text:
Marcial v. Rush University Medical Center et al
Northern District of Illinois, ilnd-1:2016-cv-06109
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 126, 130] are granted, and judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. - Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 8/21/2019. [For further details see order] Mailed notice
Interested in this case?
Sign up to receive real-time updates
Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:5419 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS) MARICEL MARCIAL,)) Plaintiff,)) v.) Case No: 16-cv-6109) Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL) CENTER; DR. MICHAEL KREMER, in) his individual capacity; RAY NARBONE,) in his individual capacity; and JILL) WIMBERLEY, in her individual capacity,)) Defendants.) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 126, 130] are granted, and judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Maricel Marcial ("Plaintiff") is an Asian woman of Filipina descent, who was over 40 years old during the time period relevant to this matter. (Dkt. 143 at ¶ 3.) In 2012, Plaintiff, who had previously worked as a registered nurse in an Intensive Care Unit ("ICU"), enrolled in the Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist ("CRNA") program at the Rush University Medical Center ("Rush") College of Nursing. (Id. at ¶2.) Plaintiff entered the CRNA program with 27 other Student Registered Nurse Anesthetists ("SRNA") in her cohort, including 23 women, six other minority students, and one other student over 40 years old. (Id. at ¶ 4.) The first portion of the CRNA program was a didactic curriculum, which was primarily classroom learning, and was successfully completed by Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 33.) During this portion of the program, SRNAs also participated in a "clinical practicum," which gives students (including 1 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:5419 Plaintiff) "incremental experience under the supervision of CRNAs." (Id. at ¶ 34.) The second portion of the program is a 15-month clinical residency, in which SRNAs assist CRNAs in providing anesthesia to patients. (Id. at ¶ 36.) CRNAs would supervise SRNAs during their residency, and would submit "formative evaluations," detailing the SRNAs' performance. (Id. at ¶ 38.) SRNAs were given a student handbook, which provided Rush's policy on evaluations and clinical grades for SRNAs. (Id. at ¶ 17.) In relevant part, the handbook states: First year students need to obtain daily (formative) evaluations from physicians and CRNAs with whom they are assigned. A summative evaluation is prepared at the end of each trimester. During the clinical immersion residency, students will obtain at least two clinical evaluations each week, and will continue to have summative evaluations prepared. . . . Clinical practicum and clinical residency course grades are pass-fail. A passing grade is awarded if the student consistently meets or exceeds. . . applicable rotation objectives for clinical residency as demonstrated by a majority of satisfactory or higher ratings on formative evaluations. Multiple unsatisfactory ratings or repeated patient safety concerns may be grounds for course failure. . . . An Academic Improvement Form will be generated to document written warning of potential course failure. (Id. at ¶ 17.) According to CRNA program policy, a student who received more than three formative evaluations with unsatisfactory ratings in areas impacting patient safety may receive a failing clinical residency grade. (Id. at ¶ 44.) Plaintiff began her clinical residency in May 2013. (Id. at ¶ 46.) On May 10, 2013, Plaintiff was assigned to work with Defendant Jill Wimberly for the first time; Defendant Wimberly rated Plaintiff's performance as satisfactory and wrote positive comments on Plaintiff's formative evaluation form. (Id. at ¶ 47.) On June 11, 2013, Plaintiff was assigned to work with Eva Fisher, another CRNA at Rush. (Id. at ¶ 48.) On an evaluation dated June 18, 2013, Ms. Fisher wrote 2 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:5419 that Plaintiff had made mistakes while working on an infant patient, including having the wrong size endotracheal tube and drawing up the incorrect medication dosage for the infant's weight. (Id. at ¶ 49.) Plaintiff contends that Fisher did not say anything negative to her about her performance on June 11, and that she did not receive the evaluation dated June 18 until June 22. (Id. at ¶ 48.) Plaintiff also claims that she saw Ms. Fisher and Defendant Wimberly speaking in the nurse's lounge on June 21, and that their facial expressions and gestures suggested that they were speaking about Plaintiff in a disparaging way. (Id. at ¶ 48.) According to Plaintiff, "[t]he circumstances raise a fact issue that [Fisher's evaluation] was backdated in collusion with Wimberly." 1 (Id. at ¶ 48.) On June 20, 2013, Plaintiff was once again assigned to Defendant Wimberly's supervision. (Id. at ¶ 50.) On this occasion, Wimberly claimed to observe several deficiencies, and her evaluation of Plaintiff reflected those issues, including incorrect dosing and having the incorrect breathing tube during the operating room setup. (Id. at ¶¶ 50-51.) Plaintiff maintains that this evaluation is incorrect and misleading, and that Wimberly was highly emotional and not impartial in her judgment of Plaintiff's performance. (Id.) On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff was assigned to work with Alida Hooker, another CRNA at Rush. (Dkt. 129-12 at 24.) Ms. Hooker rated Plaintiff as unsatisfactory in the area of "recogniz[ing] intraoperative complications (utilizing ECG, invasive and/or noninvasive monitors and physical assessment." (Id.) The following day, Defendant Michael Kremer, Program Direct of the CRNA program, emailed Ms. Hooker for feedback on Plaintiff's performance because Plaintiff "had some 1 Contrary to Plaintiff's ipse dixit assertion, the fact that Wimberly and Fisher – who are co-workers – were seen speaking to each other at work does not support Plaintiff's desired inference that Fisher's evaluation was backdated nor create a genuine issue of material fact that it was. As such, the Court will not be relying on this supposed fact in its discussion on the merits of Plaintiff's claims. The record shows that sometimes CRNAs and physicians in the program would take several days to complete their paperwork for the evaluations of SRNAs assigned to them. (See Dkt. 129-8 at 87:1-9.) 3 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:5419 challenges," and Kremer wanted "to stay on top of how things are going." (Id. at 26.) Ms. Hooker responded that Plaintiff was prepared during "set up," but "appeared disorganized once we got to the intubation." (Id.) Ms. Hooker also noted that Plaintiff "kept an eye on the vitals, but seemed to take them as they came, not proactive in treating them and even realizing what [blood pressure] was too low." (Id.) Ms. Hooker concluded that Plaintiff "shows some difficulty with prioritizing and then following through and finishing tasks" and "becomes scattered and acts in a nervous rush." (Id.) It is Plaintiff's position that the patient in question had a 20% drop in blood pressure on only one reading, and that the standard of care only requires action on the basis of vital sign trends, not a single data point. (Dkt. 143 at ¶ 57.) Plaintiff then met with Defendant Kremer to discuss her need to improve her clinical performance, and the possibility of dismissal if she continued to receive unsatisfactory clinical evaluations. (Id. at ¶ 60.) Defendant Kremer provided Plaintiff with a copy of her Academic Improvement Form; the Academic Improvement Plan stated that a student "requires a formal academic improvement plan when one or more course objectives are not being met," which "if not addressed, put the student at risk for receiving a non-passing final grade in this course." (Dkt. 129- 14 at 1.) The Academic Improvement Form highlighted that Plaintiff had received "unsatisfactory ratings in the areas of patient safety, clinical judgment and professionalism," and reflected that Defendant Kremer discussed the need for Plaintiff to be more consistent in her clinical performance and the availability of counseling services. (Dkt. 143 at ¶¶ 61-62.) On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff was evaluated by Dr. Judith Wiley. The evaluation rated Plaintiff as "below the level expected" in airway management and recognizing intraoperative complications. (Dkt. 129-12 at 34.) Dr. Wiley also noted that Plaintiff "[n]eed[ed] more direction that I would expect at this point of the program," and that she could not answer questions regarding 4 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:5419 material covered during the didactic program. (Id.) She also stated that Plaintiff "seems to have difficulty remembering or following directions." (Id.) Plaintiff states that this review is misleading. (Dkt. 143 at ¶ 63.) On July 30, 2013, Plaintiff was working under the supervision of CRNA Amy Gawura. (Id. at ¶ 66.) Ms. Gawura rated Plaintiff as "unsatisfactory" in the following areas: "psychomotor skills," "clinical judgment," and "professionalism." (Id.) Gawura indicated that Plaintiff was unsure whether to ventilate a patient using a mask airway or an endotracheal tube, and that Plaintiff's mistake caused a breathing problem in the patient that Ms. Gawura had to correct. (Id. at ¶ 66.) Plaintiff again does not believe that the criticisms are correct or true. (Id.) In August 2013, Plaintiff met with Defendant Kremer and Dr. Wiley to discuss her failure to improve her clinical performance, and Plaintiff decided to withdraw nonpassing from her clinical residency. (Id. at ¶¶ 68-69.) Plaintiff requested a leave of absence, which was granted, and was scheduled to return at the start of the new academic term in January 2014. (Id. at ¶ 70.) During Plaintiff's leave of absence, she met with Defendants Kremer and Narbone, Chief Anesthetist and Director of Operating Room Services, to address the challenges Plaintiff would face upon her return to the program. (Id. at ¶ 72.) Defendant Kremer presented Plaintiff with other programs at Rush to which she could transfer, and Kremer requested Narbone to minimize Plaintiff's assignments with Defendant Wimberly.2 According to Plaintiff, Narbone told Plaintiff she was "delusional" to think she could succeed in the CRNA program, and said "I don't suppose 2 In her response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts, Plaintiff contends that "Narbone testified that Kremer directed him not to assign Marcial to Wimberly." (Dkt. 143 at ¶ 74.) The cited portion of Narbone's testimony demonstrates that this is incorrect. To wit: Q: Did Dr. Kremer ever tell you not to assign [Plaintiff and Defendant Wimberly] together at all? A: Not to my recollection. (Dkt. 129-9 at 60:24-61:2.) 5 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:5419 you are the youngest in your class, so why waste your time on something that will make you miserable?" (Dkt. 151 at ¶ 10.) On November 19, 2013, Plaintiff reviewed and signed a Student Learning Contract in anticipation of her return to the CRNA program; the Student Learning Contract provided certain benchmarks for Plaintiff's improvements in clinical performance and professionalism. (Dkt. 143 at ¶¶ 75-76.) Plaintiff claims that Kremer pressured her to withdraw from the CRNA program at this meeting, stating "you choose not to accept counsel from people who vehemently feel for many years that your chance of being successful are slim at best." (Dkt. 151 at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff returned to the clinical residency course in January 2014, and met weekly with Defendant Kremer to review her progress. (Dkt. 143 at ¶¶ 78-79.) Upon her return to the program, Plaintiff's performance was rated as unsatisfactory by 13 different CRNAs. (Id. at ¶ 79.) Among the examples that Plaintiff does not dispute:3 • On January 9, 2014, CRNA Kathleen Oksvarek rated Plaintiff as unsatisfactory in the area of clinical judgment, noting that Plaintiff had failed to notice an abnormal EKG. (Id. at ¶ 80.) • On January 15, 2014, CRNA Lea Forester rated Plaintiff as unsatisfactory in the areas of patient safety, clinical judgment, and professionalism. (Id. at ¶ 81.) • On January 24, 2014, CRNA Rene Przygodzka noted that Plaintiff needed "continuous support." (Id. at ¶ 89.) • On February 3, 2014, CRNA Jillian Klunk rated Plaintiff as unsatisfactory in the areas of psychomotor skills and professionalism. • On February 13, 2014, Dr. Wiley rated Plaintiff's performance as below the level expected. (Id. at ¶ 94.) • On February 18, 2014, Dr. Wiley rated Plaintiff's performance as below the level expected or unsatisfactory in the areas of patient safety, psychomotor skills, and clinical judgment. (Id. at ¶ 95.) • On February 20, 2014, CRNA Heather Keldahl rated Plaintiff as unsatisfactory in the area of professionalism, noting that Plaintiff "had accidentally hit the sterile robot arm after dumping urine from a catheter, contaminating the sterile field for the procedure." (Id. at ¶ 97.) Plaintiff does not dispute that she did so, but disputes whether she attempted to hide this mistake from others. 3 There are several other evaluations and interactions that Plaintiff disputes, but they are not material to this Court's decision, given the large number of undisputed negative evaluations in the summary judgment record, for the reasons discussed more fully below. 6 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:5419 • On March 10, 2014, CRNA Sheila Warren rated Plaintiff as unsatisfactory in the areas of psychomotor skills and clinical judgment; Ms. Warren noted that Plaintiff continued to try and advance an IV catheter in a vein that had "blown." Plaintiff does not dispute that she did so, but believes that Warren's reaction to her doing so was "unwarranted." (Id. at ¶ 99.) • On March 25, 2014, Dr. Wiley rated Plaintiff's performance as below the level expected or unsatisfactory in the areas of patient safety and clinical judgment. Wiley noted that Plaintiff had injected a patient with an unlabeled syringe. (Id. at ¶ 104.) • On May 15, 2014, Dr. Wiley rated Plaintiff's performance as below the level expected or unsatisfactory in the areas of clinical judgment and professionalism. (Id. at ¶ 112.) In the midst of these issues, on January 24, 2014, Plaintiff and Defendant Kremer met, and Kremer reminded Plaintiff that she had returned under a Student Learning Contract, and informed her that her performance upon returning had been inconsistent and resulted in four unsatisfactory formative evaluations, many of which highlighted deficiencies that had been documented prior to Plaintiff's leave of absence. (Id. at ¶ 91.) In April 2014, Plaintiff submitted a complaint to the Rush director of the Compliance Office for discrimination and mistreatment. (Id. at ¶ 110.) At her deposition, Plaintiff testified that shortly prior to her leave of absence in 2013 she had verbally told Defendant Kremer that she felt she had been subjected to disparate treatment. (Dkt. 129-2 at 13:24-14:17.) Rush investigated Plaintiff's complaint and found no evidence of discrimination, bullying, hazing, or harassment in the CRNA program. (Id. at ¶ 134.) Also in early April 2014, Plaintiff was absent from the clinical residency due to health reasons, and was scheduled to return to the clinical residency on May 5, 2014 for a five-week probationary period. (Dkt. at ¶¶ 108-109.) During her probationary period, Plaintiff received at least five additional negative evaluations with unsatisfactory ratings. (Dkt. 143 at ¶¶ 111-115.) Plaintiff does not dispute that she received these ratings, but argues that the clinical assessments in the evaluations are not valid and that what she did was appropriate. (Dkt. 143 at ¶¶ 111-115.) On May 30, 2014, Defendant Kremer informed Plaintiff that she would receive a grade of "no 7 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:5419 pass" for her clinical residency. (Dkt. 143 at ¶ 117.) At the time of her dismissal, Plaintiff had accrued 26 clinical evaluations with unsatisfactory ratings, more than any other student during the relevant time period. (Id. at ¶ 119.) Plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed her "no-pass" grade through the internal administrative procedures available to her at Rush. (Id. at ¶¶ 130-131, 135-140.) On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed charges with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of her race, national origin, and age. (Id. at ¶¶ 141-142.) Plaintiff then filed the instant suit on June 10, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 143.) The operative pleading in this case is Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, which was filed on July 12, 2017. (Dkt. 58.) Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: Title VI and Title VII Race and National Origin Discrimination against Rush (Counts I, II, VI), ADEA violations against Rush (Count III), Retaliation pursuant to Title VI, Title VII, and the ADEA against Rush (Counts IV, V, and VII), Breach of Contract against Rush (Count VIII); Tortious Interference with Contract against Defendants Kremer, Narbone, and Wimberly (Count IX); and Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage against Kremer, Narbone, and Wimberly (Count X). It is undisputed that Plaintiff never heard derogatory comments based on her race or national original during the time she was enrolled at Rush. (Dkt. 143 at ¶ 146.) In support of her case, Plaintiff filed several affidavits from other minority students in the CRNA program at Rush. However, as discussed in this Court's accompanying order, much of those affidavits contain inadmissible evidence that cannot be considered on summary judgment. Plaintiff has not submitted any evaluations of other similarly situated minority or over-40 SRNAs that would demonstrate a pattern of discriminatory negative evaluations at Rush, nor has she submitted any admissible evidence regarding more favorable treatment of white or young SRNAs at Rush. 8 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:5419 The admissible portion of the affidavits that Plaintiff cites in her statement of additional facts is fairly limited. Hakeem Ellis, a black man from Ghana, was a 2014 graduate of the CRNA program at Rush. (Dkt. 151 at ¶ 20.) During his time at Rush, Defendant Kremer advised him that the CRNA program was "not for everyone," and Defendant Wimberly accused Mr. Ellis of lying and said he was "no good for anesthesia practice."4 (Dkt. 151 at ¶ 21.) According to Ellis, he did not get good cases to work on early in the program, and once received a negative evaluation from CRNA Angela Keehn because he was wearing gloves so that he could be "ready to go in if something happened." (Dkt. 151 at ¶ 20.) After that experience, Mr. Ellis told Defendant Kremer that he "objected to working with CRNAs," and Mr. Ellis was no longer assigned to CRNAs for supervision after that meeting. (Dkt. 151 at ¶ 23.) Ms. Ebele Okonkwor is a 2014 graduate of the CRNA program at Rush, and a black woman from Nigeria. (Id. at ¶ 25.) During her first period at Rush, she was not assigned to the operating room, and was assigned to the endoscopy suite or the surgicenter, and sometimes had no assignments at all. (Id. at ¶ 25.) On one occasion, Ms. Okonkwor asked Defendant Wimberly to confirm that a plus-sign was the direct chart designation for a carbon dioxide reading, and was screamed at by Defendant Wimberly, who told Ms. Okonkwor "[i]f you said that in another OR they would throw you out." (Id. at ¶ 26.) Dr. Ben Gardner was an SRNA student from 2010-2012, and was over 40 years old during the relevant time period; he claims that he was told on multiple occasions that he was too old for the program. (Id. at ¶ 29.) In March 2012, Gardner confronted Defendant Kremer about 4 Many of the citations in Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Facts contain incorrect references to affidavits. The Court has sought to use the substantive portions of Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Facts where they are supported by admissible evidence, even if the Plaintiff's citations to the record are incorrect. In other words, so long as the statement of fact is supported by the relevant affidavit with admissible evidence, the Court has not penalized the Plaintiff for incorrectly citing the affidavit in question. 9 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:5419 unprofessional conduct he had witnessed from CRNAs at Rush and Defendant Narbone. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Gardner suggested that Rush would get sued if the aforementioned behavior continued and that it would behoove Rush to provide EEO training for SRNAs and CRNAs; Gardner states that Kremer admitted that Rush had a problem, but that he was uncertain what could be done to ameliorate the issue. (Id.) Karen Kam is a 2014 graduate of the CRNA program at Rush, and is of Philippine national origin and Asian, like Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 32.) On May 16, 2013, Ms. Kam was assigned to Defendant Wimberly; Ms. Kam found Wimberly to be overbearing and abusive, and Defendant Wimberly issued a negative evaluation by Defendant Wimberly that Ms. Kam disputed. (Id. at ¶ 32.) Ms. Kam was also paired with Ms. Fisher on two occasions, which also resulted in negative evaluations which Ms. Kam disputed. (Id. at ¶ 33.) Defendants filed the instant summary judgment motions on March 22, 2019. While reviewing the parties' summary judgment, the Court requested additional briefing on the admissibility of the affidavits that Plaintiff submitted. That briefing has been complete, and the motions for summary judgment are otherwise ripe for disposition. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). In determining whether there is a genuine issue of fact, the Court "must construe the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Foley v. City of Lafayette Indiana, 359 F.3d 925, 928 (7th Cir. 2004). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing the lack of any genuine issue of material fact. See Cellotex 10 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:5419 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). A genuine issue 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, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment is proper against "a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Cellotex, 477 U.S. at 322. "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-movant's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. DISCUSSION A. Employment Discrimination Claims (Counts I, II, III, VI) Plaintiff brings employment discrimination claims based on Title VI, Title VII, and the ADEA. Because these causes of action all share an analytical framework, the Court will consider them together. See, e.g., Sawyer v. Columbia College, 864 F. Supp. 2d 709, 720 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (comparing Title VI and Title VII); Perry v. Dept. of Humans Servs., 345 F. Supp. 3d 1019, 1026- 27 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (analyzing ADEA and Title VII using the same framework). Historically, courts have turned to the McDonnell-Douglas framework discussed later in this opinion. However, the Seventh Circuit, while not eschewing the McDonnell-Douglas test, has noted that the legal standard for employment cases "is simply whether the evidence would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the plaintiff's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or other proscribed factor caused the discharge or other adverse employment action." Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760, 765 (7th Cir. 2016).5 Because the parties have spilled much ink on which standard should 5 It is unclear how the Seventh Circuit's Ortiz decision affects Title VI, but other courts in this circuit appear to be treating Title VI claims under the framework articulated in Ortiz. See Martin v. Southern Illinois University School 11 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:5419 be used – even though, as noted above, Ortiz explicitly stated that it had no effect on the McDonnell-Douglas framework – and because Plaintiff's claims fail under either test, the Court will examine Plaintiff claims using both tests. 1. McDonnell-Douglas Framework In order to establish a prima facie case for discrimination under a disparate treatment theory of liability, Plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing that: 1) she was a member of a protected class; 2) she performed reasonably on the job in accord with Rush's legitimate expectations; 3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action;6 and 4) similarly situated employees outside of the protected class were treated more favorably by Rush. David v. Bd. of Trustees of Community College Dist. No. 508, 846 F.3d 216, 225 (7th Cir. 2017). After a plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case for race discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the challenged actions. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). If the employer does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to present evidence that the proffered reason is "merely pretext for unlawful discrimination." Hudson v. Chicago Transit Auth., 375 F.3d 552, 561 (7th Cir. 2004). Here, Plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that would satisfy the second and fourth elements of the prima facie test. First, Plaintiff has not met her burden of creating a genuine issue of material fact that she performed reasonably on the job in accord with of Medicine, 2017 WL 4780613, at *9 (C.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2017). As such, the Court will treat Plaintiff's Title VI claims together with her Title VII and ADEA claims under both the McDonnell-Douglas and Ortiz analyses in this opinion. 6 The parties have not argued which negative consequences constitute a legally cognizable adverse employment action. "While adverse employment actions extend beyond readily quantifiable losses, not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action." Dass v. Chicago Bd. of Ed., 675 F.3d 1060, 1069 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting O'Neal v. City of Chicago, 392 F.3d 909, 911 (7th Cir. 2004)) (internal quotations omitted). Certainly, Plaintiff's failing grade and subsequent removal from the CRNA program would constitute an adverse employment action. However, the negative evaluations that Plaintiff received would not rise to the level of an adverse employment action. See Krause v. City of La Crosse, 246 F.3d 995, 1000 (7th Cir. 2001) (citing Sweeney v. West, 149 F.3d 550, 556 (7th Cir. 1998)) (noting that a written reprimand, without more, is not an adverse employment action). Therefore, for the purposes of this Court's analysis, only Plaintiff's failing grade is considered as an adverse employment action. 12 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:5419 Rush's legitimate expectations. Plaintiff admits that the SRNA handbook said that multiple unsatisfactory ratings or repeated patient safety concerns may be grounds for failing the clinical residency course, and that Rush's policy was that a student who received more than three formative evaluations with unsatisfactory patient safety ratings may fail the clinical residency. (Dkt. 143 at ¶ 44.) Plaintiff admits that she received 26 evaluations with unsatisfactory ratings during her time in the CRNA program;7 although Plaintiff contests the accuracy of many of these evaluation, there are still significantly more than three such evaluations that Plaintiff does not contest in her summary judgment filings, as discussed in the factual background section of this opinion. Standing alone, these undisputed negative evaluations conclusively show that Plaintiff was not meeting Rush's legitimate expectations for patient safety from SRNAs in their clinical residency program. The Court does not believe that Plaintiff has met her burden of showing that she meets the second element of the prima facie case requirement under McDonnell-Douglas. Plaintiff has also failed to create a genuine issue of material fact demonstrating that similarly situated SRNAs outside of the relevant protected classes were treated more favorably than she was. In fact, there is almost no admissible evidence regarding the treatment of white or under-40 SRNAs in the CRNA program at Rush in the record to compare to Plaintiff's allegations.8 Plaintiff did not provide the court with the discipline records of similarly situated SRNAs to compare whether such SRNAs were treated more or less harshly that Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not 7 Plaintiff adds in her response to this undisputed fact that no other student accrued as many negative evaluations because SRNAs were "pressured out" of the CRNA program whereas Plaintiff was "determined to stick it out." (Dkt. 143 at ¶ 119.) This is irrelevant and has no bearing on whether Plaintiff was performing up to Rush's expectations. Just because other struggling students were quicker to realize that they were not meeting expectations than Plaintiff does not convert Plaintiff's longer period of substandard performance into adequate performance. 8 Plaintiff provided several affidavits, but large swaths of those affidavits were stricken as containing accusations that were conclusory, hearsay, or lacking foundation to be admissible, and, therefore, could not be relied on to defeat Defendants' summary judgment motions. Those affidavits are discussed in a separate ruling issued simultaneously with this one. 13 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:5419 cite any testimony demonstrating specific examples of white or under-40 SRNAs who were disciplined less harshly than Plaintiff or committed the mistakes discussed in Plaintiff's negative evaluations without any repercussions for non-protected SRNAs. Simply put, the Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any evidence that would allow the Court to meaningfully review how similarly situated SRNAs outside the protected class were treated. As such, she has failed to meet her burden to create a genuine issue of material fact on the fourth element. Even if Plaintiff were able to make out a prima facie case, she has failed to show that the proffered reason for Plaintiff's failure was pretextual. Rush has articulated the obvious concern for patient safety as a reason for failing Plaintiff from the clinical residency course. Plaintiff has pointed to no evidence in the record that would tend to show that Rush's proffered reason for dismissing Plaintiff from the CRNA program – that Plaintiff had accrued too many unsatisfactory ratings in the area of patient safety – was pretextual. In fact, Plaintiff makes no argument regarding this issue anywhere in her brief in response. Therefore, Plaintiff's claim fails for this basis as well. 2. Ortiz Framework The Court finds that Plaintiff's claims would also fail under the Ortiz analysis. As noted above, the legal standard articulated by the Seventh Circuit "is simply whether the evidence would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the plaintiff's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or other proscribed factor caused the discharge or other adverse employment action." Ortiz, 834 F.3d at 765. Plaintiff's argument that she satisfies Ortiz essentially contains two elements, which combine to make out her claims: 1) the negative formative evaluations in Plaintiff's file were either misleading or fabricated; and 2) other minority students felt that they were treated to "arbitrary and capricious misconduct of which [Plaintiff] complains." (Dkt. 141 at 9-10.) Plaintiff contends 14 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:5419 that this evidence would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Plaintiff was subject to an adverse employment action because of her race, national origin, or age. Regarding the second portion of the argument, Plaintiff has very little admissible evidence to show that other students in the protected class were discriminated against while in the CRNA program at Rush. The vast majority of the relevant testimony proffered by Plaintiff was stricken by this Court in the accompanying opinion, because it was conclusory, hearsay, not based on personal knowledge, or lacked foundation. The remainder does not much provide much probative evidence to support Plaintiff's claims. When the stricken material is removed from the affidavits, all that remains are a handful of stray examples of Defendant Wimberly or Ms. Eva Fisher being harsh with students and perhaps a bit unpredictable. There is no proof that these actions were motivated by racial animus towards any of those affiants or Plaintiff. There is no testimony from any of the witnesses personally observing preferential treatment of students outside the protected classes. There is no evidence that Defendant Wimberly was exclusively unkind to minority students, or that she made any comments demeaning minorities. The Court is left to guess whether Defendant Wimberly was also harsh to white American SRNAs. It is not enough that a supervisor be unpleasant or demeaning to a minority employee to make out a claim for discrimination; the Plaintiff must show that the supervisor was unpleasant or demeaning because the employee was a minority. There is no such evidence in the record. Moreover, many of the affiants are not part of the same protected class as Plaintiff, which necessarily limits the probative weight of their testimony; the only affiants who are in the same class as Plaintiff are Karen Kam (Asian, Filipina) and Ben Gardner (over-40). In short, Plaintiff has produced evidence that some minority students were unhappy with their treatment at Rush, but that is not sufficient, without more, to allow a reasonable factfinder to show that such treatment was caused by the witnesses' protected status. 15 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:5419 Plaintiff's evidence regarding her own treatment at Rush suffers from the same deficiency. Plaintiff has disputed several of the evaluations used against her to justify her dismissal from the CRNA program, believing that her actions were medically justifiable or that the evaluations do not tell the whole story in many cases. However, what Plaintiff fails to provide is any evidence on which a reasonable factfinder could rely to conclude that these negative evaluations were not only misleading, but also written in a misleading fashion because of Plaintiff's protected status. Once again, there is no evidence of any animus by any of the evaluations' authors, or any evidence that students outside of the relevant protected classes were treated more favorably, had more accurate evaluations, or were not criticized for the same mistakes that Plaintiff was criticized for committing. Additionally, even if a factfinder did believe that Defendant Wimberly or Ms. Fisher wrote Plaintiff's negative evaluation because Plaintiff was an over-40 Asian Filipina woman, that would not explain away the approximately 20 additional negative evaluations that preceded Plaintiff's dismissal from the CRNA program. The best Plaintiff can point to is Narbone's comment that she was not the "youngest" in her class and Ben Gardner's affidavit. Gardner's affidavit identifies Angela Keehn and Renee Przygodzka as the CRNAs who told him he was "too old" for the CRNA program. Plaintiff does not dispute Ms. Przygodzka's negative review of her, so any ageism she showed towards Gardner is not relevant to Plaintiff's claim. (See Dkt. 143 at ¶ 89.) Keehn provided a negative review that Plaintiff "objected to Kremer" claiming it "had numerous false statements, but let it stand." (Dkt. 143 at ¶ 82.) Again, even if Plaintiff were to show that Keehn's negative evaluation were animated by ageism, that single evaluation and Narbone's stray comment would not be sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find that Plaintiff's failure from the clinical residency was caused by her age in the face of so many additional negative evaluations whose authors' motives are not questioned by Plaintiff and for 16 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:5419 whom there is no evidence of ageist animus in the record. Unless Plaintiff is claiming that every reviewer rated her performance as unsatisfactory because of her protected status, 9 the Court does not believe that a reasonable factfinder could find that Plaintiff received a failing grade in her clinical residency due to her race, age, or national origin. B. Retaliation Claims (Counts IV, V, VII) Because Plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact that would allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that her protected activity caused her to receive a failing grade in the clinical residency course, her retaliation claims also fail.10 In order to prevail on her retaliation claims, Plaintiff must prove that she: 1) engaged in an activity protected by the relevant statute, 2) suffered an adverse employment action; and 3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. Lewis v. Wilkie, 909 F.3d 858, 866 (7th Cir. 2018).11 In order to demonstrate a causal link, Plaintiff must show that Rush would not have failed her from her clinical residency but for her protected activity. Greengrass v. International Monetary Sys., Ltd., 776 F.3d 481, 486 (7th Cir. 2015). There are many ways to prove a causal link – admission of discriminatory animus, suspicious timing, ambiguous statements of animus, evidence of pretext, or evidence that other employees were treated more favorably. Id. In this case, Plaintiff has shown that she engaged in protected activity on two occasions; once at some point in 2013 when she mentioned discrimination to Kremer before her leave of 9 Even if she were making that argument, it is not at all supported by the record. 10 Retaliation claims under Title VI, Title VII and the ADEA are also treated under the same rubric. Compare, Tanner v. Bd. of Trustees of University of Illinois, 2018 WL 1161140, at *13 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018)(Title VI retaliation elements), with Lewis v. Wilkie, 909 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2018) (Title VII retaliation elements); see also, Spratt v. Bellwood Public Library, 380 F. Supp. 3d 783, 787 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (ADEA retaliation elements). 11 For many years, retaliation claims were analyzed under both direct and indirect evidence methods, but those distinctions were also done away with for retaliation claims by Ortiz. See Lewis, 909 F.3d at 866-67. Even if this Court were to utilize the indirect method, Plaintiff's claims would fail because she has not created a genuine issue of material fact regarding her ability to perform to Rush's legitimate expectations or that similarly situated non-protected SRNAs were treated more favorably, as discussed above. See id. at 866. 17 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:5419 absence, and then in April 2014 when she filed her formal complaint with Rush's internal Compliance Office. It is undisputed that Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action in the form of her failure from the clinical residency course. The only disputed issue is whether Plaintiff's protected activity caused her failure; the Court does not believe that Plaintiff has created a genuine issue of material fact that it did. Plaintiff has not come forth with any evidence that Rush or its employees admitted to discriminatory animus or made any ambiguous statements regarding animus. As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence regarding pretext or more favorable treatment by non- protected SRNAs. As there was approximately one year between Plaintiff's 2013 complaints to Kremer regarding her perception that she was being discriminated against and her removal from the program, there is no suspicious timing for that protected activity. Regarding her formal EEO complaint with Rush's Compliance Department, the timing between that filing and her eventual dismissal from the program is close enough in time to be reasonably considered suspicious. However, suspicious timing, without more, is not sufficient to support a finding that protected activity caused an adverse employment action. Mobley, 531 F.3d 539, 549 (7th Cir. 2008) ("Evidence of temporal proximity, standing on its own, is insufficient to establish a causal connection for a claim of retaliation"). Plaintiff's brief does not illuminate the Court as to any other evidence that would allow a reasonable fact finder to conclude that Plaintiff's complaint with the Compliance Department caused her removal from the program. Her argument is limited to baseless speculation that "the evaluation has been corrupted by deceit, and CRNAs share and are influenced by the false opinions of other CRNAs," and portions of affidavits that contain nothing more than rank hearsay and were stricken in this Court's accompanying opinion. (See Dkt. 141 at 18 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:5419 14.) With nothing more than suspicious timing to back up the causation portion of her retaliation claims, Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law, and summary judgment is granted on these claims. C. Breach of Contract (Count VIII) The Court also grants Rush's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Under Illinois law, the elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract, (2) substantial performance by the plaintiff, (3) a breach by the defendant, and (4) resultant damages. Royal Sleep Prods., Inc. v. Restonic Corp., 2010 WL 1172555, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2010) (citing Reger Development, LLC v. National City Bank, 592 F.3d 759, 764 (7th Cir. 2010)). Students and universities may have a contractual relationship set forth in handbooks or catalogs. DiPerna v. Chicago School of Professional Psychology, 893 F.3d 1001, 1006-1007 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing Raethz v. Aurora Univ., 805 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ill. App. 2004)). However, courts are reluctant to interfere in private universities' regulation of student conduct, and "breach of contract claims brought by a student against a private college or university are subject to a distinct standard: 'a student may have a remedy for breach of contract when it is alleged that an adverse academic decision has been made concerning the student but only if that decision was made arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith.'" Id. at 1007 (quoting Raethz, 805 N.E.2d at 699) (emphasis in original). This standard requires that the plaintiff demonstrate that the university's decision was "without any discernible rational basis," and was "such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that the person or committee responsible did not actually exercise professional judgment." Raethz, 805 N.E.2d at 699. The Plaintiff falls far short of meeting this standard. The Court can find no evidence in the record that failing Plaintiff from her clinical residency course based on 26 negative formative 19 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:5419 evaluations, including several that Plaintiff does not dispute at all, was arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith. To the extent that Plaintiff is arguing that doing so in the face of Plaintiff's pending discrimination claims with Rush's Compliance Office meets the standard, the undisputed record shows that Rush investigated those claims, found that they were not substantiated, and that Plaintiff was allowed to appeal her no-pass grade through all of the internal mechanisms available to her under the student handbook. As such, a reasonable fact finder could not determine that Rush's decision was made without any discernible rational basis, and Plaintiff's breach of contract claim fails. D. Tortious Interference with Contract (Count IX) Plaintiff's claim for Tortious Interference with Contract against Defendants Wimberly, Narbone, and Kremer ("the Individual Defendants") also fails. In order to state a claim for tortious interference with a contract, Plaintiff must allege: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the Individual Defendants' awareness of the contract; (3) the intentional inducement of a contract breach; (4) an actual breach of the contract; and (5) damages. Cody v. Harris, 409 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing HPI Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Mt. Vernon Hosp., Inc., 545 N.E.2d 672, 676 (Ill. 1989)). The fundamental problem for Plaintiff is that she has failed to respond in any meaningful way to the Individual Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Although she submitted a brief titled as a response to the Individual Defendants' motion, the body of the brief is simply a copy of Plaintiff's brief in opposition to Rush's motion on the claims brought against Rush. Plaintiff has made no attempt to correct this mistake, despite the Individual Defendants pointing it out in their reply brief. Even if she had, this claim would also fail because, as noted above, Plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding an actual breach of the relevant contract. Therefore, summary judgment is also granted on this claim. 20 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:5419 E. Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (Count X) The elements for a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage in Illinois are: (1) a reasonable expectancy of entering into a valid business relationship; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the expectancy; (3) an intentional and unjustified interference by the defendant that induced or cause a breach or termination of the expectancy; and (4) damage to the plaintiff resulting from the defendant's interference. Borsellino v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 477 F.3d 502, 508 (7th Cir. 2007). "However, the tortious behavior must be directed toward a third party with whom the expected employment or business relationship was to occur." Ricco v. Southwest Surgery Center, LLC, 73 F. Supp. 3d 961, 973 (N.D. Ill. 2014). As such, a corporate entity cannot be held liable for interfering with its own business relationship with its own employees; this rule includes employees acting on behalf of an employer who are alleged to have interfered with a plaintiff's employment. See Trujillo v. American Bar Assoc., 2015 WL 5139419, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28. 2015) (citing Vickers v. Abbott Labs., 719 N.E.2d 1101, 1116 (Ill. App. 1999)). That rule does not apply when the agent of the principal places his or her own interests ahead of the corporate entity's interests. Ricco, 73 F. Supp. 3d at 973 ("[a] corporate officer acting on behalf of a corporation can be held liable for interference with employment expectancy only where he places his own interests ahead of the corporation's interest"). In this case, the Individual Defendants are employees of Rush, and Plaintiff has alleged that she had an "enforceable expectation of continued coursework within and completion of the Rush CRNA program." (Dkt. 58 at ¶ 157.) Therefore, the Individual Defendants can only be held liable for interference with Plaintiff's prospective economic advantage with Rush to the extent they were putting their own interests ahead of Rush's.12 Plaintiff has put forth no evidence and 12 The Court also notes that Plaintiff has alleged she "could reasonably expect increased job opportunities and monetary compensation" if she had successfully completed the CRNA program. (Dkt. 58 at ¶ 157.) Plaintiff has not 21 Case: 1:16-cv-06109 Document #: 162 Filed: 08/21/19 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:5419 mounted no argument that would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that any of the Individual Defendants were putting their own interests ahead of Rush's, or even what those interests might be. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage fails and summary judgment is granted on this claim in favor of the Individual Defendants. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 126, 130] are granted, and judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants. ENTERED: Date: 8/21/2019 _____________________________________ U.S. Magistrate Judge, Susan E. Cox provided any evidence regarding her reasonable expectation of entering into a business relationship with any third party, and put forth no arguments to support such a finding. 22


text:
package com.amazonaws.services.elasticloadbalancing.model.transform;

import javax.annotation.Generated;

import com.amazonaws.SdkClientException;
import com.amazonaws.Request;
import com.amazonaws.DefaultRequest;
import com.amazonaws.http.HttpMethodName;
import com.amazonaws.services.elasticloadbalancing.model.*;
import com.amazonaws.transform.Marshaller;
import com.amazonaws.util.StringUtils;

/**
 * ConfigureHealthCheckRequest Marshaller
 */

@Generated("com.amazonaws:aws-java-sdk-code-generator")
public class ConfigureHealthCheckRequestMarshaller implements Marshaller<Request<ConfigureHealthCheckRequest>, ConfigureHealthCheckRequest> {

    public Request<ConfigureHealthCheckRequest> marshall(ConfigureHealthCheckRequest configureHealthCheckRequest) {

        if (configureHealthCheckRequest == null) {
            throw new SdkClientException("Invalid argument passed to marshall(...)");
        }

        Request<ConfigureHealthCheckRequest> request = new DefaultRequest<ConfigureHealthCheckRequest>(configureHealthCheckRequest,
                "AmazonElasticLoadBalancing");
        request.addParameter("Action", "ConfigureHealthCheck");
        request.addParameter("Version", "2012-06-01");
        request.setHttpMethod(HttpMethodName.POST);

        if (configureHealthCheckRequest.getLoadBalancerName() != null) {
            request.addParameter("LoadBalancerName", StringUtils.fromString(configureHealthCheckRequest.getLoadBalancerName()));
        }

        {
            HealthCheck healthCheck = configureHealthCheckRequest.getHealthCheck();
            if (healthCheck != null) {

                if (healthCheck.getTarget() != null) {
                    request.addParameter("HealthCheck.Target", StringUtils.fromString(healthCheck.getTarget()));
                }

                if (healthCheck.getInterval() != null) {
                    request.addParameter("HealthCheck.Interval", StringUtils.fromInteger(healthCheck.getInterval()));
                }

                if (healthCheck.getTimeout() != null) {
                    request.addParameter("HealthCheck.Timeout", StringUtils.fromInteger(healthCheck.getTimeout()));
                }

                if (healthCheck.getUnhealthyThreshold() != null) {
                    request.addParameter("HealthCheck.UnhealthyThreshold", StringUtils.fromInteger(healthCheck.getUnhealthyThreshold()));
                }

                if (healthCheck.getHealthyThreshold() != null) {
                    request.addParameter("HealthCheck.HealthyThreshold", StringUtils.fromInteger(healthCheck.getHealthyThreshold()));
                }
            }
        }

        return request;
    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Last year I started doing an annual review and yearly plan at the end of the year.
2013 was a pretty good year for me. Accomplished a lot, failed to accomplish even more, have a big list of things to get on with next year.
I've been experimenting with this for the last couple of months, and it's pretty powerful stuff. Especially like the medium-term planning.
I want to start meditating. Everyone says it is incredibly beneficial, so I am going to try to do 5 minutes every morning.
I am back on the Stronglifts 5×5 program, but this time I'm only going to the gym twice a week instead of three times. It's working much better for me: better recovery and less time pressure.
I am going to continue doing anki every day and try to read at least one book a month in Japanese. This has always evaded me so far so I hope 2014 will be the year when I can actually make this into a habit.
I did this for most of 2013, and it suits me very well so I plan to continue. Basically you don't eat until the afternoon, so you effectively fast for 16 hours a day and only eat during an 8-hour window. More info here.
The focus on habits is due to realizing that habits are the base of all our behaviour: good habits, good lifestyle. The list above should be achievable, as I am already good at a couple of them. Trying to create too many new habits means you will probably fail.
How about you? Any resolutions or goals for next year?


text:
What is Automated Investing?
What Are Price Targets?
What Is ROI?
What Is Compound Interest?
What is Market Manipulation?
GIPHY / istock / getty
The stock market has provided solid returns (for the most part) for over two hundred years. Today, stocks are integral to almost any portfolio, regardless of age, financial goals, and risk tolerance. While the amount an individual should invest in stocks depends upon your age bracket and financial situation, the fact is that you should invest. However, before you get started, it might be helpful to know just what a stock is and how investing in stocks works.
To put it simply, a stock is a security – a fancy word for a financial holding that an entity issues. It gives you partial ownership of said entity. You "measure" stocks in units called shares. The more shares you own, the more ownership you have in a company. More on this in a minute.
Companies issue new stocks as needed, such as to fund a new project or float the company through lean times. Selling more shares also dilutes ownership, which can impact shareholders who purchase equities that confer voting rights. Occasionally, a corporation may also issue a buyback for their outstanding shares (shares purchased by shareholders).
You typically trade (buy and sell) stocks on exchanges, such as the Nasdaq and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). However, some companies may sell stocks in private transactions. A few also offer employee stock in their compensation packages.
Regardless of how a stock trades hands, there are laws that all transactions must follow. These laws prevent fraud, tax evasion, and other illegal practices that used to run rampant in the financial sector. The laws also exist to protect the rights of the stockholders and ensure that corporations follow best practices that benefit the shareholders as well as the company.
There are different types of stocks, too (which you can learn about here).
The Benefits of Investing in Stocks
There are three main reasons an investor may purchase a stock:
To sell it (either ASAP or years down the line)
For the dividends
To take advantage of voting rights
Selling a stock can provide either short-term or long-term returns, depending on your investment strategy. Some investors like to hold onto stocks for decades and enjoy slow but high returns, while others prefer to make a killing with a little luck and a short-term strategy.
Dividend profits are another benefit to some stocks. While most payouts are small, owning enough stock in one company – or a little stock in a lot of companies – means eventually an investor may earn enough in quarterly dividends to significantly supplement income or investing capital.
Voting rights, while not an integral factor for some, are another benefit some classes of stock confer to shareholders. In a voting stock, owning the majority shares (51%) allows you to make decisions about a company's future – in a roundabout way.
One of the most important votes a company can hold is on board of director nominations. If a single shareholder owns 51% of a company's stock, that investor then has 51% of the voting power. This means that one person's vote can instill a new board of directors. In turn, the board of directors would then vote on a new upper management team – such as the CEO – which would effectively steer the company in a new direction.
Investing in Stocks
As we mentioned above, companies issue stocks to build capital for new projects and asset acquisitions. Once a stock has been sold, the incoming capital can be used however the company deems fit.
On the buyer's side, purchasing a stock confers partial ownership of the company into the hands of the shareholder. Depending on the type of stock, the shareholder may own rights to assets, profits, or voting power in the company. Exactly how much depends on how much of the company a stockholder owns.
Ownership is determined by dividing the number of shares owned by the number of shares the company issued. For instance, let's say that AwesomeSauce Corp issues 1,000 shares of stock for the first time, and John Jingle buys 100 shares. John now owns 10% stock in the company – which means he gets 10% of the profits (in certain situations – more on that later). If the stock confers voting rights, John would also wield 10% of the influence in the vote.
However, buying stock does not mean that John actually owns the corporation itself. Perhaps the most accurate way to frame stock ownership is that a stockholder owns the shares they purchase (and whatever rights the shares grant them), while the issuing corporation owns the assets.
This distinction is important because of the idea of separation of ownership and control. This practice limits and separates liability on both sides of the transaction in the event of major decisions and events. Just as individual shareholders can't access a company's profits at will, so too can't a corporation access their shareholder's funds.
For instance, if a corporation goes belly-up, a judge cannot order the shareholders to empty their pockets and pay off the company's debt. In the reverse, if Mr. John Jingle were to declare bankruptcy, he couldn't claim 10% of the company's assets to pay off his debts, either.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


GROWN is a tiny Dublin company that prints beautiful simple designs on ethically-sourced, environmentally friendly shirts and t-shirts from a shop on Francis Street in Dublin's Liberties.
Its origins lie in conversations between three friends as they journeyed back and forth between Dublin and the West of Ireland, on swimming, surfing and scuba-diving trips. The ocean-loving friends were Neil McCabe, Stephen O'Reilly and Damien Bligh. They'd noticed rubbish in the water and on beaches.
It made them think about the ecological impact of plastics and modern fabrics, and how we produce and consume everything from food and drink to coffee and clothes. That got them researching, finding out how things are made, how supply chains work, and what happens to items after we've finished with them.
What they found was mostly bad news. Take clothes for example. Each item of clothing made of polyester releases up to 70,000 plastic micro particles into the environment. Billions of these end up in the sea and ocean and are consumed by plankton and tiny fish, gradually moving up the food chain and into crustaceans, into larger fish, then, ultimately, into us.
Neill McCabe, Damien Bligh and Stephen O'Reilly of Grown Clothing.
The bad news isn't restricted to micro particles. Vast quantities of larger items swirl around the oceans, like plastic containers that originally contained our soap, shampoo, conditioner, soft drinks, or just simple drinking water. Why don't we have public drinking fountains, like other cities, the friends wondered – or at the very least, water re-fill stations?
At our current rates of pollution, O'Reilly tells me "by the year 2050, there'll be more plastic rubbish (by weight) than fish in our seas and oceans". It is a disgusting thought, but it's going to happen. We are killing ever more marine life by the minute, quite literally choking the planet with our waste.
It all made them want to take action and the result was their brand of sea-themed designs, marketed under the name GROWN. All three friends had useful skills. O'Reilly was able to design logos and images, if only they could source an ethical material to work with. Damien Bligh knew about the business of fashion retail, having worked for brands like Billabong and Quiksilver. Neil McCabe meanwhile has become one of the most original and distinctive environmental activists in Ireland over recent years. Like the other two men, as well as being a director of GROWN, McCabe is also still a firefighter. It was McCabe who started the ball rolling on what became the world's first carbon-neutral fire station, in Kilbarrack.
That project started with battery recycling, before growing into other areas like how the firemen got to work and what type of paint was used to paint the station. Now it includes every area of activity at the station, like installing wind and solar units for green energy as well as a massive effort at rainwater harvesting (water being a useful commodity in the firefighting game). Neil McCabe has recently delivered TedX talks on how he helped change the culture at the station. The spin-off benefits from Kilbarrack have been huge, with Dublin City Council as a whole buying into many of the ideas.
It's McCabe who is GROWN's Green director. It is he who devised their rigorous Green Action plan and he who does the all-important "green audit" for their business activities, always making sure their products and activities do more good than harm.
That audit process starts, of course, with the fabric they use in their T-shirts and with who stitches them. Cotton uses a vast amount of land and water. The three friends considered using bamboo, a durable, breathable material. But it transpired the chemicals used to make a workable fabric from bamboo are bad for the environment.
The fabric ultimately selected instead was Tencel, also known as Lyocell. It is a fiber made from the cellulose found in wood pulp. Crucially Tencel is produced on a "closed-loop system", where 99% of the chemicals and solvents used in the process are recovered and recycled, with minimal waste and very low emissions. (The process has received the main Environmental Award from the EU.) Tencel is far less wasteful or damaging than cotton, using far less land or water.
The next decision was where the clothes would be made. These days production is always in the developing world but after a lot of research the Dublin trio found a superb, highly innovative firm in Southern India called the Continental Clothing Company (CCC). CCC are pioneers in ethical and eco-friendly clothes, far ahead of western fashion corporations. In 2008 they became the first company internationally to monitor Co2 footprint. They ensure all their fibres have full traceability and have worked for many years with both the Environmental Justice Foundation and the Pesticide Action Network. Not surprisingly it's CCC that now supply the blank shirts and T-shirts for GROWN, who then add their own designs drawn up by O'Reilly himself.
Their original GROWN premises was in South Studios in Blackpitts, until that site became yet another new development in the area. They then found a space on Francis Street, removing the old partitions and the false ceilings, and now share it with architect Declan Scullion (author of that fascinating black box on Grand Canal Dock at Hanover quay) and a watchmaker called Ian Walton, whose grandfather Ernest Walton once split the atom. That's not a bad brains trust in one small shop on Francis Street.
Most of GROWN's sales are online, although the shop at 29 Francis St is open for retail every Saturday. I know I'll be heading there again soon. The Tencel feels great. Prices are around €30 for a t-shirt – this may seem hefty, but the price is what ensures everything is done properly, and that there are schools and clinics in India and that the workers there get a decent wage. Would you have it any other way? These clothes last far longer too.
The benefits aren't just in India. GROWN participate in talks and demonstrations at festivals, provide water refills at festivals, and organise and fund beach clean-ups. One of their slogans is "re-fill: not landfill". They plant one tree for every t-shirt that they sell, to offset any carbon footprint they might have left. Seven hundred indigenous Irish trees – mostly whitethorn, alder and Irish oak – were planted recently at the very inspirational Moy Hill community garden in County Clare.
Stephen and his partners acknowledge the help they've had from mentors like Rosie O'Reilly, who is designer-founder of label "We are Islanders" and the sustainable fashion movement ReDress. They're looking forward to other collaborations too, like with artist Emily Robyn Archer, who'll create an artwork from the detritus collected on the beach at Caherdaniel, County Kerry.
GROWN seem set to go from strength to strength. Keep your eye on this inspirational little start-up. I predict it will make real waves over the years to come.
Arran Henderson writes on history and visual culture as well as art, architecture and history. He leads walking tours around Dublin, including tours of central areas, Rathmines, Blackpitts/Newmarket, and Grangegorman.
When Izzy was little she always said that her favourite thing about being in a wheelchair was that her shoes never got dirty. They looked brand new every day and the lights never ran out in her favourite light-up runners. However, her real shoes were her wheels. I remember we used to decorate her wheelchair for birthday parties and Halloween. We filled them with fresh flowers once when she was a flower girl for a wedding. At Christmas, we used to put tinfoil and lights around the wheels and lots of tiny Christmas decorations for the Xmas family show.
If you live in Dublin, it's almost impossible not to be aware of the shortage of affordable housing. If you haven't joined the back of a long queue to view a property in recent years, chances are you know a lot of people that have. And for many the consequences can be far worse; about 140 people sleep rough every night, there are some 3,000 homeless who are dependent on hotels and B&Bs, and a further 100,000 are on social housing waiting lists. It's something that's garnered a lot of media & governmental attention, and often the solutions proffered are quite grandiose; build up and build quickly. As a nation, we tend to have a penchant for the new when it comes to housing. While that may be a part of the solution, it's certainly not the only approach. In every corner of this city, there are spaces going to waste.


text:
Buy this shirt here: Biden Harris Inauguration 1-20-21 We Run This White House Us 2021 T-Shirt
Growing up in Nebraska, it took awhile for White Elk to feel a connection with their Indigenous heritage. The Biden Harris Inauguration 1-20-21 We Run This White House Us 2021 T-Shirt says they only recently formed relationships with Indigenous elders in their community, therefore they were not introduced to certain traditional elements of their culture until their later teens. But they had always wanted to learn more. "Growing up as a Native without the guidance of an elder to pass down traditions made it difficult to be raised around traditional elements," says White Elk. "You learn practically everything from your elders. But I overcame that hardship with the help of friends, who were there in the same tribe as mine."
Want to get married in a winter wonderland? Look no further than the Biden Harris Inauguration 1-20-21 We Run This White House Us 2021 T-Shirt, a chic cold-weather escape perched on the slopes of Deer Valley. Like the Mayakoba, they, too, have a customized micro-wedding package: they'll provide photography, florals for the ceremony, bouquet, and tables, luxury linens, a three-course plated dinner, and a wedding cake for up to 10 people. A tablescape at a recent micro-wedding at The Montage. A western-style altar at Dunton Hot Springs. 25 miles outside of Telluride, Colorado, is Dunton Hot Springs, a former ghost town that's been transformed into a country getaway with a celeb-heavy clientele. They've seen an uptick in small-scale weddings, so much so that they now have a distinct elopement offering: they'll provide an officiant, some champagne, a wedding cake, a photographer, and the option to wed wherever you want on the property.
Kungkulpremium – Made in south africa a long time ago vintage shirt


text:
How to go From Bangkok to Kanchanaburi?
Posted on 12 March 2020 20 March 2020 by Mattia Nistri
Bangkok to Kanchanaburi
Kanchanaburi is a small town around 125 kilometers (78 miles) west of Bangkok, best known as the' bridge over the Kwai River ' location made famous by the same name's book and film. The bridge is a part of the Death Railway constructed during World War II by prisoners of war and enslaved men.
Bangkok to Kanchanaburi by taxi
Bangkok Suvarnabhumi airport to Kanchanaburi
Bus to Kanchanaburi
Minibus to Kanchanaburi
Train to Kanchanaburi
Taxi fare from Bangkok airport to Kanchanaburi
Bangkok to Kanchanaburi day trip
River Kwai from Bangkok
How do I get from Bangkok to Kanchanaburi?
How far is Kanchanaburi from Bangkok?
Is there grab in Kanchanaburi?
After that theme, the town is also home to several museums and cemeteries linked to the Second World War. The best of these is the Thailand-Burma Railway Centre, which provides good insight into railway building and what it would have been like to be one of the enslaved workers.
Another reason to visit and live in Kanchanaburi is to explore the surrounding Kanchanaburi province with many national parks, lakes, caves, and waterfalls, renowned for its great natural beauty.
The Erawan Falls is a highlight of the region in Erawan National Park.
There are few options to get to Kanchanaburi from Bangkok, which includes a train, bus, taxi, and minibus. Read on this article and will find out more about how to get to Kanchanaburi quickly and without hassle.
Bangkok to Kanchanaburi taxi
A taxi from Bangkok to Kanchanaburi is, of course, the most expensive but also the most versatile choice. It will possibly take around 3 hours to drive from Bangkok to Kanchanaburi.
Taxi traveling will allow you to stop and visit various places of interest along the way, before continuing your trip, provided you make it clear to the driver that he should wait.
There are three choices on how to get to Kanchanaburi after you have arrived at Bangkok airport. You can get from Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Airport by bus, minibus, train, and taxi to Kanchanaburi. It will take around 4 hours to travel by public transport without changes.
On average, the expense of a trip makes 3 dollars. You'll get to your destination by taxi in 2 hours and 20 minutes, for about $100. There are only 120 kilometers to travel between Bangkok and Kanchanaburi.
The bus service in Thailand is well known, but the last bus to Kanchanaburi departs at 22.00. The train is only scheduled to run twice a day and is not convenient at all. In any case, one will have to walk to the stations for public transport. Choose a taxi if you're traveling with heavy luggage, small children, or disabled family. Its available 24 hours a day but looks very costly compared to public transport.
Buses depart from Southern Bus Terminal / Sai Tai Mai and Terminal / Mo Chit Northern Bus Terminal. Travel time is three to four hours. The price of a ticket is determined by the class of buses and the place of departure. 1st class bus (with air conditioning) costs around $3, and 2nd class bus (without air conditioning) — $2.5.
Be careful: Bus routes separate all ticket offices at Southern Bus Terminal. Three of those offices sell Kanchanaburi bus tickets. Officials at the train station help you understand precisely where the tickets are being sold.
From Northern Bus Terminal / Mo Chit, Southern Bus Terminal / Sai Tai Kao, Southern Bus Terminal / Sai Tai Mai, and from unofficial bus stops in Bangkok: from Khao San Road to Victory Monument. Travel time is three hours. A trip's cost makes 4.5$.
Each minibus has approximately ten seats. If you find the departure time significant, it is better to buy tickets in advance.
Two trains depart daily from Kanchanaburi to Bangkok. The cost of a ride is approximately $3. The trip will take 3 hours but bear in mind that Thailand's 1-hour delays are not a rare thing.
One may travel along the infamous Death Railway on the same train. This is the portion going from Kanchanaburi to the Nam Tok line terminal station. It will take two more hours to get off from Kanchanaburi.
Taxi to Kanchanaburi
Since the distance between Bangkok and Kanchanaburi is low, finding a car isn't a problem. The only downside compared to public transport is a high price. It starts at $100. Moreover, for this amount, you'll get in 2 hours 20 minutes from the airport right to your destination without any adjustments.
It will cost about 1,200 to 1,500 baht if you take a metered taxi from Bangkok to Kanchanaburi. But if you don't take a meter of the taxi then the rates will be lower. Nonetheless, the price varies from one supplier to another to get only $235 from Suvarnabhumi Airport (BKK) to Kanchanaburi.
Kanchanaburi tours
A day trip to Kanchanaburi with an experienced English-speaking guide will help you gain insight into Kanchanaburi's historical attractions.
On arrival, you'll take a walk along the Burma Railway (Death Railway) lines, enjoy round trip transportation from Bangkok, and take advantage of assured tour departure regardless of group size.
You should prepare to go out to Kanchanaburi, a historic city just a few hours from Bangkok. Commemorate the memories of prisoners of war as you stroll along the lines of the Burma Railway, also called the "Death Railway."
Take in the breathtaking view of the Kwai River. Cross the Kwai River Bridge, a historic site of World War II.
Gain a deeper insight into the history of the war in Thailand at the JEATH War Museum. Browse through the galleries with paintings, sketches, portraits, and maps by former inmates.
Finish your trip by focusing on Phra Pathom Chedi, Thailand's tallest pagoda. Until returning to Bangkok, stroll through the vibrant Phra Pathom Chedi night market and try tasty street bites.
Embark on an interesting journey with an official tour to Kanchanaburi.
Kanchanaburi attractions and the Top places to visit in Kanchanaburi
Find a range of tours from Bangkok to River Kwai, Kanchanaburi that cover interesting places such as the Kwai River Bridge, Wooden Viaduct, Hellfire Crossing, Tiger Temple, Elephant Camp War Museum and Cemetery, and so on. Imagine riding through the Wooden Viaduct on the Death Railway Train.
Tours with fun activities such as elephant trekking and bamboo rafting, elephant riding, and swimming, and much more can also be found. Kanchanaburi lies approximately 128 km west of Bangkok.
The distance from Bangkok to the Kwai Bridge River is 112 km. The distance from the road is 127.6 Km. There's something wrong with taking a bus to see Death Railway and Bridge on the Kwai River.
Taking the train from Bangkok to Kanchanaburi and the bridge on the River Kwai using the Death Railway itself is more fitting-and far more enjoyable.
Two trains a day leave Bangkok Thonburi station equally referred to as Bangkok Noi located the west side of the river in Bangkok, to Kanchanaburi.
It is next to River Kwai Bridge station (on the bridge side of Bangkok a few minutes after Kanchanaburi), cross the bridge itself, and run alongside the scenic Kwae River over the Wampo Viaduct to Nam Tok.
The price is just about 100 baht (£ 2 or $3). There's no reservation needed; they can't sell out, only turn up, buy a ticket and get on any time before they leave.
The trains are only 3rd class, but don't let this put you off as they're clean and comfortable.
There is no buffet car, but vendors walk up and down the train selling soft drinks and fruit and snacks pre-packed.
Pomelo's slices are good, not too sweet and not too sour. There is also a tourist day excursion train at the weekends.
Bridge over river kwai tour
You've possibly heard of The Bridge on the Kwai River if you're a history and movie buff.
The classic war movie shows the' Death Railway ' building, one of the Pacific War's most infamous incidents during the Second World War. And you'll visit the Kanchanaburi War Cemetery and the railway bridge on this day trip from Bangkok-by car, boat, and rail.
Kanchanaburi is just over two hours ' drive west of Bangkok, and upon arrival at the Thailand–Burma Railway Centre, you'll dive straight into history.
This museum demonstrates the Death Railway's horrors and overlooks a broad green that is the Kanchanaburi War Cemetery.
You'll cross the road after the tour and pay respects to the almost 7,000 Allied soldiers–including many British–who is lying here.
Next, you will be carried by a longtail boat along the Mae Klong River to see the new bridge over the Kwai River–the original was blown up. You'll board a train after lunch in a nearby restaurant, and cross the river along the original railway.
The famous River Kwai Bridge is a part of the collective historical memory of the nation. The site of the deaths of many POWs during World War II, it is now the location of the JEATH War Museum and is located near the Kanchanaburi War Cemetery.
The bridge which spans the Kwai River in Kanchanaburi is part of the infamous Burma Railway, a rail link between Bangkok and Myanmar constructed during the Second World War Japanese occupation of Thailand.
The Allied prisoners of war designed the railway, and in the process, more than 10,000 died of hunger, overwork, and horrible living conditions.
During the building, more than 90,000 local forced laborers died. The bridge is still a working rail link, and trains regularly travel to and from Bangkok on their journey.
Take a train across the bridge and get to visit the adjacent war museum, which explores the atrocities; take a guided tour of the area to get a closer look at the history of the bridge.
Kanchanaburi is a famous town in West Thailand and a part of Kanchanaburi Province, situated at the junction of two rivers named Kwai Noi and Kwai Yai. The town has decades of interesting history and iconic landmarks heavily displayed. You can get to this town through multiple options.
The first option is by train, particularly when you happen to be in Bangkok. Various trains depart from Bangkok's Thonburi Train Station and arrive at Kanchanaburi.
The second option, which is taking a bus or minivan, is more up to the budget. Several buses fly to Kanchanaburi from many locations across the country, including Chiang Mai, Bangkok, Ayutthaya, Nong Khai, Hua Hin, and much more. Unfortunately, there is no easy transport to Kanchanaburi by plane or boat. Unfortunately, transportation to this destination by boat and plane cannot be used directly.
How much is a taxi from Bangkok to Kanchanaburi?
The taxi drivers to the station are friendly and will talk about taking you with their taxi straight to Kanchanaburi for just over 1000 Baht. If you prefer a quick ride, it will only cost about 500 Baht or so, which is more than four train tickets.
How do I get from Bangkok to Kanchanaburi by train?
Although not the easiest way to fly from Bangkok to Kanchanaburi, many tourists can tell you the best way to get there is the train journey. Fly relatively comfortably while watching the stunning scenery pass you by as the suburbs of Bangkok disappear behind you, making way for the Kanchanaburi province's lush green countryside.
There are two trains a day which leaves at 07:50 and 13:55. The train ride to Kanchanaburi is scheduled to take around 2.5 hours, but due to the usual delays often take to 3 hours.
There are also two trains going the other way a day, leaving from Kanchanaburi to Bangkok at 07:19 and 14:48.
The trains do cross the Kwai River, but the bridge is about 3 kilometers (nearly 2 miles) further along the Kanchanaburi railway line, so you'll need to get an extra ticket outside Kanchanaburi to experience traveling over the bridge by train itself.
But in Bangkok, you can buy a ticket to take you all the way, so there is no need to get off the train. The Death Railway terminus is on the train at Nam Tok, which is another 80 kilometers (50 miles) away.
The trains from Bangkok to Kanchanaburi do not come from the main train station in Bangkok but go from the tiny Thonburi station, which can be a bit tricky to get to.
Starting at Khao San Bridge, your best option is to go to the Phra Arthit pier, get on the boat for the passenger river, and link to the Thonburi Railway pier by cross-river ferry. It is then a short walk to the station or a minibus ride from the pier.
Taking the train is inexpensive, reasonably comfortable, and you can see lots of scenery outside Bangkok once. We suggest this as one of the best ways to get to Kanchanaburi from Bangkok, but there are also other choices to consider.
The distance between Bangkok and Kanchanaburi is 107 km, while by road, the distance is 120.4 km.
Yes, of the easiest way of getting there is by Grab or taxi for about THB 100 (around USD 3.12).
Do not miss Erawan National Park!
Erawan National Park official page
This entry was posted in Destinations. Bookmark the permalink.
Mattia Nistri
Chiang Mai shopping
Pattaya Elephant Sanctuary
Discover Wild Thailand
Nature Adventure
Koh Samui tours
Phang Nga Bay Tour
Premium tours
Siem Reap Tours
Tours from Phi Phi island
The best time to visit Phuket: month-by-month guide
An adventure for every age! Backpacking in Thailand
Case Study for 2021 – Tour Marketing in Singapore
Why is Phuket so famous? Here we come up with a list of many ideas why!
How do you get to Phi Phi Island?


text:
Nothing but the Beat ist das fünfte Studioalbum des französischen DJ David Guetta und außerdem Titel eines Ende 2011 erschienenen Films über den DJ. Es wurde am 26. August 2011 von den Labeln EMI France und Virgin Records veröffentlicht. Am 7. September 2012 wurde die dazugehörige EP Nothing but the Beat 2.0 veröffentlicht und am 7. Dezember die Nothing but the Beat Ultimate-Version, die alle Songs der beiden Alben beinhaltet.

Geschichte
Als David Guetta im Januar 2011 nach seinem fünften Album gefragt wurde, sagte er, dass es im September erscheinen wird. Zudem äußerte er, dass sein neuer Sound von Rockbands wie Coldplay und Kings of Leon inspiriert wurde. Am 25. März 2011 gab Guetta sein erstes Interview über sein bevorstehendes fünftes Album. Es sollte Songs mit früheren Features wie Akon und will.i.am sowie mit mehreren neuen geben. Unter den vorgestellten Songs auf dem Album war Little Bad Girl mit Ludacris und Taio Cruz. Ein weiterer Song aus dem Album war Where Them Girls At mit Flo Rida und Nicki Minaj. Where Them Girls At erschien als erste Single des Albums weltweit am 2. Mai 2011, nachdem eine unvollendete Version online durchgesickert war. Der Song stieg sofort überall in die Charts ein, in Deutschland auf Platz 5, wo er später Goldstatus erhielt.
Am 20. Juli wurde das Video zu Where Them Girls At veröffentlicht.

Am 27. Juni erschien in Deutschland der Song Little Bad Girl.
Die erste Download-Promo-Single Titanium mit Sia erschien am 5. August. Als zweite Promo-Single erschien Lunar (mit Afrojack) am 15. August. Night of Your Life mit Jennifer Hudson erschien als dritte Promo-Single am 22. August.
Als nächste offizielle Single erschien das Lied Without You, das schon bei der Veröffentlichung des Albums in die deutschen Charts eingestiegen war, zusammen mit Usher am 27. September. In den USA sicherte der Song Guetta die höchste Platzierung in den Hot 100 mit Position 4. Das Video wurde am 14. Oktober veröffentlicht.
Nachdem am 9. Dezember Titanium weltweit als vierte Single erschienen war, stellte er am 17. Dezember erstmals Ausschnitte des Musikvideos vor, das fünf Tage später im Handel erschien. Die fünfte Single Turn Me On schaffte in der letzten Dezemberwoche den Sprung in die Top 100 der Downloadcharts. Die erste instrumentale Single The Alphabeat wurde am 23. März 2012 veröffentlicht.

Beim Einstieg in die deutschen Album-Charts landete das Album nur auf Platz 2, wo es sich auch in der zweiten Woche halten konnte. Erst in der dritten Woche verdrängte es die Red Hot Chili Peppers mit I'm with You von der Spitze. Auf iTunes war es hinter 21 und Doo-Wops & Hooligans das drittmeistverkaufte Album des Jahres 2011.

Bei den Grammy Awards 2012 wurde Guetta in der Kategorie Beste Dance-Aufnahme mit Sunshine und in Bestes Dance-/Electronica-Album mit seinem Album nominiert.

Kritische Rezeption

Das Album wurde sehr gemischt bewertet. Es wurde oft gelobt, allerdings wurde auch Kritik laut – insbesondere deshalb, weil die erste CD zu sehr an den Mainstream angepasst sei.

Die Seite laut.de vergab  und bezeichnete das Album als Trojanisches Pferd, dumm und hölzern, aber praktisch.

Die Zeitschrift mbeat vergab 80 von 100 Punkten: "Guetta ist mehr als nur DJ der guten Laune".

Die Seite Plattentests.de schrieb: "Wer sich da wiederfindet, hat im Atzen-Kosmos die Zeit seines Lebens, alle anderen erhalten eine weitere Bestätigung dafür, dass Doppel-Alben nie was taugen."

Der Stil der Electronic CD wurde zudem oft mit Daft Punk und Deadmau5 verglichen, sie wurde aber größtenteils besser aufgenommen als CD 1, da Guetta versucht zu seinen musikalischen Wurzeln zurückzukehren: die Club-Musik und nicht der Dance-Pop. "Ich möchte die Leute ein bisschen erziehen, denn schließlich sehe ich mich nicht in erster Linie als Popstar, sondern stamme eigentlich aus der Underground-House-Szene in Paris", sagte Guetta in einem Interview über die zweite CD.

Titelliste
CD 1: Vocal Album
 Where Them Girls At (feat. Flo Rida & Nicki Minaj) – 3:30
 Little Bad Girl (feat. Taio Cruz & Ludacris) – 3:11
 Turn Me On (feat. Nicki Minaj) – 3:19
 Sweat (vs. Snoop Dogg) – 3:16
 Without You (feat. Usher) – 3:28
 Nothing Really Matters (feat. will.i.am) – 3:39
 I Can Only Imagine (feat. Lil Wayne & Chris Brown) – 3:29
 Crank It Up (feat. Akon) – 3:12
 I Just Wanna F (mit Afrojack feat. Timbaland & Dev) – 3:23
 Night of Your Life (feat. Jennifer Hudson) – 3:41
 Repeat (feat. Jessie J) – 3:26
 Titanium (feat. Sia) – 4:05

CD 2: Electronic Album
 The Alphabeat – 4:29
 Lunar (mit Afrojack) – 5:16
 Sunshine (mit Avicii) – 6:01
 Little Bad Girl (Instrumental Edit) – 4:02
 Metro Music – 4:13
 Toy Story – 3.44
 The Future (mit Afrojack) – 4:16
 Dreams – 4:48
 Paris – 4:40
 Glasgow – 5:13

Film
Zusätzlich zu dem Album feierte am 17. September 2011 der gleichnamige Film Nothing but the Beat von Huse Monfaradi im Pariser Theatersaal Rex seine Weltpremiere. Er ist eine Dokumentation von David Guettas Leben und seinem Aufstieg vom unbekannten House-DJ zum prominenten Musik-Produzenten und DJ. Am 22. März 2012 erschien der Film kostenlos auf iTunes und schoss an die Spitze der Podcast-Charts in Ländern wie den USA, Deutschland, Großbritannien und Frankreich.

Nothing but the Beat 2.0

Am 7. September 2012 erschien in Deutschland die EP Nothing but the Beat 2.0. Sie enthält neben neuen Liedern auch viele Lieder des Studioalbums Nothing but the Beat. Die erste Singleauskopplung, zusammen mit Sia (Sängerin), lautet She Wolf (Falling to Pieces). Veröffentlicht wurde die Single am 24. August 2012.
Als zweite Single erschien am 16. November 2012 Just One Last Time.

Titelliste

Nothing but the Beat Ultimate

Am 7. Dezember 2012 erschien in Deutschland die definitive Version des Albums in Form von Nothing but the Beat Ultimate, das alle Songs des ursprünglichen Albums und alle, die erst mit Nothing but the Beat 2.0 erschienen waren, enthält. Das Album sicherte sich eine Woche nach Veröffentlichung Platz eins in den deutschen iTunes-Charts und verhalf Nothing but the Beat in der Schweiz nach 69 Wochen in den Charts wieder auf die Spitzenposition.

Titelliste
CD 1:

CD 2:

Chartplatzierungen

Alben

Singles

Promo-Tonträger

Andere Songs in den Charts

Jahrescharts 2011

Jahrescharts 2012

Einzelnachweise

David Guetta
Album 2011
Album (Dance)
Album (Electronic)
Nummer-eins-Album
Mehrfach-Platin-Album (Deutschland)
Mehrfach-Platin-Album (Österreich)
Mehrfach-Platin-Album (Vereinigtes Königreich)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


What Sound Does a Yak Make?
Yakety YAK - Don't Talk BACK!
We are encouraging Shannon to make this amazing book available to folks all around. Like everything she does, this children's book is exquisite! She has drawn and colored all the illustrations herself and the copy she has given us is bound with yak yarn!
We love to have kids visit the ranch and learn about yaks. Our favorite thing is to have the kids, or mom and dad, draw a yak on the chalk board to capture their visit.


text:
import {DatAPI} from './DatAPI';

export class DatLightModule extends DatAPI {
  constructor(params = {}, gui) {
    super();

    this.params = Object.assign({
      name: 'Unknown light',
      light: true,
      shadow: true,
      transforms: true,
      gui: false
    }, params);

    this.gui = gui;
    this.fold = this.gui.addFolder(this.params.name);
  }

  addColor(object, property, instance = this.fold) {
    const color = object[property];

    instance.addColor({[property]: color.getHex()}, property).onChange(value => {
      if (typeof value === 'string') value.replace('#', '0x');
      color.setHex(value);
    });
  }

  bridge = {
    light(light, self) {
      if (!self.params.light) return light;

      self.foldObject(light, this.params, self.fold.addFolder('light'));
      self.foldObject(light.shadow, this.params.shadow, self.fold.addFolder('shadow'));

      return light;
    },

    onWrap(a, self) {
      self.guiTransforms(this.native, self.fold);
    }
  }
};


text:
You are here: Home / 2019 / August
August 2, 2019 /0 Comments/in Edinburgh, Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo, Scotland, Tickets, Uncategorized /by Mel Fraser
Tonight welcomes the opening night of the 2019 Royal Military Tattoo.
In celebration of this we decided to share some things you may not know!
Image taken by Mel of the Glory Days Team
Etymology of the term "Tattoo"
With the establishment of modern barracks and full military bands later in the 18th century, the term "tattoo" was used to describe the last duty call of the day, as well as a ceremonial form of evening entertainment performed by military musicians.
In 1949 Edinburgh held its first Military Tattoo, the modest event was entitled "Something About a Soldier" a the aimed to portray the Army's support of the International Festival.
The show was held at the Ross Bandstand in Princes Street Gardens which still stands proudly below the castle.
We'd recommend visiting as a good comparison, as now, 7 decades later the show has progressed into the world-renowned showcase we know today.
In 1977 the first female took on the prestigious role of being the lone piper. Officer Elaine Marnoch took the role in her strides as she performed to the full battlements of Edinburgh Castle. Furthermore, in 2016, Scottish solider Lance Bombardier Megan Beveridge made history as the youngest piper to take on the role, aged 21.
The Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo performance takes place every weekday evening and twice on Saturdays throughout August and has never been cancelled due to adverse weather conditions. (Us Scots aren't scared of a bit of 'dreich' or 'baltic' weather)
Make sure to wrap up with plenty layers to stay warm during the performance.
Image credit to Royal Edinburgh Tattoo
In 2010 HM Queen Elizabeth awarded the event the title of 'Royal' to honour the celebration of 60th years running.
Which gives us the title we know it as today, The Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo.
Who's in the Audience?
The stands at Edinburgh Castle can accommodate a nightly audience of 8,800 people.
This means that throughout the multiple live performances 220,000 people can enjoy the tangible atmosphere of the live show.
In 2018 the Tattoo was televised in 40 countries. This year between 100-300 million people are set to enjoy it worldwide.
The Tattoo benefits several charitable causes. It has been estimated that over £10 million have been donated to arts, military and civilian charitable organisations.
The Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo generates an astounding £88 million in revenue for Edinburgh's economy annually.
The show benefits local businesses and is readily anticipated by the city.
Running alongside Edinburgh's Festival Fringe the city is at its peak.
The Edinburgh August buzz is not to be missed!
Visit the Tattoo with a bespoke travel package built for you by us at Glory Days.
Call us on 0131 556 3840 for more details.
/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/edintatoo-travel-packages-logo-rev-1.png 0 0 Mel Fraser /wp-content/uploads/2018/07/edintatoo-travel-packages-logo-rev-1.png Mel Fraser2019-08-02 10:15:262019-08-02 10:26:13The Tattoo and all of its Glorious History!


text:
Streets and transportation
Flights, customs, visa
Country and people
Traditions and legends
Malagasy recipes
Northern Madagascar
Southern Madagascar
Eastern Madagascar
Western Madagascar
Extinct creatures
THB – One beer for a whole country
The Lesser Hedgehog Tenrec
Libertalia, the pirates' republic
The little brother of the giraffe-necked weevil
Why the roots of the baobabs reach for the sky
Home/Hot spots/Jungle express
Jungle express
Zoky Be Hot spots, South Madagascar
Fianarantsoa is located on the RN7 and can be easily reached via it. From there, the "Jungle Express" with its rustic diesel locomotive from 1936 runs on an old, approximately 163 km long railway line, but even the wagons are hardly younger – here you can experience pure nostalgia and adventure. The line was built during the French colonial times. It took over ten years for the first train to run. Today, the caravan of freight and passenger waggons forms a lifeline for the people in the South.
The journey to Manakara at the sea now takes up to 24 hours (as of Juli 2018) instead of the previous nine to eleven hours. From the end of 2014 to the beginning of 2015, the train was even completely out of service, but could be repaired. In between, the journey stops every 30 to 45 minutes at small stations along the way. A good 40,000 Ariary costs the trip, that's about 15 €. While travellers get off and on and tracks are being repaired, locals offer plantains, fresh fruit, cooked crayfish and other delicacies for sale. At the windows and in small markets directly on the route, people trade, sell and talk.
On the way you can enjoy the landscape of the south: The train runs over steep gorges, along the tea plantations of Sahambavy and the lake of the same name, past the Mandriampotsy waterfall, hills and mountains and winds its way through over 48 tunnels and over 67 bridges, past rice fields, Baobabs, past brickworks, savannahs and rainforests. The train officially stops at 17 stations on its journey. On the way, however, smaller and larger obstacles have to be overcome time and again: Sometimes a piece of track is missing, sometimes a zebu has to be removed from the track and now and then the old locomotive has to be restarted. During the journey, the train climbs 1100 meters from the highlands to Manakara on the east coast, whereby the steepest sections of the line have an incline of up to 35‰
The Jungle Express runs every other day (Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays), but due to technical problems or unforeseen events it may be cancelled or postponed to another day. On average, the train only travels at 30 km/h, and the many stops along the way also contribute to delays and interruptions. Bringing a good dose of patience is essential here. For the Madagascans mora mora (meaning "take it easy") is a philosophy of life – and it is lived in the jungle express.
zurück Nosy Be
weiter Embassies
The Palace of the Prime Minister
The Baobab Forest of Andavadoaka
The lighthouse of Katsepy
The graves of the Vazimba
An ancient legend says that the first people in Madagascar were the Vazimba. They came …
(Deutsch) Sprache / Language:
Tribes of Madagascar 21.69 Aufrufe pro Tag
The animal that brings death 20.83 Aufrufe pro Tag
Ranavalona's I. reign of terror 20.62 Aufrufe pro Tag
An extraordinary predator: The Fossa 14.97 Aufrufe pro Tag


Hello, I would like to see more pictures of the 2011 CHEVROLET EQUINOX, stock# UW024.
Hi, my name is and I am interested in your I need info about your 2011 CHEVROLET EQUINOX (UW024).
Audio system feature, Pioneer premium 250-watt 8-speaker system includes mid-range speakers in each door, tweeters in A-pillars, a center channel speaker in upper IP and sub-woofer on the rear shelf.
*All payments and terms are subject to availability. Default estimated payment is based on 4.9% rate for 60 months and $2,999 down payment. Estimated payments are for informational purposes only and don't account for acquisition fees, destination charges, tax, title, and other fees and incentives or represent a financing offer or guarantee of credit from the seller.
Please send me the vehicle history report for your 2011 CHEVROLET EQUINOX (UW024) that I saw on the CarShopper.com.
I am interested in this 2011 CHEVROLET EQUINOX (UW024) that I saw on the CarShopper.com. Please contact me with more information.