text:
Results for Hate crime
Civil courage as a communicative act: Countering the harms of hate violence
Iganski, P., 22/07/2020, In: Pragmatics and Society. 11, 2, p. 316-335 20 p.
Taboo language and impoliteness
Culpeper, J., 15/11/2018, The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language. Allan, K. (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 28-40 13 p.
The psychological impact of hate crimes on victims: an exploratory analysis of data from the U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey
Iganski, P. S. & Lagou, S., 11/2016, The psychology of hate crimes as domestic terrorism: assessment issues with victims and offenders. Dunbar, E., Blanco, A. & Crèvecoeur-MacPhail, D. A. (eds.). Sanata Barbara, California: Praeger, Vol. 2. p. 279-292 14 p.
Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/Proceedings - With ISBN/ISSN › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review
Hate crime victim support in Europe: a practical guide
Kees, S-J., Iganski, P. S., Kusche, R., Swider, M. & Chahal, K., 14/04/2016, 1st ed. Dresden, Germany: RAA Sachsen. 68 p.
Research output: Book/Report/Proceedings › Book
Hate crime: a global perspective
Iganski, P. & Levin, J., 8/04/2015, New York: Routledge. 74 p. (Framing 21st Century Social Issues)
Hate and harm: the law on hate speech
Gillespie, A., 2015, Research handbook on EU internet law. Savin, A. & Trzaskowski, J. (eds.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, p. 488-507 20 p.
Crime and religion in Lancashire
Iganski, P. & Lagou, S., 9/09/2014, Preston: Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire/Lancashire County Council. 64 p.
Research output: Book/Report/Proceedings › Commissioned report
Understanding how 'hate' hurts: a case study of working with offenders and potential offenders
Iganski, P., Ainsworth, K., Geraghty, L., Lagou, S. & Patel, N., 05/2014, Responding to hate crime: the case for connecting policy and research. Chakraborti, N. & Garland, J. (eds.). Bristol: Policy Press, p. 231-242 12 p.
Research output: Contribution in Book/Report/Proceedings - With ISBN/ISSN › Chapter (peer-reviewed)
The personal injuries of 'hate crime'
Iganski, P. & Lagou, S., 2014, The Routledge International Handbook on Hate Crime. Hall, N., Corb, A., Giannasi, P. & Grieve, J. (eds.). London: Routledge
Thinking the unthinkable: thoughts about racist offenders offered in the conclusion to the Varieties of European Racism(s) Symposium
Iganski, P., 02/2013, Recycling hatred: racism(s) in Europe today. Brussels: European Network Against Racism, p. 103-106 4 p.
'Antisemitism' and anti-Jewish hatred: conceptual, political and legal challenges
Iganski, P., 2013, New directions in race, ethnicity and crime. Phillips, C. & Webster, C. (eds.). Routledge, p. 18-36 19 p.
More results »


text:
Home/Admissions/GC University Lahore Intermediate Merit List 2021
This page brings the GC University Lahore Intermediate Merit List 2021 for FSc, FA, ICS, and ICOM. Students have submitted their forms the latest by 28th September 2021 and only shortlisted candidates will be entertained with this intake. The shortlisted candidates will be presented in the lists which are coming on this page very soon. This is the place where you can find the GCU Lahore FA FSc ICS merit list 2021 for 1st Year admissions. Those students who will see their names on the list will collect the fee challan from the college. You will bring your original and photocopies of documents and of course the fees to pay for registration. It is necessary for all the students to meet the required criteria for this intake which is very necessary. While in the case of any candidate who will not compete the current merit will not entertain with this admission in this university. So, you can get the GCU Lahore Intermediate Merit List.
The Government College University Lahore is one of the oldest educational institutes in Pakistan. It came into existence before the independence of Pakistan. It is offering several programs and opens admissions every year. From the first day of its inception, it is providing the best education. The college has the best faculty and students get a chance to study under the supervision of best teachers. So, check out the merit list given below.
For More Details About Display Merit Time
Admissions are open from 21st September 2021 to 28th September 2021
Display of 1st Merit List 5th October 2021
Fee deposit 6th and 7th October 2021
Display of 2nd Merit List 9th October 2021
Fee deposit 1oth to 12th October 2021
Display of 3rd Merit List 13th October 2021
Fee deposit 14th October 2021
The admissions are in progress now. After this, you can check the 1st, 2nd, 3rd merit list according to the schedule given above. If your name is in the list, then you just have to visit the admission office and get the fee challan. After depositing fee, submit your documents and get admission in the college. You can get further admission information according to the procedure given below.
For GCU Inter Admissions 2021 Page Click Here
As soon as the GC University Lahore Intermediate Merit List 2021 is announced by the authorized admission department, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd list will be available here on this page. You can see for your name on the list and can enjoy studying at GC University Lahore in Intermediate programs of FSc(Pre-Medical and Pre-Engineering) FA, ICS, ICOM. Just stay tuned with us and get the complete merit list here.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Local Navy Personnel Help Irma Victims.
Did you know Mayport based Navy personnel deployed on ships to bring supplies and help residents devastated by Hurricane Irma? We gratefully thank them for their service and acknowledge their families who continually sacrifice so that their loved ones can help others and keep America safe.


text:
Radius Announces Positive Phase 3 Topline Results for TYMLOS® (abaloparatide) Subcutaneous Injection in Males with Osteoporosis
ATOM study met the primary endpoint of change in lumbar spine bone mineral density at 12 months (p-value < 0.0001)
Study also met secondary endpoints relating to bone mineral density changes in lumbar spine at 6 months as well as at hip and femoral neck at 12 months
Safety profile was consistent with results in previously reported trials with abaloparatide
Plan to submit supplemental new drug application (sNDA) in Q1, 2022
BOSTON, Oct. 18, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Radius Health, Inc. ("Radius" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RDUS), today announced positive topline results from the ATOM study evaluating abaloparatide 80mcg subcutaneous (SC) for use in males with osteoporosis.
The ATOM study met its primary endpoint – the percentage change in lumbar spine (LS) bone mineral density (BMD) compared to placebo – demonstrating statistical significance after 12 months (p-value < 0.0001). Study participants receiving abaloparatide-SC experienced an average increase in LS BMD of 8.5% compared to patients receiving the placebo experiencing an average increase of 1.2%.
The study also met secondary endpoints, which measured the percentage change compared to placebo for lumbar spine BMD at 6 months, total hip BMD at 12 months, and femoral neck BMD at 12 months.
The safety profile of abaloparatide in the ATOM study was consistent with results in previously reported trials.
Chhaya Shah, Senior Vice President, who leads the clinical and regulatory activities for abaloparatide, commented, "The team did a phenomenal job working through all of the complexities encountered as a result of the Covid-19 virus, in completing the study and delivering positive results." Shah added further, "We remain on track for an sNDA submission in the first quarter of 2022."
Bruce Mitlak MD, the Chief Medical Officer of Radius, added, "Osteoporosis in men is underdiagnosed and therefore, often undertreated. The study results are highly encouraging as they demonstrated a significant effect of abaloparatide in increasing lumbar spine BMD as well as the key secondary endpoint of hip BMD and are an important step towards making abaloparatide available for treating men with osteoporosis."
The Company will complete a full evaluation of the ATOM data and work with investigators to present detailed results at a future medical meeting.
About Radius
Radius is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on addressing unmet medical needs in the areas of bone health, orphan diseases, and oncology. Radius' lead product, TYMLOS® (abaloparatide) injection, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. The Radius clinical pipeline includes investigational abaloparatide injection for potential use in the treatment of men with osteoporosis; an investigational abaloparatide transdermal system for potential use in the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis; the investigational drug, elacestrant (RAD1901), for potential use in the treatment of hormone-receptor positive breast cancer out-licensed to Menarini Group; and the investigational drug RAD011, a synthetic cannabidiol oral solution with potential utilization in multiple endocrine and metabolic orphan diseases, initially targeting Prader-Willi syndrome.
About TYMLOS (abaloparatide) injection
TYMLOS (abaloparatide) injection was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture defined as history of osteoporotic fracture, multiple risk factors for fracture, or patients who have failed or are intolerant to other available osteoporosis therapy.
About ATOM Phase 3 Study
The ATOM Phase 3 study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess efficacy and safety of abaloparatide injection in 228 men with osteoporosis. The primary endpoint is change in lumbar spine BMD at 12 months compared with placebo, and it is expected to form the basis of a supplemental NDA seeking to expand the use of TYMLOS to treat men with osteoporosis at high risk for fracture. More information can be found on www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03512262.
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements contained in this press release that do not relate to matters of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including without limitation statements regarding the expected timing of our sNDA submission based on the ATOM Phase 3 study results.
These forward-looking statements are based on management's current expectations. These statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the following: the adverse impact the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is having and is expected to continue to have on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including our commercial operations and sales, clinical trials, preclinical studies, and employees; quarterly fluctuation in our financial results; our dependence on the success of TYMLOS, and our inability to ensure that TYMLOS will obtain regulatory approval outside the U.S. or be successfully commercialized in any market in which it is approved, including as a result of risk related to coverage, pricing and reimbursement; risks related to competitive products; risks related to our ability to successfully enter into collaboration, partnership, license or similar agreements; risks related to clinical trials, including our reliance on third parties to conduct key portions of our clinical trials and uncertainty that the results of those trials will support our product candidate claims; the risk that adverse side effects will be identified during the development of our product candidates or during commercialization, if approved; risks related to manufacturing, supply and distribution; and the risk of litigation or other challenges regarding our intellectual property rights. These and other important risks and uncertainties discussed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, including under the caption "Risk Factors" in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2020 and subsequent filings with the SEC, could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements made in this press release. Any such forward-looking statements represent management's estimates as of the date of this press release. While we may elect to update such forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we disclaim any obligation to do so, even if subsequent events cause our views to change. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing our views as of any date subsequent to the date of this press release.
Investor & Media Relations Contact:
Ethan Holdaway
Email: investor-relations@radiuspharm.com
Source: Radius Health Inc.


The criminal record check must have been completed within the last 5 years through the Ministry of Justice Criminal Records Review Program. Note: A criminal record check is considered complete once the result of the check has been issued to an organization... Criminal record check. 4 (1) When the registrar receives a criminal record check authorization and the prescribed fee, if any, the registrar must carry out a criminal record check on the individual who authorized the criminal record check.
Maintain records of all criminal record check results and all drivers abstract results. f. Provide records of compliance with the CRRA and this policy to CLBC on request.
As I moved forward with my investigation, it became clear that the BC government was conducting a significant number of criminal record checks on its employees.


text:
US 6th Cir./
ANDERSON v. THE INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA UPGWA UPGWA UPGWA UPGWA
ANDERSON v. THE INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA UPGWA UPGWA UPGWA UPGWA (2004)
United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.
Gary ANDERSON, Louis Scohy, and George Squier, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA (UPGWA), International Executive Board of the UPGWA, Pension Committee of the UPGWA, and Retirement Plan of the UPGWA, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 01-1253.
Decided: June 07, 2004
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges. E. Michael Morris (argued and briefed), Morris & Doherty, Birmingham, MI, Charles J. Porter (briefed), Office of Charles J. Porter, Clarkston, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Barbara M. Harvey (argued and briefed), Detroit, MI, for Defendants.
This appeal addresses the question of whether the doctrine of apparent authority bound a union to its officers' self-dealing transaction entered into in clear violation of the union's constitution. We hold that it did not.
Gary Anderson ("Anderson"), Louis Scohy ("Scohy"), and George Squier ("Squier"), Plaintiffs-Appellees, are all former officers of Defendant-Appellant, International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America ("UPGWA"). The other defendants in this action are the International Executive Board of the UPGWA ("IEB"), the Pension Committee of the UPGWA ("Pension Committee"), and the retirement plan of the UPGWA ("Retirement Plan"). While Plaintiffs-Appellees were officers of UPGWA and members of the IEB, they voted in favor of resolutions that would eliminate their positions as officers and provide them with early-retirement benefits above those permitted by UPGWA's constitution. After the IEB was threatened with litigation, it deferred implementation of the increased early-retirement benefits until presentation for a vote at the upcoming International Convention. Subsequently, none of the Plaintiffs-Appellees continued in their positions as officers, and the International Convention voted against a resolution providing for the increased early-retirement benefits.
Plaintiffs-Appellees brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, asserting that this denial of the promised early-retirement benefits violated several provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") of 1974. After the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants-Appellants on all of Plaintiffs-Appellees' claims, a panel of this court reversed and remanded, requesting the district court to make further factual findings on the issue of whether the Union President and the IEB had apparent authority to bind UPGWA to the December 7, 1994 resolution. On remand, the district court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, conducted a bench trial, and issued an opinion concluding that the Union President and the IEB did have apparent authority to so bind UPGWA, and accordingly awarded Plaintiffs-Appellees the increased early-retirement benefits.
We conclude that Plaintiffs-Appellees could not have reasonably relied on the Union President's or the IEB's representations because the increased early-retirement benefits clearly violated UPGWA's constitution. Moreover, we will not enforce this contract, which Plaintiffs-Appellees entered into in violation of their fiduciary duties under § 501(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA") of 1959. Therefore, we REVERSE the district court's judgment awarding Plaintiffs-Appellees the increased early-retirement benefits.
I. OVERVIEW
A. Factual Background
Plaintiffs-Appellees are former officers of UPGWA and former members of the IEB. UPGWA is a union that represents "Plant Guards, Security Officers, Security Police Officers, fire protection and other employees performing protection and security activities for private and governmental employers." Joint Appendix ("J.A.") at 307 (UPGWA Const. Art. II). UPGWA's officers are elected "at the union's convention which is held every five years." J.A. at 22 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/17/97).1 Anderson and Squier were elected regional directors for UPGWA in 1990, and their terms both expired in 1995. Scohy was a vice-president of UPGWA, who was also elected in 1990, and his term also expired in 1995.
In 1993 and 1994, while Plaintiffs-Appellees were in office, "the UPGWA experienced severe financial difficulties and the IEB began exploring ways to cut costs and save money. In November 1994, in order to stem the union's financial losses, UPGWA President Eugene McConville [ ("McConville") ] proposed that the union be restructured so as to eliminate some regional directorships as well as the position of vice-president." J.A. at 23 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/17/97). As part of this restructuring, McConville proposed offering early retirement to all full-time officers and directors who met certain eligibility requirements. McConville further proposed that the IEB effectuate the restructuring and offer the early-retirement benefits in February 1995, rather than wait for approval "at the international convention in May 1995, because the union's accountants had advised that there would be a large savings to the union if it could eliminate the full-time positions prior to the convention." J.A. at 23 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/17/97).
The IEB held a special meeting on December 6 through 9, 1994, to consider various cost-cutting measures, including McConville's restructuring and early-retirement proposal. At the special IEB meeting, David Kaufman ("Kaufman"), UPGWA's accountant, made a presentation detailing the state of UPGWA's finances and the cost savings projected for McConnville's restructuring and early-retirement proposal. Kaufman reported to the IEB that eliminating the vice-president's position would save UPGWA $535,000 over five years and that eliminating three regional directors would save UPGWA an additional $1.70 million over five years. The resolution proposed by McConville contemplated offering early retirement to officers and directors who met the following eligibility requirements:
1. Must be 50 years of age or over as of December 31, 1994.
2. Retirement must cause one full-time position to be eliminated.
3. Retirement must be taken on February 15, 1995.
4. Acceptance of this window must be made by December 8, 1994.
J.A. at 25 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/17/97). The resolution further specified that the early-retirement package would contain the following benefits:
1. An officer or director will receive ten (10) years allocated to age and/or service, at their discretion for pension benefit computation.
2. An officer or director shall be entitled to all benefits as stated in Article XI, Sections 1 and 2(e) of the Constitution and By-Laws of the International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America (UPGWA), dated May 19, 1990.
J.A. at 25 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/17/97).
The district court found that absent the December 7, 1994 resolution, none of the Plaintiffs-Appellees would have been eligible for early retirement under the Retirement Plan, and that UPGWA's constitution prohibited offering early retirement to Plaintiffs-Appellees. Article XI, Section 2 of UPGWA's constitution provides:
The International Executive Board is empowered to formulate, maintain, and amend a Pension Retirement Plan to include, but not to exceed the following:
(A) All full-time elected officers and appointed International Union representatives who have at least five years of service shall be eligible under such Plan.
(B) The normal retirement age shall be Sixty (60) years. Disability and early retirement benefits shall be in accordance with the normal retirement age.2
J.A. at 310 (UPGWA Const. Art. XI, § 2 (emphases added)). Under the Retirement Plan, "a covered employee is entitled to full retirement only if he is at least 60 years of age, or a reduced retirement benefit if he is under age 60 but over age 55 and has completed at least five years of service. No provision is made for retirement under age 55." 3 J.A. at 25-26 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/17/97). To be eligible for either normal or early-retirement benefits under the Retirement Plan, employees must have completed five years of service. As of February 15, 1994, neither Anderson nor Scohy was fifty-five years old and neither had completed at least five years of service; Squier was fifty-nine years old, but had not completed at least five years of service.
On December 7, 1994, before voting on the early-retirement proposal, Plaintiffs-Appellees asked Gordon Gregory ("Gregory"), UPGWA's attorney, whether he foresaw any legal problems with the early-retirement proposal. According to Anderson and Scohy, Gregory told them that he was not aware of any problems. However, two days earlier, on December 5, 1994, Gregory had written to McConville stating the opinion "that he believed that it was likely that there would be an administrative and/or judicial challenge to the early retirement window based upon a violation of Article XI, Section 2 of the Union Constitution and Section 501(a) of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act." J.A. at 26 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/17/97). Although it is not reflected in the district court's January 4, 2001 opinion, at trial all of the Plaintiffs-Appellees testified that Article XI, Section 2 of the UPGWA's Constitution was discussed at the IEB meeting prior to the vote on the early-retirement proposal.
On December 7, 1994, the IEB voted in favor of adopting the early-retirement proposal by a margin of eight in favor and three against; Plaintiffs-Appellees all voted in favor of the proposal.4 On December 8, 1994, Plaintiffs-Appellees all accepted in writing the increased early-retirement benefits. According to their acceptance letters, Anderson would receive a monthly pension of $1,682.95, Scohy would receive a monthly pension of $3,437.87, and Squier would receive a monthly pension of $2,478.82.
"On December 9, [1994], the IEB passed another resolution, this one consolidating, rearranging, and dissolving certain regions." J.A. at 30 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/17/97). The regions for which Squier and Anderson had been directors were "to be dissolved effective February 15, 1995, i.e., the date on which Plaintiffs retirements under the December 7 resolution were to become effective." J.A. at 30 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/17/97). The resolution did not eliminate the vice-president's position held by Scohy because that required amending UPGWA's constitution through a vote at the International Convention in May 1995.
On December 22, 1994, Jack Webb ("Webb"), a regional director, wrote a letter to McConville asserting that by voting in favor of the increased early-retirement benefits, members of the IEB violated Article XI, Section 2 of UPGWA's constitution and their fiduciary duties, and threatening to sue if the IEB did not withdraw the December 7, 1994 resolution. In an opinion letter written on January 4, 1995, Gregory confirmed the possibility of a viable legal challenge to the early-retirement benefits embodied in the December 7, 1994 resolution. On January 5, 1995, in response to Webb's threatened lawsuit, McConville circulated a referendum ballot to members of the IEB asking whether they wanted to delay implementation of the early-retirement benefits and restructuring until authorized through a vote at the International Convention. The IEB voted to defer implementation of the resolutions until the International Convention, and the Plaintiffs-Appellees continued in their offices until that time. At the International Convention, Squier "ran for re-election as regional director, but lost. Anderson did not seek re-election," and the membership voted to eliminate the vice-president's position held by Scohy. J.A. at 33 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/17/97). Additionally, the membership voted against adopting the increased early-retirement benefits.
B. Procedural Background
Plaintiffs-Appellees filed various lawsuits against UPGWA and other defendants, including two state-court actions and this federal action asserting ERISA violations. On January 17, 1997, the district court issued an opinion rejecting all of Plaintiffs-Appellees' ERISA claims and granting summary judgment to Defendants-Appellants. Then, on July 31, 1998, a panel of this court reversed and remanded, indicating that the relevant issue was whether McConville and the IBE had apparent authority to bind UPGWA to the December 7, 1994 resolution. Anderson v. Int'l Union, United Plant Guard Workers, 150 F.3d 590, 592 (6th Cir.1998).
In this court's 1998 opinion, the panel explained that "apparent authority (1) results from a manifestation by a person that another is his agent, regardless of whether an actual agency relationship has been formed and (2) exists only to the extent that it is reasonable for the third person dealing with the agent to believe that the agent is authorized." Id. at 593. Because the record on the issue of apparent authority was limited, the panel remanded this case instructing the district court "to make further factual findings on whether principles of apparent authority can bind the union to the December 7, 1994 resolution." Id. (emphasis added). More specifically, the panel instructed the district court to:
determine if union president McConville, as president of the union and a member of the [IEB], and the [IEB], were acting within their apparent or actual authority as representatives of the union's retirement plan and whether plaintiffs reasonably relied upon this authority to enter into the agreement for early retirement benefits. Whether plaintiffs' reliance was reasonable may turn, in part, on whether they were aware of the possible legal challenges to the December 7, 1994, resolution before they accepted the early retirement offer.
Id. (citations omitted). The panel further instructed that, "Apparent authority ․ may attach even when the agent's acts are unauthorized [and] that even in the presence of a ratification requirement, a third party may rely upon the apparent authority of the union representatives to enter into an agreement where there is a reasonable basis for such reliance." Id.
On August 31, 1999, the district court issued an opinion denying the parties' post-remand motions for summary judgment. The court concluded that Article XI, Section 1 of the UPGWA Retirement Plan, Article XII, Section 5 of the UPGWA constitution, and McConville's statements manifested apparent authority in McConville and the IEB to offer the early-retirement benefits encompassed in the December 7, 1994 resolution. The district court found it relevant that the Retirement Plan document provides: "The Union, acting through its International Executive Board, reserves and shall have the right at any time and from time to time to terminate, modify or amend in whole or in part any and all provisions in the Plan." J.A. at 74 (Dist.Ct.Op.8/31/99) (emphases in original). The district court also found it relevant that the UPGWA constitution "provides that the IEB 'shall decide all questions involving interpretation of this Constitution and By-Laws, between Conventions.' " J.A. at 75. Additionally, the district court found that prior to their accepting the early-retirement benefits, McConville assured Plaintiffs-Appellees that the early-retirement proposal had been checked by the attorneys and accountants and was legal, and that Gregory had assured Plaintiffs-Appellees that the early-retirement proposal was legal.
In its August 31, 1999 opinion, the district court also concluded, however, that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Plaintiffs-Appellees' reliance on these manifestations of apparent authority was reasonable. J.A. at 77 (Dist.Ct.Op.8/31/99). The district court noted that "whether Plaintiffs' reliance was reasonable turns on whether they were aware of the [UPGWA] constitution's requirement of a vote of the full membership on the early retirement proposal and whether they were aware of the possible legal challenges to the December 7, 1994 resolution before the [y] accepted the early retirement offer." J.A. at 77 (Dist.Ct.Op.8/31/99) (citing Anderson, 150 F.3d 590). The district court found that the parties had presented conflicting testimony regarding whether the Plaintiffs-Appellees were told prior to accepting the early-retirement proposal that there was the possibility of a legal challenge to the December 7, 1994 resolution, thereby creating a genuine issue of material fact and precluding summary judgment.
The district court conducted a six-day bench trial in December 1999. After hearing testimony and considering exhibits, the district court issued an opinion on January 4, 2001. In its opinion, the district court adhered to its previous conclusion that UPGWA manifested authority in the IEB and McConville to offer the early-retirement benefits. Based upon testimony heard at trial, the district court then concluded that Plaintiffs-Appellees' reliance on the IEB's and McConville's manifestations of authority was reasonable. Specifically, Ronald Warfield ("Warfield"), an IEB member and also a Pension Committee member, testified that the Retirement Plan could be amended via an IEB resolution. Additionally, all three Plaintiffs-Appellees testified that they relied upon Gregory's assurances "that there were no legal problems with the early retirement proposals." J.A. at 643 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/4/01). Although Gregory testified that he told Plaintiffs-Appellees that he had written on December 5, 1994, an opinion letter for McConville explaining the possibility of a § 501 challenge, the district court credited Plaintiffs-Appellees' testimony that Gregory had not told them about the letter. Moreover, all of the witnesses at trial, including Gregory and Webb, testified that in response to an inquiry by Webb, Gregory had stated that he was not aware of any legal problems with the early-retirement proposal under either Article XI, Section 2 of UPGWA's constitution or under § 501 of the LMRDA. Because Gregory had been UPGWA's legal counsel for more than thirty-five years, the district court found "that it was reasonable for Plaintiffs to rely upon Mr. Gregory's assurances that there were no legal problems with the early retirement plan." J.A. at 643-44 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/4/01). Moreover, the district court found that even if Plaintiffs-Appellees may have heard that Webb might challenge the early retirement proposals, it was reasonable for Plaintiffs-Appellees to rely upon Gregory's and McConville's assurances that there were no legal problems with the plan. Therefore, the court concluded that Plaintiffs-Appellees "reasonably relied upon the apparent authority of the IEB to adopt the Resolution on December 7, 1994 providing for an early retirement plan in accepting early retirement pursuant to that Resolution on December 8, 1994" and that UPGWA "is bound by the terms of the resolution passed December 7, 1994 modifying the UPGWA Retirement Plan to grant early retirement benefits to Plaintiffs." J.A. at 645 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/4/01).
All defendants timely appealed the district court's January 4, 2001 order.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
"In considering a district court's decision following a bench trial," we review for clear error the district court's findings of fact, and we review de novo the district court's conclusions of law. Overton Distribs., Inc. v. Heritage Bank, 340 F.3d 361, 366 (6th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). When deciding cases that turn upon the interpretation of a union's constitution, "Courts are reluctant to substitute their judgment for that of union officials in the interpretation of the union's constitution, and will interfere only where the official's interpretation is not fair or reasonable." United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union Local 911 v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 301 F.3d 468, 478 (6th Cir.2002) (quoting United Bhd. of Carpenters, Dresden Local No. 267 v. United Bhd. of Carpenters, S. Cent. Ohio Dist. Council, 992 F.2d 1418, 1423 (6th Cir.1993)).
B. Apparent Authority
When we remanded this case, we instructed the district court to make further findings on the issue of whether McConville or the IEB had apparent authority to bind UPGWA to the early-retirement benefits embodied in the December 7, 1994 resolution. Anderson, 150 F.3d at 592-93. After conducting a bench trial, the district court found that UPGWA manifested to Plaintiffs-Appellees that McConville and the IEB were its agents for the purposes of amending the Retirement Plan, and that Plaintiffs-Appellees' reliance upon those manifestations was reasonable; therefore, the district court concluded that McConville and the IEB had apparent authority to bind UPGWA to December 7, 1994 resolution. Although we commend the district court for its thorough and thoughtful opinion, we conclude that the district court committed clear error by finding that the Plaintiffs-Appellees' reliance on McConville's and the IEB's ostensible authority to bind UPGWA in this manner was reasonable.
An agent acting with apparent authority may bind his or her principal to a contract with a third party. Id. As we explained in Anderson, apparent authority arises in situations when the principal manifests to a third party that an agent is authorized to act upon the principal's behalf and the third party reasonably relies upon that authority. A third party may not, however, reasonably rely upon an agent's ostensible authority if the third party knows that the agent is not authorized to act in a particular manner. See Dayton Bread Co. v. Montana Flour Mills Co., 126 F.2d 257, 261 (6th Cir.1942). In Dayton Bread Co., we held that the third party did not reasonably rely upon the agent's authority to bind the principal because it is well established that a salesman "has no implied authority to bind his principal by an absolute sale or contract," and because the contracts at issue were prohibited under applicable law. Id. In Dayton Bread Co., we explained
The principal is often bound by the acts of his agent in excess of or in abuse of his actual authority, but this is only true between the principal and third persons who, believing and having a right to believe that the agent was acting within and not exceeding his authority, would sustain a loss if the act was not considered that of the principal․ If ․ a third person dealing with an agent knows he is acting under a circumscribed and limited authority and that his act is in excess of or an abuse of the authority actually conferred, then clearly the principal is not bound.
Id. (emphases added).5
In this case, Plaintiffs-Appellees had actual knowledge of the limitations on pension benefits imposed by Article XI, Section 2 of UPGWA's constitution and should have known the appropriate procedures for amending UPGWA's constitution.6 Although Plaintiffs-Appellees may have believed that McConville and the IEB had the authority to bind UPGWA to the December 7, 1994 resolution, we conclude that Plaintiffs-Appellees' actual knowledge and imputed knowledge made this reliance unreasonable. Therefore, we conclude that McConville and the IEB did not have apparent authority to offer the increased early-retirement benefits, and thus UPGWA is not bound by the December 7, 1994 resolution.7
C. Section 501 of the LMRDA
As an alternative basis for our holding, we conclude that Plaintiffs-Appellees may not enforce the increased early-retirement benefits because Plaintiffs-Appellees violated § 501(a) of the LMRDA. Section 501 of the LMRDA imposes fiduciary duties upon the officers and agents of labor unions and provides union members with a cause of action against union officers and agents who violate those duties. Section 501(a) 8 defines the scope of union officers' and agents' fiduciary duties, and § 501(b) specifies prerequisites to bringing suit to redress violations of § 501(a). We recognize that when defining the scope of fiduciary duties imposed by § 501(a), courts must be cognizant of "the special problems and functions of a labor organization." 29 U.S.C. § 501(a). We also recognize, however, that Congress passed § 501(a) to curb abusive practices by union officials. Morrissey v. Curran, 650 F.2d 1267, 1272-73 (2d Cir.1981). Although the precise contours of the fiduciary duties imposed by § 501(a) are not fully delineated in the statutory text, it is clear that Congress intended unions' constitutions and by-laws to play a major role in shaping these duties. See Guzman v. Bevona, 90 F.3d 641, 648 (2d Cir.1996). Section 501(a) directs union officers and agents to expend the union's money and property, "in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any resolutions of the governing bodies adopted thereunder." 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) (emphasis added). We have previously held that union officers and agents violate § 501(a) by engaging in transactions that provide a direct personal benefit to themselves and that contravene their union's constitution. McCabe v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 1377, 415 F.2d 92, 97-98 (6th Cir.1969) (holding that union officers violated § 501(a) by accepting reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred while conducting union business in addition to per diem payments that were not authorized by their union's constitution).9 Although § 501(a) imposes fiduciary duties beyond those outlined in a union's constitution and by-laws, it is not necessary for us to expound upon the boundaries of § 501(a) because in this case the early-retirement benefits Plaintiffs-Appellees seek to enforce violate UPGWA's constitution.
UPGWA's constitution empowers the IEB to create a pension plan for all full-time officers and appointed representatives. J.A. at 310 (UPGWA Const. Art. XI, § 2). UPGWA's constitution specifies, however, that only full-time officers and union representatives who have attained at least five years of service are eligible for pension benefits. Moreover, UPGWA's constitution specifies that qualifying individuals may receive normal retirement benefits at age sixty and that "early retirement benefits shall be in accordance with the normal retirement age." J.A. at 310 (emphasis added). It is clear that UPGWA's constitution allows for early-retirement benefits to be offered only on a reduced basis, and also requires pension recipients to have worked for UPGWA for at least five years; a contrary interpretation would be unreasonable and not entitled to deference. It is undisputed that as of December 7, 1994, Plaintiffs-Appellees were not entitled to any retirement benefits under the Retirement Plan and that the early-retirement benefits encompassed in the December 7, 1994 resolution exceeded the limits imposed by UPGWA's constitution. Plaintiffs-Appellees were to receive a direct personal benefit from the December 7, 1994 resolution, because at that time none of them were eligible for any retirement benefits. Additionally, the retirement benefits embodied in the December 7, 1994 resolution exceeded the limits imposed by UPGWA's constitution, and the IEB did not amend the constitution.10 Therefore, we conclude that Plaintiffs-Appellees violated their fiduciary duties under § 501(a).11 This conclusion does not end our analysis, however, because Defendants-Appellants did not bring a § 501 suit against Plaintiffs-Appellees.
The procedural posture of this case is unique, in that neither UPGWA nor its members brought a § 501 action against Plaintiffs-Appellees; rather Defendants-Appellants assert that § 501(a) provides a defense to Plaintiffs-Appellees' breach of contract action. No circuit has yet issued a published opinion expressly deciding whether § 501(a) can be asserted as a defense to a breach of contract action. But see Trs. of the Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' Local Union Officers & Employees Pension Fund v. Journeymen Plasterers' Protective & Benevolent Soc'y, Local Union No. 5, 794 F.2d 1217, 1220 (7th Cir.1986) [hereinafter Cement Masons] (questioning whether § 501(a) can be raised as a defense to a breach of contract action because a violation of § 501(a) does not render a contract intrinsically illegal). A basic principle of contract law supports our conclusion that § 501(a) can be asserted as a defense to this breach of contract action.
Federal courts may not enforce a contract if the result would be to compel a violation of the law. Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72, 77, 102 S.Ct. 851, 70 L.Ed.2d 833 (1982). As explained above, the early-retirement benefits resolution violated § 501(a) of the LMRDA. In Kaiser Steel, the Supreme Court refused to enforce a collective bargaining agreement provision that was illegal under federal labor and antitrust laws. Kaiser Steel, 455 U.S. at 85-87, 102 S.Ct. 851. It is true that the federal labor and antitrust laws at issue in Kaiser Steel made intrinsically illegal the collective bargaining provision under consideration, whereas § 501(a) does not make intrinsically illegal the early-retirement proposal; however, we do not think that this distinction warrants a different result in this case. See id; Cement Masons, 794 F.2d at 1220. A union or its members can ordinarily obtain an injunction prohibiting payments that were authorized by union officers in breach of their fiduciary duties or obtain reimbursement for such payments. 29 U.S.C. § 501(a); see also Guzman, 90 F.3d at 648; Council 49, Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Employees Union v. Reach, 843 F.2d 1343, 1347-49 (11th Cir.1988); Kerr v. Shanks, 466 F.2d 1271, 1276 (9th Cir.1972); McCabe, 415 F.2d at 98; Local No. 92, Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers v. Norris, 383 F.2d 735, 737-40 (5th Cir.1967).
In the case at bar, because the IEB deferred implementation of the increased early-retirement benefits and the International Convention ultimately voted against their implementation, an injunction against implementation of the benefits was not a possibility. Denying UPGWA and its members use of § 501(a) as a defense in this situation, where they were unable to use it offensively, makes little sense and would thwart the purposes of that provision.12 Moreover, "Refusing to enforce a promise that is illegal under the antitrust or labor laws is not providing an additional remedy contrary to the will of Congress․[A]ny one sued upon a contract may set up as a defen[s]e that it is a violation of the act of Congress, and if found to be so, that fact will constitute a good defen[s]e to the action." Kaiser Steel, 455 U.S. at 82 n. 7, 102 S.Ct. 851 (quotation omitted).
Plaintiffs-Appellees argue that UPGWA may not rely upon illegality as a defense to enforcement of the early-retirement benefits because either the IEB or the convention delegates could have eliminated the § 501 problem by amending UPGWA's constitution. We reject this argument. First, the IEB did not have the authority to amend UPGWA's constitution in this manner. Second, if UPGWA was required to amend its constitution when its officers exceeded their powers thereunder, the constitution would not serve its purpose of limiting the officers' powers. Third, we question whether a vote to amend UPGWA's constitution could cure after-the-fact this self-dealing violation of § 501(a). See Janice R. Bellace & Alan D. Berkowitz, THE LANDRUM-GRIFFIN ACT: Twenty Years of Federal Protection of Union Members' Rights 299 (1979).
Therefore, we hold that § 501(a) can properly be raised by a union or its members as a defense to a transaction entered into by union officials, which grants those officials a direct personal benefit in violation of the union's constitution. This holding is necessary to ensure that union officers or agents do not thwart the purposes of § 501(a) by binding unions to contracts with union officials that violate this provision.
D. Estoppel and Ratification
Our holding that the December 7, 1994 resolution constitutes an unenforceable contract should not be interpreted as foreclosing the possibility of estoppel in an appropriate case. This, however, is not an appropriate case.
The elements of estoppel are: (1) conduct or language amounting to a representation of fact; (2) the party to be estopped must be aware of the true facts; (3) the party to be estopped must intend that the representation be acted on such that the party asserting the estoppel has the right to believe it was so intended; (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be unaware of the true facts; and (5) the party asserting the estoppel must detrimentally and justifiably rely on the representation.
Brown-Graves Co. v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 206 F.3d 680, 684 (6th Cir.2000). Here, Plaintiffs-Appellees did not detrimentally or justifiably rely upon the December 7, 1994 resolution. In January 1995, the IEB voted to rescind the resolutions authorizing the increased early-retirement benefits, and Plaintiffs-Appellees all continued in their respective offices until the end of their terms in May 1995. Therefore, Plaintiffs-Appellees did not rely to their detriment on the increased early-retirement benefits. As discussed above, the IEB exceeded its authority under UPGWA's constitution in offering the early-retirement benefits, and Plaintiffs-Appellees had actual knowledge of the limitations imposed by Article XI, Section 2 of UPGWA's constitution. Therefore, Plaintiffs-Appellees' expectation that they would receive the increased early-retirement benefits was not justifiable. Moreover, Plaintiffs-Appellees cannot assert estoppel when the passage of the December 7, 1994 resolution constituted a breach of fiduciary duty under § 501(a) of the LMRDA. See Meyers v. Moody, 693 F.2d 1196, 1208 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 920, 104 S.Ct. 287, 78 L.Ed.2d 264 (1983) ("The doctrine of estoppel is for the protection of innocent persons, and only innocent persons may invoke it.").
Nor may Plaintiffs-Appellees obtain the early-retirement benefits embodied in the December 7, 1994 resolution on the theory of ratification. On appeal, Plaintiffs-Appellees strenuously assert that UPGWA ratified the early-retirement benefits by eliminating their positions and thereby retaining the cost savings associated with the early-retirement proposal. It is true, "Ratification occurs where the principal receives and retains the benefits of a transaction with full knowledge of all of material facts." Davis v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 6 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1193, 114 S.Ct. 1298, 127 L.Ed.2d 650 (1994). In this case, however, elimination of Plaintiffs-Appellees' positions was not dependent upon providing the increased early-retirement benefits. Although Plaintiffs-Appellees, as members of the IEB, may not have voted to eliminate their positions absent the generous early-retirement offer, the elimination of their offices could and did occur without their consent. UPGWA's constitution gave the IEB the authority to consolidate regions and eliminate directors' positions, which the IEB did through the January 24, 1995 resolution, and UPGWA's constitution gave the convention delegates the authority to eliminate the vice-president's position, which the delegates did at the International Convention in May 1995.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court's judgment awarding Plaintiffs-Appellees the requested increased early-retirement benefits. Additionally, Plaintiffs-Appellees' motions to dismiss and motion for costs are DENIED.
The plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the union to give up their jobs, salaries and expectations of future retirement benefits in return for yearly early retirement benefits of approximately $20,000 for Anderson, $30,000 for Squier and $40,000 for Scohy-less than half their salaries. There is no showing of bad faith. They responded to the union's offer made by its President, originating with its accountants and blessed as to legality by its counsel. The district court was correct to conclude that the Union, through its retirement plan, as well as the actions of its president and the advice of its counsel, manifested authority in the Board to offer the early retirement contracts to the plaintiffs. The Retirement Plan specifically provides that the Union "acting through its ․ Board" shall have the right to modify the plan. Moreover, the Union's constitution provides that the Board "shall decide all questions involving interpretation of the Constitution and By-Laws, between Conventions." Both the Union President and the Union's attorney, Gordon Gregory, assured the plaintiffs that there were no legal problems with the retirement plan.
The district court was also correct that the plaintiffs were reasonable in relying on such manifestations. Their beliefs that Board approval would bind the Union were reinforced by Board member Ronald Warfield, who at the time was a member of the pension committee; by Union President McConville, who presented the plan to them to begin with as a way to save the Union money and who assured them that the Board could bind the Union to such a plan; and by Gordon Gregory, who had been an attorney for the Union for 35 years, and whose opinion they sought and who repeatedly assured them that the Board action would be sufficient to make the plan binding. President McConville and Attorney Gregory even testified that they thought the plaintiffs were reasonable in believing that Board approval could make the plan binding. It is true that the plaintiffs were made aware that there might be some legal challenge to the retirement plan, but that alone is not sufficient to make their reliance unreasonable in light of all the assurances they received, especially when the plan was not even their idea, but rather was presented to them as a way for the Union to save money. Indeed, the plaintiffs were praised for sacrificing their own jobs in order to save the Union money.
The Union argues that the plaintiffs cannot claim reasonable reliance on Attorney Gregory's advice when Gregory advised them otherwise on January 4th, recommending that the Board rescind the vote. But Gregory's advice on January 4th is irrelevant to the question of whether a contract had been created on December 7th. By that point the plaintiffs had already relied on the apparent authority of the President and the Board and the advice of counsel. Had the plaintiffs been the ones who sought to get out of the December 7th agreement while the Union sought to enforce it, the plaintiffs would likely have been bound.
The Union believes that the early retirement agreement violates Section 501 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), which makes it a breach of duty for a Union official to expend Union money in violation of the Union constitution, and which provides a cause of action for individual Union members when the Union's constitution is so violated. 29 U.S.C.A. § 501 (2003). But Section 501 does not provide that a Union may itself persuade otherwise innocent Union officers to sign a contract and then use that provision as a defense to the contract that the Union has entered into. As the majority notes, there is no precedent for allowing a Union to use Section 501 in this manner.
Moreover, even if a Union's officers had breached a Section 501 duty by entering into such a contract, that does not void the contract as illegal. Neither the language of the statute nor the case-law contemplates rendering the union contract void. The majority seems to admit this point, but downplays its significance. A contract should not be rendered void at the behest of the party that induced its formation at the expense of actors who lack culpability or any wrongful intent. If the Union members claim a breach of duty by the plaintiffs, that claim should be pursued in an action for damages in tort or restitution under the statute. Voiding the contract and leaving the plaintiffs out in the cold is too drastic a remedy and has no relation to any damages Union members may have suffered.
Furthermore, as I explained above, I do not believe the plaintiffs breached a duty to the Union members in the first place. Again, there was no showing of bad faith on their part, and the retirement plan was not their idea, but rather was the idea of the Union accountant, and was presented to them by the Union president as a way of saving the Union money. We should not now allow the Union to avoid the contract it drafted and asked them to sign, especially by means of a statutory provision that only provides a cause of action for third-party Union members. Doing so turns Section 501 into a one-sided escape route for Unions that Congress never intended.
For the aforementioned reasons, I respectfully DISSENT.
1. We are relying upon the district court's January 17, 1997 summary judgment opinion for uncontested background facts, and upon the district court's January 4, 2001 bench trial opinion for further factual findings, except to the extent that we consider those factual findings to be clearly erroneous.
2. Article III of UPGWA's constitution specifies that the constitution "can be amended only by a majority vote of the delegates at succeeding Conventions; provided, however, that during the interim between Conventions, this Constitution and By-Laws can be amended by a majority vote of the total International Membership voting in all Local Unions." J.A. at 307. This article further provides that the IEB, by a two-thirds vote, is empowered "to make such interim changes in this Constitution and By-Laws applicable only until the next regular Constitutional Convention, as may from time to time be necessary to conform this Constitution and By-Laws with any applicable laws." J.A. at 307-08 (UPGWA Const. Art. III) (emphasis added).McConnville conceded at trial that the early-retirement benefits embodied in the December 7, 1994 resolution "were not 'in accordance with normal retirement age' under Article XI, Section 2(b)." J.A. at 616 (Dist.Ct.Op.1/4/01).
3. Article XI of UPGWA's Retirement Plan specifies that the IEB has "the right at any time and from time to time to terminate, modify or amend in whole or in part any or all of the provisions of the Plan." J.A. at 292. The IEB is designated as the "Plan Administrator" for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") of 1974, but a Pension Committee, composed of three members designated by the IEB, is responsible for daily administration and interpretation of the Retirement Plan. When the events giving rise to this litigation occurred, Scohy was the Chairman of the Pension Committee.
4. Jack Webb, Ronald Warfield, and Denise Sylvestre voted against the December 7, 1994 resolution.
5. Although Dayton Bread Co. v. Montana Flour Mills Co., 126 F.2d 257 (6th Cir.1942), is a diversity case applying Ohio law, we find its discussion of general agency principles instructive and consistent with other authorities. See Branding Iron Motel, Inc. v. Sandlian Equity, Inc. (In re Branding Iron Motel, Inc.), 798 F.2d 396, 401 (10th Cir.1986); Pasco County Peach Ass'n v. J.F. Solley & Co., 146 F.2d 880, 883 (4th Cir.1945); Harold Gill Reuschlein & William A. Gregory, The Law of Agency and Partnership 63-64 (2d ed.1990).
6. Plaintiffs-Appellees' actual and imputed knowledge sufficiently distinguishes the present case from Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Kraftco, Inc., 799 F.2d 1098 (6th Cir.1986) (en banc), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1086, 107 S.Ct. 1291, 94 L.Ed.2d 147 (1987), in which we held that a union's agent could bind the union based upon the doctrine of apparent authority even in the presence of a membership-ratification requirement.
7. Although throughout much of this litigation the parties have focused on ERISA, we note that our outcome today does not disrupt the terms of an ERISA plan. Plaintiffs-Appellees may not claim benefits under the terms of the Retirement Plan because the plan was never validly amended. Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 403 (6th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 923, 118 S.Ct. 2312, 141 L.Ed.2d 170 (1998). As will be discussed below, Plaintiffs-Appellees have not established all of the elements of estoppel. Moreover, even if Plaintiffs-Appellee established all of the elements of estoppel, we are reluctant "to allow estoppel to override the clear terms" of an ERISA plan. Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 456 (6th Cir.2003).
8. Subsection (a) provides, in pertinent part:The officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group. It is, therefore, the duty of each such person, taking into account the special problems and functions of a labor organization, to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members and to manage, invest, and expend the same in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any resolutions of the governing bodies adopted thereunder, to refrain from dealing with such organization as an adverse party or in behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with his duties and from holding or acquiring any pecuniary or personal interest which conflicts with the interests of such organization, and to account to the organization for any profit received by him in whatever capacity in connection with transactions conducted by him or under his direction on behalf of the organization.29 U.S.C. § 501(a).
9. Our position is consistent with other circuits that have addressed this issue. See, e.g., Guzman v. Bevona, 90 F.3d 641, 647-48 (2d Cir.1996) (holding that union officers violated § 501(a) by expending union funds on surveillance of union member, who criticized the union's leadership, in violation of the union's constitution); Brink v. DaLesio, 667 F.2d 420 (4th Cir.1981); Stelling v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union No. 1547, 587 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 944, 99 S.Ct. 2890, 61 L.Ed.2d 315 (1979); Sabolsky v. Budzanoski, 457 F.2d 1245 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 853, 93 S.Ct. 65, 34 L.Ed.2d 96 (1972).
10. Moreover, the IEB could not have amended UPGWA's constitution in this manner, as the IEB is only authorized to amend temporarily the constitution to conform the constitution to changes in the law. J.A. at 307-08 (UPGWA Const. Art. III).
11. Because the December 7, 1994 resolution was not validly authorized by the International Convention, see supra Part II.B., the more deferential "manifestly unreasonable" standard that the Second Circuit first enunciated in Morrissey v. Curran, 650 F.2d 1267, 1274 (2d Cir.1981), is inapplicable. In Morrissey, the Second Circuit held that authorization is not a complete defense to self-dealing transactions entered into by union officers and agents, but that if such transactions are validly authorized, then courts should not interfere unless the transaction "is so manifestly unreasonable as to evidence a breach of fiduciary obligation imposed by § 501(a)." Id.
12. Because § 501(a) is being raised as a defense, neither Michigan's statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims nor the doctrine of laches prevents Defendants-Appellants from relying upon this provision. Likewise, the procedural requirements contained in § 501(b) are not applicable.
MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GILMAN, J., joined. MERRITT, J. (pp. 556-57), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.


text:
Sep 9, 2019 in Recruiting
The Illegal Interview Questions 25% of Women Say They Are Asked
Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza
Content Strategist, InHerSight
Are you are a writer or reporter who would like access to the latest data and research from InHerSight? Get in touch ›
It's illegal to ask many questions related to race, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, marital status, and parental status in a job interview, the answers to which can be used to discriminate against candidates in the hiring process.
Of course, questions that reveal personal details about a candidate are not necessarily asked with nefarious intentions—sometimes these are asked to simply make conversation or connect with an interviewee.
Nevertheless, personal details not related to the position can influence a hiring decision, even if the questions weren't asked with bad intentions, even if the answers weren't intentionally used as a reason not to hire someone.
Because women are disproportionately discriminated against based on parental status, we wanted to understand how many women encounter questions that may be well-intentioned, but can lead to discrimination. The good news is, the majority of women say they haven't been asked these questions, which is encouraging. Still, about a quarter of women say they have been asked about their parental or marital status.
Twenty-five percent of women say they have been asked in an interview whether they have children.
A smaller percentage, just 14 percent, say they have been asked if they plan to have children.
Questions about marital status, especially for women of traditional childbearing age, may be asked to infer whether a woman has children or is planning on having them in the near future.
Twenty-eight percent say they've been asked about their marital status, while only 12 percent say they've been asked about their future plans for marriage.
Survey of 2,500 women conducted in August 2019.
InHerSight is a company ratings platform for women with ratings and reviews of more than 120K companies in the United States.
Recruiting Job Search
Want to add to our dataset?
Rate and review a company and take our latest poll.
Women Complain About the Office Temperature, But No One Does Anything About It
Sep 2, 2019 by Emily McCrary-Ruiz-Esparza
Jul 18, 2017 in Recruiting
Size Matters: What Larger Companies Get Right for Women
We dug into our ratings data to uncover the areas big companies excel when it comes to supporting the women who work for them
The Truth Is in the Data: The Top 5 Ways to Recruit More Women
Before you update your career website or write your next job description, find out what women really value most from their employers.
Oct 16, 2017 in Recruiting
Dealbreaker: 52% of Women Say They Won't Work for Companies Without Birth Control Coverage
The recent policy roll-back could have serious implications for women and employers.
Artist: Anna Grimal
Enjoy Free Access to All Our Great Articles
Create a free account to get unlimited access to our articles and to join millions of women growing with the InHerSight community.
Looks like you already have an account! Click here to login ›
Invalid email. Please try again!
Sign up with social media or...
Log in ›
By signing up, you agree to InHerSight's Terms and Privacy Policy.
You now have access to all of our awesome content.


It's a Thursday! And you know what that means: time for Throwback and reminisce on the past. For today, let's look back at the hottest wholesale shoe trends that marked the past decade.
High-heels never go out of style but platform and wedges, in particular, rocked the last decade. With their bold colors and even bolder designs, wholesale shoe catalogs are never complete without these two.
They're fun, they're comfortable, they're colorful and they're everywhere. Ballet flats are so fun that expect them to last through the next fashion season.
The higher they go, the better. Boots are another staple of wholesale shoes, and they just get better and better with each passing fashion season. Once upon a time, boots were synonymous with just plain black leather. Today, boots come in all sorts of colors, prints and designs. The funkier, the better.
This fashion tribute to ancient Roman warriors capped the last fashion season and they're not showing any signs of slowing down. If you're planning on stocking up on wholesale shoes, make sure this fresh take on sandal flats are on your list.
Fashion trends come and go but some just won't fade easily. That is why it's important for you to know what wholesale shoes you should splurge on. With online wholesale shoes manufacturers like Ceriwholesale, keeping up-to-date with the latest shoe trend is simply one click away.


In addition to precious metal patio and garden furniture, hardwood patio furniture is likewise the appropriate household furniture pattern to be seen your terrace. Since the hardwood furniture is smartly designed together with measurement, contour, and design in the looks extremely cozy. Timber patio pieces of furniture create a cozy seat decor. You can even choose many timber home furniture style and design that fits your will. You are able to choose large or small wood furnishings. Getting hardwood home furniture in which is placed together with desk can also be a strategy to enhance a person's simple house backyard. You can view additional pictures to achieve the actual layout creativity that suits your house garden.
Metal lawn furniture has a lot of designs that happen to be suitable as patio furniture including custom made shade sails with sunbrella near waterproof fabric regarding shade sail pergola with canopy that has a trendy and also colouring choice seems good for the latest and also environment such as your backyard. Selecting a pattern proper steel furniture is a quick way to help your home look very much good. With a gorgeous back garden view and complete home furniture, you may finish a few hours and longer to spend moment enjoying the natural ambiance at home backyard.
You can enjoy your current amount of time in the garden with shade sail pergola with canopy. It really is home furniture manufactured from good materials to get open-air furniture. A lot of people knows it expertly. So, additionally they highly recommend household furniture made of metal that you should combine with the shade sail pergola with canopy as garden furniture at home garden. Steel is actually a deep and sturdy material to get outside use. The item of furniture can certainly hold up against water, soaked, cold or hot circumstances.
The backyard is a beautiful place for house. When you have a yard with possibly a small or large size, the backyard can have a wonderful influence to embellish the appearance of the home. You can see the green colors on your house page, you will see the fresh landscape, obtain oxygen and lovely surroundings whilst relaxing in your house. Often, persons require time for you to flake out or enjoy the new environment, and home garden could be the correct place. House garden furniture Made of great material including shade sail pergola with canopy, is really one of the choices you can choose to make your backyard more magnificent.
In combination with shade sail pergola with canopy, amongst the piece of furniture for just a long-lasting yard, stainless steel furnishings are household furniture crafted from resources which can be better than other materials such as cement or wood. Precious metal furniture in addition appears to be like beautiful to be seen your garden as it is made in quite a few kinds. You could possibly want to consider uk-style garden furniture design. This type of fixtures looks beautiful, loaded, and the right shade selection for garden furniture design.


text:
New Car Review:2004 Acura 3.2 TL
DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD WITH CAREY RUSS Review 2004 Acura 3.2 TL
Technology, performance, and refinement are Acura hallmarks, and are all finely exemplified by the third-generation 3.2TL, all-new for 2004. It builds on the strengths of the previous TL, introduced in 1999, to give it a higher standard of luxury appointment and even better performance.
The 2004 3.2 TL has been almost completely redesigned. It's shorter and wider, yet has more interior space. The engine, although of the same displacement as that found in last year's model, is nearly all new, and boasts significantly more power with reduced emissions levels. Equivalent to last year's ``Type S'' trim level, the new TL is both sportier and more luxuriously-equipped than any previous version, and is meant to compete in a very tough market - the midsized sport-luxury sedan class, home of some of the best cars from Europe, Japan, and the United States.
As is typical for Acura's, the new 3.2 TL comes fully-equipped. A DVD-based navigation system is the only major option. Two slightly-different versions are offered, one with a five-speed automatic transmission with Acura's ``Sequential SportShift'' manual shift mode and the other with a six-speed manual transmission. As befits its specification, the six-speed model is a touch sportier, with Brembo(tm) brakes standard equipment. Both versions have plenty of state-of-the-art technology, including a CD system that can play DVD audio discs and available Bluetooth-enabled connectivity and XM satellite radio.
I've just finished a week with a six-speed TL. It's an impressive car with an amazing amount of efficient power. It fits perfectly in the lineup between the smaller, more sport-oriented TSX and larger, softer RL. The TL has been the most popular Acura for a while now, and with the new version, Acura has made a good car even better.
APPEARANCE: The TL's looks say ``muscular, yet refined,'' just as Acura intended. Much sleeker and more coupe-like than its predecessor, the 2004 TL was designed from the wheels up, and that shows. It's slightly shorter and wider. The 17-inch wheels, shod with ultra-low profile tires, are placed near the corners of the car and fill the wheel arches. The fender flares are just bold enough to get the performance message across without being overbearing. The TL's slightly greater width and more aggressive front styling featuring a satin-chrome version of the five-point Acura grille and wide, low high-intensity discharge headlights give it more presence than the `99 to `03 version. And, despite the relatively short hood and long passenger cabin, a pronounced wedge shape in side view and very sloped windshield and rear window give it a coupe-like appearance. An interesting large concave character line gives interest to the sides. The high, short rear deck adds to both a sporty look and luggage space.
COMFORT: A contemporary sport-luxury design motif with curved lines and a two-tone color scheme separated by metallic trim makes the 2004 TL's interior look spacious. This is no optical illusion, as it is a touch larger in almost all dimensions, with over two inches greater shoulder room. The power-adjustable front seats have the comfort expected in a luxury car, with the support required in a sports sedan. Good placement of the short-throw gearshift lever and a tilt and telescope-adjustable steering wheel allow drivers of all sizes to find the perfect driving position. LED-backlit instruments are easy to read in all lighting conditions. The navigation system is accessed through a liquid crystal screen in the center stack, and can be trained to respond to voice commands. Audio and dual-zone climate controls are thankfully separate from the nav system. Details make the difference, and good attention to detail is found in the TL. The front door pockets are hinged for improved access and capacity, and a power point is found in the two-layer console box. Rear passengers have plenty of space, and while the trunk is slightly smaller than that of the older TL, it's still large. A pass-through in the rear seat allows carrying of long packages like skis. The TL's audio system is the first available in North America to play six-channel DVD-Audio as well as regular CDs. XM satellite radio is also available.
SAFETY: Designed to achieve the highest ratings in government and industry tests, the 2004 Acura 3.2 TL surrounds occupants with a strong safety cage and further protects them with front and rear crumple zones, front, side, and side curtain airbags, and powerful antilock disc brakes with brake assist and a standard stability assistance system.
ROADABILITY: The recipe for success in contemporary chassis design? Take a rigid unibody structure, add correctly-calibrated fully-independent suspension, wide low-profile tires, and powerful disc brakes. Acura has followed this in building the 2004 TL. It emphasizes luxury more than the smaller TSX, and so its suspension is calibrated more softly. With the automatic, it should be near-perfect as a luxury sport-tourer. Manual gearbox-equipped TLs are a bit more aggressively-equipped, with a standard limited-slip differential for improved traction and larger front brake discs with four-piston Brembo(tm) calipers replacing the stock single-piston calipers. When driven assertively, a firmer suspension tuning would be preferable to tame the engine's copious power. For the rabidly rapid, performance-minded TL driver, Acura has just announced the ``A-SPEC'' performance package, which includes track-tuned shocks and springs, 18-inch alloy wheels and 235/40 VR18 tires, and a variety of exterior and interior cosmetic enhancements. That on a manual TL ought to be way too much fun.
PERFORMANCE: Acura is determined to win any horsepower race in the luxury sports sedan class. The old TL was competitive, with 225 horsepower, and the Type S even more so with 260. A redesigned engine, based on that of the previous Type S, improves that with 270 horsepower at 6200 rpm, and 238 lb-ft of torque at 5000 rpm. It beats almost any possible competitor in output while producing even lower levels of exhaust emissions. VTEC variable valve timing and lift, a higher compression ratio, and redesigned high-flow intake and exhaust systems get the credit, and an electronic drive-by-wire throttle control system allows smooth power delivery and better integration with the antilock braking and stability control systems. Power is very good right off the line, and there is a healthy amount of mid-range torque. Then, thanks to VTEC, an afterburner-like top-end rush kicks in. There is plenty of smooth power at any engine speed above idle, but shifting is fun with the six-speed manual, thanks to excellent linkage and well-chosen ratios. Because of the abundant torque, the five-speed automatic with ``Sequential SportShift'' manual mode shouldn't decrease performance significantly, and, with the standard suspension, may be a better choice because of its more relaxed nature.
CONCLUSIONS: With many changes for both luxury and performance, Acura's best-selling sedan should become even more popular.
2004 Acura 3.2 TL
Base Price $ 34,650 with nav system
Engine Type 24 valve aluminum alloy dual overhead cam V6 with VTEC variable valve timing
Horsepower 270 @ 6,200 rpm
Torque (lb-ft) 238 @ 5,000 rpm
Fuel Capacity 17 gal.
Fuel Requirement 91 octane premium unleaded gasoline
Tires 235/45 WR17 Bridgestone Potenza RE030
Brakes, front/rear vented disc / solid disc, antilock standard
Suspension, front/rear independent double wishbone with coil springs / independent multilink double wishbone with coil springs
Drivetrain front engine, front-wheel drive
EPA Fuel Economy - miles per gallon city / highway / observed 19 / 28 /23
High-performance tires $ 200
Destination charge $ 545
2004	Acura	TL	Sedan w/ 5-Spd AT
2004	Acura	TL	Sedan w/ 6-Spd MT
2004	Acura	TL	Sedan w/ 5-Spd AT and Navigation System
2004	Acura	TL	Sedan w/ 6-Spd MT and Navigation System


Business executives, leisure travelers and college students all converge on Santa Clara, a town booming with museums and sporting events, sure to keep everyone busy!
Thrive in our modern and high tech hotel close to Levi's Stadium and Santa Clara Convention Center.
A stylish brand new hotel in the heart of Silicon Valley close to Levi's Stadium.
Whether you're traveling for business or pleasure, Santa Clara attractions promise to entertain on your trip.


For over 40 years, our local and professionally trained staff has helped physicians and medical providers save time and money. As a full service billing company we handle every aspect of medical billing from processing payments to resolving claim problems with insurance providers. Multi-Medical Specialties Billing is one of the oldest full service Medical Billing Companies in Jacksonville Florida and has been doing medical billing in Jacksonville Florida beginning October 1, 1977.


Tough day into the wind. Great to meet Peter and Jane going the other way. Through Chepstow to Lydney for lunch. Never spent so much time riding on the hooks.
At Severn Bridge Services having coffee with friends Peter & Jane who are riding the downhill version, JOGLE.
Tough distance today but at least the terrain was pretty flat after about Wellington.
Excellent Italian meal this evening - none of that "east of Venice" food that I can't be doing with.
Longer day than we thought. Crossed over into Somerset. Lots if trainspotting opportunities. Bike much better with new brake blocks. Run to Bromyard tomorrow across the old Severn Bridge. Thanks to all our sponsors, money arriving daily for our charity. Lady in restaurant gave back our tip!
Much easier today. Fantastic bacon nap from Sue at Buildbase in Wellington. Change of brake blocks from Ralph Coleman's in Taunton - nice people. Altercation with a car that turned in front of me; I banged on his roof though so that's 15 all.
Meeting my daughter in Clevedon tonight.
Good news the yellow sock lost by Rob has been found in the landlady's daughter's bedroom!
Day 2 was the toughest day of cycling I've ever had over 5600 feet of climbing. Eat and slept well though.
What a day of climbs!! - but not too many showers ....and 3 visits from the tyre fairy :-(( Got to eat more tomorrow to keep the strength up.
Update on laundry at Tregolls - one sock disappeared overnight, makes cycling with just one leg a challenge.


text:
All You Need To Know About Scotland v Australia
25 November 2017 David Barnes International, News, Scotland Comments Off on All You Need To Know About Scotland v Australia
Image: Fotosport/David Gibson
SCOTLAND v AUSTRALIA, MURRAYFIELD, SATURDAY 25 NOVEMBER.
Kick-off 2.30pm. Live on BBC 1 and BT Sport 2.
Scotland: Stuart Hogg; Tommy Seymour, Huw Jones, Peter Horne, Sean Maitland; Finn Russell, Ali Price; Darryl Marfo, Stuart McInally, Simon Berghan, Grant Gilchrist, Jonny Gray, John Barclay©, Hamish Watson, Ryan Wilson. Substitutes: Fraser Brown, Jamie Bhatti, Zander Fagerson, Ben Toolis, Cornell Du Preez, Henry Pyrgos, Phil Burleigh, Byron McGuigan.
Australia: Kurtley Beale, Marika Koroibete, Tevita Kuridrani, Samu Kerevi, Reece Hodge; Bernard Foley, Will Genia; Scott Sio, Stephen Moore, Sekope Kepu, Rob Simmons, Blake Enever, Ben McCalman, Michael Hooper©, Sean McMahon. Subs: Tatafu Polota-Nau, Tetera Faulkner, Taniela Tupou, Lukhan Tui, Lopeti Timani, Nick Phipps, Karmichael Hunt, Henry Speight.
Referee: Pascal Gaüzère (France)
RECENT history suggests that this is going to be a very tight match between two sides which have faced each other six times in the last decade and shared the wins right down the middle with three each. A maximum of six points has separated the teams on each occasion, and the aggregate score over that series of matches is just 113:112 in favour of the Scots.
Both teams have faced the All Blacks during the last five weeks and managed to pick holes in their aura of invincibility, although the Australians did manage to clinch a 23-18 win in Brisbane on 21st October while the Scots went tantalising close last weekend but couldn't quite get over the line – so that, perhaps, indicates that the men in gold and green have an edge.
The Scots do have home advantage but that isn't necessarily a key factor given that in those last six matches, three were played at Murrayfield and the Scots only managed to win the first back in 2009, while losing in 2013 and 2016.
Scots won the two matches they have played in Australia [6-9 in 2012 and 19-24 last summer] but lost the only one that really mattered at the 2015 World Cup, when Bernard Foley slotted an injury time penalty to clinch a spot in the semi-final of the most important rugby tournament on earth.
Australia have had a tough week, losing 30-6 in horrible conditions and amid controversial circumstances on Saturday, having their head coach Michael Cheika investigated for his comments and conduct during that encounter and then being prevented from using their allocated training pitch on Tuesday because of heavy rainfall.
Cheika was finally let off with a stern warning on Thursday night, but decided to stay away from yesterday's press conference. It was probably a wise move because after a week of unnecessary fuss off the park it is time for both these team to focus on the real task in hand.
WHAT THEY SAID –
Scotland defence coach Matt Taylor on how this challenge compares with last week's clash against the All Blacks.
"It's arguably the best back-line in the world from an attacking point of view. We've played each other a number of times and they've all been very close games, so we've really prepared well this week. We're really disappointed with the result against New Zealand, but we know how challenging this game against Australia will be – so we'll do our best with regards to getting up and shutting them down."
"I think both weeks are really hard. We're playing the best team in the world, and then the third best team in the world. You play any of the top ten teams and it's going to be a massive challenge. Australia are very good with their set-piece plays and they beat you with their one-on-one skill very well. There will be plays that we haven't seen before that they'll pull out and I guess it means us understanding and being on the same page – making sure that we're setting up correctly and we're tackling very well as well. They've got some really big guys."
Australia captain Michael Hooper on former captain Stephen Moore, who will be playing his 129th and last Test match for the Wallabies.
"He's held in such high regard by all of us and I can speak for the whole squad and players back at home who have played for him. It will be great for us to come out of this weekend with that improvement we've talked about and show how far we've come. He's been instrumental as a mentor when he was captain and to leave that mark and the legacy he's had is fantastic."
Scotland captain John Barclay on the last two games against the Australians [a narrow loss at Murrayfield just over twelve months ago and a narrow victory in Sydney during the summer]:
"The game in the summer was awesome to play in, a really energetic, fast, physical game. It was very similar to the game in the autumn, almost as if it had just been four halves – we'd gone on and just started again really. I don't know why, we just seem to create these types of games at the moment."
Wallaby defence coach Nathan Grey on Australian inconsistency:
"Since the last World Cup, I think 24 players have made their debuts, so things have changed a lot over a short period of time. We have another tomorrow in Taniela Tupou. So, we've had mixed results, but when the team is on fire and delivering we are confident in how we can play. It's a matter of getting players exposed and seeing how they perform at this level."
THREE KEY CLASHES
Michael Hooper versus John Barclay
One is on the open-side and the other is on the blindside so they are not direct opponents, but the influence of the two captains on their respective teams is very similar. Leaders in both word and deed, they are ferocious competitors on the deck, although Hooper will be wary that his recent record of yellow cards against both Wales and England this Autumn (making him the game's most sin-binned international player with eight) means that he is going to be under extra scrutiny this week.
With Hamish Watson on the other flank, Barclay has a more than willing accomplice in the battle of the breakdown, so Hooper is going to have to be right on the money in order to ensure that the Scots don't have it all their own way.
Peter Horne v Samu Kerevi
Alex Dunbar is the type of player you only realise the importance of when he is not there. He was crucial to Scotland's phenomenal defensive performance against the All Blacks last week, with his speed leading the line-up and power in the tackle setting the tone. Not only that, but he is superb over the ball in the tackle situation, which provides the Scots with either valuable nanoseconds to reorganise their defence or, better still, secures turnover ball from which the likes of Ali Price, Russell and Hogg are so dangerous. But he is concussed this week so Horne takes over the twelve jersey.
The new face in the Scotland starting fifteen is no slouch in defence, but he is not as big and not as aggressive as Dunbar. He provides real value as another ball player in the middle of the park capable of loading the bullets for the team's dangerous strike runners to do the damage, but he is surrendering 12kgs (almost two stone) to Kerevi, who is one of here Fijian-born players in the Australian three-quarter line.
If Horne gets his alignment wrong like he did in the lead-up to Beauden Barrett's try last weekend, or he is a bit slow to the mark like he was in the lead-up to Damian Mackenzie's try, then the Scots could pay a heavy price once again.
Stuart Hogg v Kurtley Beale
If anyone was not entirely convinced before Saturday that Hogg is a player of genuine world class quality then his heroic performance against New Zealand will have left them in absolutely no doubt. He was deployed regularly at second receiver as Scotland aimed to make maximum possible use out of his line-breaking ability. Beale has been used in a similar way by Australia. It will be fascinating to see if the pair cancel each other out, or whether they will spur each other on to ever greater deeds of derring-do.
SCOTLAND'S RECORD AGAINST AUSTRALIA
Played 31 Won 10 Drawn 0 Lost 21
19 December 1981: Scotland 24 Australia 15
Biggest defeat
13 June 1998: Australia 45 Scotland 3
Six most recent matches
21 November 2009: Scotland 9 Australia 8
5 June 2012: Australia 9 Scotland 6
23 November 2013: Scotland 15 Australia 21
18 October 2015: Scotland 34 Australia 35
17 June 2017: Australia 19 Scotland 24
LAST TIME OUT
Having lost the last two matches in the most frustrating and painful of circumstances, Scotland got some sort of revenge with a famous 19-24 victory over the Wallabies on their own patch, secured on the back of heroic defence, deadly finishing and Finn Russell at his irrepressible best.
Scotland grabbed three tries through Duncan Taylor off an interception, Russell off a charge-down and Hamish Watson after a sweeping attack. But they couldn't sustain that high and with Russell seconded off to New Zealand as part of the 'Geography Six' on Warren Gatland's Lions tour, the team slumped to a dispiriting 27-22 loss to Fiji a week later.
Half-backs Russell and Ali Price are the only survivors in the Scottish backline from that famous result; while in the pack, second-row Jonny Gray and the entire back-row of John Barclay, Hamish Watson and Ryan Wilson have survived. Henry Pyrgos benches it again.
Of the starting Australian team in that match, centre Tevita Kuridrani, stand-off Bernard Foley, scrum-half Will Genia and flanker Michael Hooper all retain their starting slot. The back-up front row in June of Scott Sio, Stephen Moore and Sekope Kepu have all been elevated to the starting fifteen this time, with hooker Tatafu Polota-Nau going the other direction. Winger Reece Hodge was on the bench at the start of that last game but is in the run-on fifteen today.


Governor Mark Dayton has proclaimed Tuesday, March 20, 2018 as Minnesota Initiative Foundations' Early Childhood Day. The proclamation honors 15 years of collaboration between West Central Initiative and the five other Minnesota Initiative Foundations (MIFs), along with community members and funding partners, to provide young children in Greater Minnesota with the best possible start toward a life of learning, achieving and succeeding.
The Minnesota Initiative Foundations formed the Minnesota Early Childhood Initiative (ECI) in 2003. Thanks to a generous grant from McKnight Foundation, the MIFs helped establish 90 community and county coalitions throughout Greater Minnesota, including 10 by WCI in west central Minnesota: Becker, Clay, Douglas, Grant, Otter Tail, Pope, Stevens, Traverse, Wilkin and the White Earth Nation. Together, the MIFs and the ECI coalitions work to ensure that every young child has the best possible start toward a healthy life of learning, achieving and succeeding.


text:
Supreme Court reverses conviction in Facebook threat case
By Mario Trujillo - 06/01/15 11:01 AM EDT
The Supreme Court on Monday reversed the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who was sentenced to nearly four years in prison for making violent threats on Facebook.
The court found members of the jury who convicted the man were given incorrect instructions when they were told they did not have to take his mental state into consideration.
Justices ruled 7-2 to reverse the decision and hand the case against Anthony Elonis back to the lower courts.
"The jury was instructed that the Government need prove only that a reasonable person would regard Elonis's communications as threats, and that was error," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion.
The Supreme Court noted the mental state requirement would be satisfied if prosecutors could prove Elonis made the Facebook posts for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that they would be viewed as threats.
But simply proving that a reasonable third-party would interpret the posts as a threat was not enough, the justices ruled. The Supreme Court avoided determining whether proving recklessness was enough to convict him.
The Supreme Court focused its opinion on the law used to convict Elonis, avoiding a broader ruling on the First Amendment.
Anthony Elonis was convicted in 2011 for making multiple violent threats on Facebook against his estranged wife, a kindergarten class and an FBI agent who subsequently investigated those posts.
He was convicted under a law that makes it illegal to make violent threats through interstate commerce, which includes a social media post over the Internet.
The question posed was whether prosecutors were required to prove Elonis actually intended to threaten with his Facebook posts. The federal government and lower courts had argued they only have to prove that a reasonable person who read the post would interpret them as threatening.
Elonis had argued he did not intend to follow through on the threats and described them as rap lyrics. Some of his posts referenced the First Amendment and contained comparisons to famous rap lyrics or a comedy routine.
First Amendment protections are not absolute and there are some exceptions, like making true threats. One of the questions presented to the Supreme Court was whether the First Amendment allowed a true threat conviction by only requiring the government to prove that a reasonable person would interpret the speech as threatening.
The Supreme Court avoided ruling on that issue by finding that criminal law in general, including the one used to convict Elonis, already requires a higher burden.
Tags Supreme Court Facebook violent threats


Take a look at our special deals and treat yourself to a fantastic last-minute holiday at our 4-star family hotel in Trentino [LINK HOME]. Request a quote now and we will send you a personalised offer. We look forward to hearing from you!


text:
Shin Megami Tensei IV est un jeu vidéo de rôle développé par Atlus sur Nintendo 3DS. Il est édité en  au Japon puis en juillet de la même année aux États-Unis. Il sort également en  en Europe, exclusivement en version dématérialisée et en langue anglaise.

L'intrigue se concentre sur Flynn, un Samouraï chargé de protéger le royaume médiéval de Mikado des attaques de démons.

Histoire

Système de jeu

Accueil
Canard PC : 8/10

Notes et références

Shin Megami Tensei
Jeu Nintendo 3DS
Jeu vidéo de rôle
Jeu vidéo développé au Japon
Jeu vidéo sorti en 2013
Jeu vidéo de fantasy
Jeu Atlus
Jeu Nintendo eShop (Nintendo 3DS)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <vector>

#include "rocblas.hpp"
#include "utility.h"
#include "cblas_interface.h"
#include "norm.h"
#include "unit.h"
#include "arg_check.h"
#include "flops.h"

using namespace std;

/* ============================================================================================ */

template<typename T>
rocblas_status testing_set_get_vector(Arguments argus)
{
    rocblas_int M = argus.M;
    rocblas_int incx = argus.incx;
    rocblas_int incy = argus.incy;
    rocblas_int incd = argus.incd;

    rocblas_status status     = rocblas_status_success;
    rocblas_status status_set = rocblas_status_success;
    rocblas_status status_get = rocblas_status_success;

    //argument sanity check, quick return if input parameters are invalid before allocating invalid memory
    if ( M < 0 ){
        status = rocblas_status_invalid_size;
        return status;
    }
    else if ( incx <= 0 ){
        status = rocblas_status_invalid_size;
        return status;
    }
    else if ( incy <= 0 ){
        status = rocblas_status_invalid_size;
        return status;
    }
    else if ( incd <= 0 ){
        status = rocblas_status_invalid_size;
        return status;
    }

    //Naming: dK is in GPU (device) memory. hK is in CPU (host) memory
    vector<T> hx(M * incx);
    vector<T> hy(M * incy);
    vector<T> hy_ref(M * incy);

    T *db;

    double gpu_time_used, cpu_time_used;
    double rocblas_bandwidth, cpu_bandwidth;
    double rocblas_error = 0.0;

    rocblas_handle handle;
    status = rocblas_create_handle(&handle);
    verify_rocblas_status_success(status,"ERROR: rocblas_create_handle");

    if(status != rocblas_status_success) {
        rocblas_destroy_handle(handle);
        return status;
    }

    //allocate memory on device
    CHECK_HIP_ERROR(hipMalloc(&db, M * incd * sizeof(T)));

    //Initial Data on CPU
    srand(1);
    rocblas_init<T>(hx, 1, M, incx);
    rocblas_init<T>(hy, 1, M, incy);
    hy_ref = hy;

    /* =====================================================================
           ROCBLAS
    =================================================================== */
    if(argus.timing){
        gpu_time_used = get_time_us();// in microseconds
    }

    for (int iter = 0; iter < 1; iter++){

        status_set = rocblas_set_vector(
                     M,
                     sizeof(T),
                     (void *) hx.data(), incx,
                     (void *) db, incd);

        status_get = rocblas_get_vector(
                     M,
                     sizeof(T),
                     (void *) db, incd,
                     (void *) hy.data(), incy);

        if (status_set != rocblas_status_success) {
            CHECK_HIP_ERROR(hipFree(db));
            rocblas_destroy_handle(handle);
            return status;
        }

        if (status_get != rocblas_status_success) {
            CHECK_HIP_ERROR(hipFree(db));
            rocblas_destroy_handle(handle);
            return status;
        }
    }
    if (argus.timing) {
        gpu_time_used = get_time_us() - gpu_time_used;
        rocblas_bandwidth = (M * sizeof(T))/ gpu_time_used / 1e3;
    }

    if (argus.unit_check || argus.norm_check) {
        /* =====================================================================
           CPU BLAS
        =================================================================== */
        if (argus.timing) {
            cpu_time_used = get_time_us();
        }

        // reference calculation
        for (int i = 0; i < M; i++) {
            hy_ref[i*incy] = hx[i*incx];
        }

        if (argus.timing) {
            cpu_time_used = get_time_us() - cpu_time_used;
            cpu_bandwidth = (M * sizeof(T))/ cpu_time_used / 1e3;
        }

        //enable unit check, notice unit check is not invasive, but norm check is,
        // unit check and norm check can not be interchanged their order
        if (argus.unit_check) {
            unit_check_general<T>(1, M, incy, hy.data(), hy_ref.data());
        }

        //if enable norm check, norm check is invasive
        //any typeinfo(T) will not work here, because template deduction is matched in compilation time
        if (argus.norm_check) {
            rocblas_error = norm_check_general<T>('F', 1, M, incy, hy.data(), hy_ref.data());
        }
    }

    if(argus.timing) {
        //only norm_check return an norm error, unit check won't return anything
        cout << "M, incx, incy, incd, rocblas-GB/s, ";
        if(argus.norm_check){
            cout << "CPU-GB/s" ;
        }
        cout << endl;

        cout << "GGG,"<< M << ',' << incx <<',' << incy <<','<< incd << ',' << rocblas_bandwidth << ','  ;

        if(argus.norm_check){
            cout << cpu_bandwidth ;
        }
        cout << endl;
    }

    CHECK_HIP_ERROR(hipFree(db));
    rocblas_destroy_handle(handle);
    return rocblas_status_success;
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub