Jul 31, 2014
With nothing else on its plate to look into, the Department of Justice announced that it was suing the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) over the use of base physical standards as criteria to be selected for training as a Pennsylvania State Trooper.
In a press release, the DOJ says:
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleges that the physical fitness tests used by the state police between 2003 and the present excluded qualified women from consideration for hire as entry-level state troopers by
testing for physical skills that are not required to perform the job. The department also alleges that, during the relevant time period, the defendants’ use of physical fitness tests as part of a multi-step employment selection process disproportionately screened out female applicants, resulting in a disparate impact against those applicants.
According to the actual complaint, the DOJ says that there were two fitness tests administered to applicants. One test was administered from 2003 to 2009, and another test with more elements was administered between 2009 until 2012.
For the 2003 – 2009 test:
The 2003 PFT consisted of five events: (1) a 300-meter run; (2) sit-ups; (3) push-ups; (4) a vertical jump; and (5) a 1.5-mile run.
Male and female applicants were given different standard of performance to pass but more women failed the test percentage wise than men.
Under the theory of “disparate impact,” the DOJ now asserts that because women failed the test more than men, the test itself must discriminate against women.
Jul 30, 2014
Back in May, 2014 we reported on a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing concerning the crisis at the Veterans’ Administration.
At that time, despite evidence that there were problems at VA facilities within the state of Florida, Representative Corrinne Brown said “I have done my reconnaissance in Florida. I can tell you, we are doing fine in Florida.”
Brown’s statement was contrary to problems found at the Gainsville VA facility as well as problems the state was having getting access to the facilities to insure safety and health concerns.
No problems. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Now the Florida Today is reporting that after cursory reviews, six Florida VA facilities are being passed on for further scrutiny due to various concerns.
Jul 30, 2014
At one point in time, Wade McCree (seen on the right) was a judge in Michigan.
McCree is not one who displayed the highest ethical standards for a judge.
For example, the Michigan Supreme Court censured McCree for sending nude pictures of himself to one of his female bailiffs.
But while investigators were looking into that incident, another incident with McCree came to light.
Enter “the other woman.”
Geniene La’Shay Mott (seen on the left) came to McCree’s courtroom as a complainant in a case where she was asserting her ex, Robert King, was delinquent on his child support payments for a child he and Mott parented.
Mott and McCree hit it off in the courtroom and after that, they just started to hit it. (If’fn ya know what we mean.)
Not only was McCree being intimate with a person involved in a case over which he was presiding and should have recused himself, but he and Mott talked about the penalty King should receive.
MyFoxDetroit has messages between the two that show a disturbing exchange:
McCree: My Judicial Tenure Commission has me nervous, as you might expect. I have to be real careful until this matter is put to rest… you are the complaining witness on a case that is before me. Naturally if it got out that we were seeing each other before your B.D.’s (baby daddy) case closed, everybody could be in deep (expletive). Why you want to spend time with a man like me remains a mystery, but if you’ll have me… then as Bill Withers said, “use me up!” SMOOCHES.
McCree: OK, The math will be based on his failures since being placed on probation, but if U’r right, the threat of jail will loosen his purse strings!
Mott: OK, SO LET’S GO WITH WHAT YOU PROPOSED… GO 2 JAIL (150 DAYS), RELEASE UPON PAYMENT OF $1,500. OR, GET A TETHER & BRING BACK W/N 30 DAYS $2500 OR SERVE 9 MONTHS! BONUS: PAY W/N 30 DAYS, REMOVE TETHER. NOW BACK 2 US… WHAT ARE WE DOIN AFTER COURT THURSDAY???
King was thrown into prison for his actions.
How do we know all about this behind the scene drama?
Jul 29, 2014
We are out of town and no one else on the staff wants to write for the blog, so we are posting this video of seriously awesome physical and chemical reactions.
We particularly like the liquid nitrogen and ping pong balls one.
Jul 28, 2014
On Saturday, a District Court for Washington DC handed down its decision in a case called “Palmer v. D.C.”
The opinion invalidated as unConstitutional laws having the effect of banning the carrying handguns in the District of Columbia.
From the decision:
D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) provides that “no persons or organization in the District shall possess or control
any firearm, unless the persons or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm.”
D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) provides that individuals who are not retired police officers may only register a handgun “for use in self-defense within that person’s home.”
Defendants require gun registration applicants to submit “[p]roof of residency in the District of Columbia (e.g., a valid DC operator’s permit, DC vehicle registration card, lease agreement for a residence in the District, the deed to your home or other legal document showing DC residency.”
A first violation of the District of Columbia’s ban on the ownership or possession of unregistered handguns is punishable as a misdemeanor by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment of up to five years, or both. See D. C. Code § 7-2507.06. D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) provides that “[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed.” The first violation of this section by a non-felon is punishable by a fine up to $5,000
and imprisonment of up to five years.
Jul 27, 2014
One of the cites we like to visit is called “Clients from Hell.” There, you can find all sorts of interesting stories in dealing with clients in the graphics world. As a friend of ours says “it is about as real life as it can get.”
One of the stories caught our eye was this one:
So last week I tried using a language analogy for a client’s project. The project manager said the project was straight HTML/CSS when in fact it was C++.
To help him understand the problem I used this analogy: “Let’s say you’re asking me to write something in a specific language, I am fluent in English and Spanish. Meanwhile, your project is in Chinese. Since I don’t know Chinese and it is not remotely similar to any of the languages I know, I am not your best option for this project. You need someone who is fluent in this specific language for the project to be successful and stay on budget.”
He said he understood and thanked me for my time.
This morning I received an IM from another developer asking: “Why is ‘so and so’ asking us if we are fluent in Chinese?”
We’re still laughing at that one.
Jul 26, 2014
Once again we feature one of our favorite political cartoonists, A. F. Branco.
(courtesy A. F. Branco at Comically Incorrect.)
Jul 25, 2014
Allow us to introduce you to Nigel Sykes, seen in the image to the left.
In 2010, after being linked to crimes against eight other establishments, Sykes decided he would rob Seasons Pizza in Newport, Delaware.
The then 19 year old Sykes walked into the pizza store with a gun and robbed a delivery man of $140 but before he could leave with his ill gotten booty, Sykes was grabbed from behind by another employee and wrestled to the ground. Additional employees fought Sykes to subdue him. During the struggle, the gun which Sykes brought into the pizzeria went off, narrowly missing an employee.
The police were called and Sykes was arrested. At trial, Sykes pled guilty to the robbery.
With nothing else to do while in jail, Sykes decided to sue Seasons Pizza, the employees and the police. What is amazing is that a judge is allowing portions of the lawsuit to go forward:
Sykes alleges assault in a federal civil complaint claiming the rough treatment was “unnecessary” and that as a result of the injuries he suffered during his attempted hold-up, he is due over $260,000.
Sykes also claims in his suit, filed without an attorney, that after employees subdued him, two Newport police officers improperly used stun guns on him and denied him access to medical attention.
Normally lawsuits like this are tossed out after a brief review by the court. And while U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson tossed out several of Sykes’ claims, she allowed the case to move forward against the pizza employees, two arresting officers and Seasons.