov, Stanislav Khakimov, Sergey Yushkin, Dmitry Yadryshnikov (all athletes are from Bashkortostan), Vyacheslav Kazantsev, Oleg Danilenko, Yury Izmaylov, Alexei Kulikovskiy, Roman Tchernov, Iliya Shevtsov (all athletes are from Novosibirsk region), Dmitry Dernov (Yekaterinburg region).


Jason Jones graduated from The Ohio State University with a Bachelor's of Science in Social Work in 1995 and obtained a Master's of Arts in Counseling Ministries from the Methodist Theological School in Ohio in 2004. Jason also began to work on his Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology at Walden University in 2005. He is currently a licensed Professional Clinical Counselor, Independent Chemical Dependency Counselor, and Licensed Social Worker. Jason has worked with teenage runaways, adult parolees and probationers, families of addicted individuals, and those suffering from addiction for the past 20 years. He has spent 10 years working at Maryhaven, a local drug and alcohol treatment center, as well as spent several years working with professionals in the healthcare field who suffer from addiction issues. Currently, he also works with an outpatient agency serving Appalachian clients with substance use issues. Jason's counseling philosophy includes addressing the negative behaviors and thoughts that coincide with addiction and other disorders, to provide healthier options to reduce the issues in an individual's life.


Get the Wordpress help you need & get back to business. Australian Wordpress support services for speed, security, updates & anything Wordpress. Their team of australian Wordpress developers in melbourne & brisbane are ready to help right now!
WP Copilot starts from $39.00 per month.
All WP Copilot reviews are manually approved and verified.
me and also ours close friend plainly really love WP Copilot … precisely how plain it is truly.
We bought this business by means of their and I likewise got 2 months great refund policy.
Copilot are certainly merely excellent. They understand what i need + are certainly substantially responsive, + i feel so reassured to get them there when i need them. They additionally go beyond my expectations using intelligent suggestions. I have dealt extensively using michael in particular, + hes great.
No WP Copilot questions were found. Please submit your first question.
Do you want to build with WP Copilot? Visit WP Copilot developer platform for more information.
Do you want help with WP Copilot?
Any trouble with WP Copilot review?
More Wordpress Tutorials Looking for alternative to WP Copilot ?


text:
Hearing in the workplace – experiences of office employees
Ideas For Ears > Blog > Research > Hearing in the workplace – experiences of office employees
Well-being and productivity of office-based staff is being negatively affected by a range of hidden issues connected with the way that people hear. These are the findings of a comprehensive survey carried out by Ideas for Ears in collaboration with NHS Forth Valley Healthy Working Lives.
The findings have implications for the way that organisations manage workplace culture, buildings and facilities and IT and telecoms.
The survey looked at the experiences of office-based employees of Forth Valley organisations, exploring their experiences when performing standard activities.
It found that hearing-related issues were being experienced by staff in a variety of contexts, from unwanted noise at work stations to difficulties in hearing on the telephone or at face to face meetings and events.
Whilst the survey indicates that there are challenges for people of all hearing abilities, it suggests that the impact is most acute on those who have hearing loss.
The survey also suggests that large numbers of office employees have hearing loss and that mostly their hearing impairment is hidden from the sight of line managers.
The survey findings were broadly replicated by a similar survey undertaken by Ideas for Ears within the UK offices of a leading multi-national company. Key findings of both surveys are noted below for comparison.
The survey findings
The key themes and the main findings emerging from the survey are as follows:
Levels of noise in office environments: 86.24% of respondents reported feeling frustrated or that their concentration was affected sometimes, often or always by noise levels in their office
For the multi-national company, 77.24% of respondents reported feeling frustrated or that their concentration was affected sometimes, often or always.
Negative impact on effectiveness: 74.18% of respondents reported a negative impact from noise or the way they hear in meetings, at conferences or on the phone.
For the multi-national company, 60.83% of respondents reported a negative impact from noise or the way they hear in meetings, at conferences or on the phone.
Telecoms sound quality: 20.88% of respondents reported poor or variable sound quality on the landline; 37.9% reported this for mobiles.
For the multi-national company, 17.09% of respondents reported poor or variable sound quality on the landline; 25.23% reported this for mobiles.
Quality of hearing at meetings and training events and conferences: 70.03% of respondents reported sometimes or regularly have difficulties in hearing in meetings; 63.71% said they sometimes or regularly have difficulties in hearing at training events or conferences
For the multi-national company, 35.86% of respondents reported sometimes or regularly have difficulties in hearing in meetings; 53.47% said they sometimes or regularly have difficulties in hearing at training events or conferences.
High rate of employees with hearing loss: 29.34% of survey respondents said they had hearing loss, three times higher than the 9.7% that has been accepted as the estimate for the UK working age population
For the multi-national company, 20.7% of the survey sample identified as having hearing loss.
Acute impact on employees with hearing loss: 81.16% of respondents said they 'agree' or 'strongly agree' that they would be happier if situations that are difficult for them were made easier. 77.61% would be more relaxed and 75.38% would be more focused.
For the multi-national company, 72.62% would be happier; 60% would be more relaxed and 61.73% would be more focused.
Awareness of hearing needs: 50.42% of respondents were not aware of any colleagues having hearing loss; 74.9% were not aware of customers or other stakeholders having hearing loss
For the multi-national company, 81.07% of respondents were not aware of any colleagues having hearing loss; 92.99% were not aware of customers or other stakeholders having hearing loss.
Reluctance to make hearing needs known: 74% of those with hearing loss said they had not discussed the issue with their line manager
For the multi-national company, 65.88% said they had not discussed the issue with their line manager.
More detailed information about the findings are available by request.
The Forth Valley survey took place during August and September 2015. It was completed by 259 employees and of this, 29.34% identified as having some degree of hearing loss.
The survey for the multi-national company was distributed to 1100 office-based employees across six UK sites and received a response rate of 40% (439 respondents). Of this, 20% (91 respondents) identified as having some degree of hearing loss.
Outcomes from survey
Ideas for Ears is supporting organisations to identify areas of weakness within their own offices and to make adjustments that improve well-being and productivity of staff, especially those who have hearing loss.
Ideas for Ears is also supporting organisations in achieving equality and safety compliancy and with checks and maintenance to induction hearing loops and other specialist equipment.
To request support in identifying and resolving issues in your organisation, drop a note to Ideas for Ears.
I'm an expert user – here's what's involved
Why listening is such an effort when you have hearing loss
Missing Out – a short film made through community collaboration
What I learned about hearing loops bowled me over
Hearing access in a Covid-19 world
Unequal impact of coronavirus on people with hearing loss
Viewpoint: remote working can boost hearing access
Solving hearing difficulties: Pippa has a light-bulb moment
Audacious
befriender services
Captions for video calls
Caring for hearing devices
clear-panel mask
Communication disadvantage
Community talks
Forth Valley
Getting It Right For Hearing
Hearing access
Hearing Access Awards
Hearing better
Hearing friendly
Hearing well
Inclusive communication
Living with hearing loss
Reasonable adjustment
Speech recognition apps
speech to text transcription
Subtitling for video calls
Technology for hearing loss
Unequal impact
Video calls
Workplace environments

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Soccer Sports
Tops in the country
Cord ImportSeptember 28, 20113 mins read
Rookie Emily Brown attributes her Wilfrid Laurier Golden Hawks' women's soccer 4-1 win against Waterloo on Saturday to their remarkable team chemistry.
"Coming in as a rookie, the team is so strong," Brown said. "Their chemistry is so high and we have a lot of new rookies that are really talented. The vets just kind of take us in and we learn their way of play. I think the whole team atmosphere just makes it such a great team."
Coach Barry MacLean echoed Brown's humble yet confident ability in the team this year. "We have some great chemistry from the bottom to the top," he said.
It came as no surprise last Saturday when the nationally-ranked No. 1 Hawks trampled over their defenceless neighbouring Warriors.
With precise passing and impressive team chemistry, the Golden Hawks took control of the game early on with Krista Celucci burying an early goal just nine minutes into the game.
"Playing Waterloo, we knew they would come out strong because they are our local competitors," Celucci said. "I think that is one of the biggest reasons why we came out hard right away in the very first half. We kind of just wanted to prove a point and get as many goals as we could as fast as possible."
And coming out hard is just what they accomplished.
Celucci finished the game with a pair of goals and Alyssa Lagonia followed to set the score at 4-0 after the first half.
"The rookies are great, but our fourth- and fifth-year players have great character and it's a very cohesive team. I'm very pleased with what we have right now," said MacLean.
In a disappointing last few seconds of injury time, Waterloo managed to sneak behind the Hawks' defence and squeeze in a header off a corner kick to finalize the score at 4-1.
This was particularly disappointing for rookie goalkeeper Margaret Carmichael whose hopes of getting a shutout on her first-ever university start were upset.
"The game was pretty well over at that point," MacLean said. "I think our team took our foot off the gas a little bit but that was the first shot on goal and it went in the net so it is what it is. I would have preferred to get a shutout for her. We just let ourselves slip out of the game a little bit at the end."
The Golden Hawks will face off against the Brock Badgers on Sept. 28 for the second time this year.
Winning their last game by a score of only 1-0, Celucci is preparing for a very physical game.
"The last game we played against Brock, they were really physical and I think we have to keep in mind that they are a hard team to compete with but it's nothing that we can't handle," she said.
"We just have to make sure that we have our priorities straight, and we come out strong like we did in the last game. If we do the same thing and stay composed against them like we did last time, we shouldn't have any problem with them."
Golden Hawks take on #8 ranked TMU Bold
ByJustin Couto4 mins read
Laurier Women's Basketball Fall to Guelph in Tough Match
ByNatasha Giannantonio5 mins read
Laurier men's basketball best Guelph in overtime
Golden Hawks Fall to Mustangs in OUA Semifinals
Construction continues on Alumni Field
ByYasmeen Almomani3 mins read
Fall 2022 athletic complex services


text:
Netanyahu receives enough support to form next Israeli government
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu celebrating after the close of polls on Election Day, March 18, 2015. (Miriam Alster/FLASH90)
JERUSALEM (JTA) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has received a majority of 67 Knesset members supporting his right to form the next Israeli government.
On Monday morning, Moshe Kahlon, head of the new socially oriented Kulanu, which garnered 10 Knesset seats in last week's elections won by Netanyahu's Likud Party, announced following much speculation that he would give his party's support to Netanyahu. That gave the incumbent prime minister a majority of the 120 Knesset seats.
"In order to quell the suspense, we will honor the people's wishes," Kahlon, a former Likudnik, told President Reuven Rivlin. "The people decided that Netanyahu should form the government, and I recommend Netanyahu."
Avigdor Liberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, which partnered with Likud in the 2013 elections, later in the day added his party's six seats to Netanyahu's total.
Rivlin on Monday was continuing the process of consulting with representatives of each party elected to serve in the 20th Knesset. On Sunday, Netanyahu had received 51 mandates in support of his premiership and Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog 24, with 24 abstentions.
Yesh Atid, the centrist party led by former television journalist Yair Lapid, which garnered 11 Knesset seats, said it would not recommend anyone as prime minister and would sit in the opposition.
Rivlin will announce his decision, which is expected to be Netanyahu, on Wednesday after he receives the official election results from the Central Elections Committee.
The lawmaker chosen to form the government, Israel's 34th, has 28 days to fulfill the task; the president can grant a 14-day extension. If a government is not formed, the president may ask another lawmaker to form a coalition.
Israeli police evict Palestinian family from Sheikh Jarrah, neighborhood that sparked May 2021 conflict with Hamas
Netanyahu is considering a plea deal in his corruption cases that could bar him from politics for years, reports claim
'English is not her first language': Joss Whedon claims Gal Gadot's accusations were a misunderstanding
By	Shira Hanau	 January 18, 2022 4:19 pm
Sponsored	Israel
The new Florida? Record number of US retirees relocate to Israel in 2021
By	Larry Luxner	 January 18, 2022 1:40 pm
Invasive species, protests and forest fires: How planting a tree in Israel became controversial
Israeli government coalition teeters amid conflict over JNF tree-planting in Bedouin villages


US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama bid India farewell yesterday after a three-day visit. Everyone talked about the renewed N-deal, the R-day parade and the town hall, but of course I'll be talking about fashion. 🙂 Here's my take on the fashion hits and disasters of the Obamas' India visit. (More disasters than hits).
As her "arrival" dress, First Lady Michelle Obama wore a printed dress made by Indian-origin designer Bibhu Mohapatra. My take: not impressive! The floral print on the dress was too big, even for someone of her height and frame. Plus the lines across the dress added more confusion to the outfit. Maybe she could have skipped the matching jacket for a plain one.
At the state banquet Sunday evening, President Obama stated, "The Prime Minister [Narendra Modi] is a style icon. I would also like to wear a Modi kurta." Sure, while the Modi kurta is perhaps Indian politics' latest contribution to fashion (remember Nehru jacket?), I don't think PM Modi is a style icon. Yes, his wardrobe his carefully selected and he ensures he is well-groomed, but style icon? Nope! (one good reason below).
Now you know why PM Modi isn't a style icon.
Ms Obama's navy blue billowy dress with a gold and red print looked fantastic. She was a picture of poise and elegance as she greeted Indian VIPs. It was the right touch of colour, a pleasing print and totally appropriate.
Awww… sweet gesture from Indian First Lady Suvra Mukherjee. I'm sure Michelle Obama receives plenty of gifts wherever she goes, but an authentic pashmina shawl is always special. I wonder if she will ever use it though? (No, don't answer that).
As they say in the west, "Keep it simple, stupid!" They like to keep the bling factor very low. But back home, we just loooove to pile it on. Luckily for us, 2009 brought with it a licence to bling. From the ubiquitous shimmery lamé to fully-sequinned mini dresses, and Naeem Khan's gown for Michelle Obama, it was all about bling. And who could miss the handful of gold chains women threw around their neck. Thrilling times for Indian women. I couldn't be happier!
Keep shining, all through the year! (And anyways, bling is never out of fashion in India).
Why match, when you can clash?
The bolder fashionistas dared to experiment with mismatched colours, textures and prints. Before we knew it, everyone was doing it. You could wear a green shirt and offset it with a pink bag. Or a carefully mismatched sari blouse. In a nutshell, No one matched their clothes and accessories. I made the most of my bright red H&M bag, carrying it with anything and everything. I loved this trend because I could finally wear garments that were a few shades apart. So my sky blue shirt with bold silver buttons and my favourite pair of blue jeans didn't look funny at all!
This one's for keeps, at least for all of 2010. Make the most of it!
Turns out that belts are not so boring after all. From the runways to the streets, women wore belts to accentuate their figures, define their waistline and to make a statement. On the runways, Lanvin used belts extensively in his Spring 2009 RTW collection, while closer home, Tarun Tahiliani used our own Indian belt – the cummerbund – extensively in his S/S 2010 LFW collection.
Keep the belts on, ladies, at least for the first half of 2010.
I have always avoided saris like the plague—they were difficult to wear, uncomfy to dance in, and were meant for mom and aunties. Circa late-2009: I insisted on wearing a sari for a family wedding, sorry, no lehengas for me. I even wore a kanjeevaram for the pre-Diwali office lunch. Maybe Manish Malhotra's lovely saris for Kareena Kapoor at red carpet events did the trick. Us girls realised how a sari can actually make you look gorgeous, not an aunty at all.