alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT KINCHELOE; VONNA

RUDINE; SANDRA

CHRISTAFFERSON, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly

situated, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-15726

D.C. No. 5:21-cv-00515-BLF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 21, 2023

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Appellants are three former flight attendants who appeal the district court’s

dismissal of their Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

FILED

MAY 8 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
(“ADEA”) claim. They challenge American Airlines’ March 2020 Voluntary

Early Out Program (“VEOP”). 

The ADEA contains a safe harbor for bona fide early retirement programs. 

See 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(2)(B)(ii). An early retirement program is not an adverse

employment action unless the employee can establish it amounts to a constructive

discharge, i.e., that conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would

have felt compelled to resign. See Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 141

(2004); Poland v. Chertoff, 494 F.3d 1174, 1184 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Appellants have alleged that they were constructively discharged in March

2020 when American Airlines discouraged them from wearing face masks and

denied leaves of absence and reduced work schedules until enough flight

attendants accepted the VEOP. The VEOP was a response to the extraordinary

drop in demand for air travel caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The

employment conditions imposed were consistent with federal policy guidelines at

that time. To constitute constructive discharge, there must be intolerable working

conditions that are “a result of discrimination.” Poland, 494 F.3d at 1184 (quoting

Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917, 930 (9th Cir. 2000)). Even assuming

the federal policy guidelines were unreasonable, the situation was not attributable

to any conduct by American Airlines. 

2
The district court correctly ruled that Appellants had not made out a

violation of the ADEA. 

AFFIRMED. 

3
§ 1960.60 Training assistance. ( a ) Agency heads may seek training assistance from the Secretary of Labor, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and other appropriate sources.
( b ) After the effective date of Executive Order 12196, the Secretary shall, upon request and with reimbursement, conduct orientation for Designated Agency Safety and Health Officials and/or their designees which will enable them to manage the occupational safety and health programs of their agencies. Such orientation shall include coverage of section 19 of the Act, Executive Order 12196, and the requirements of this part.
( c ) Upon request and with reimbursement, the Department of Labor shall provide each agency with training materials to assist in fulfilling the training needs of this subpart, including resident and field training courses designed to meet selected training needs of agency safety and health specialists, safety and health inspectors, and collateral duty safety and health personnel. These materials and courses in no way reduce each agency's responsibility to provide whatever specialized training is required by the unique characteristics of its work.
( d ) In cooperation with OPM, the Secretary will develop guidelines and/or provide materials for the safety and health training programs for high-level managers, supervisors, members of committees, and employee representatives.
§ 1917.124 Dockboards (car and bridge plates). ( a ) *General.* The employer shall provide safe means of passage between different surface levels and across openings.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Dockboards (car and bridge plates).* ( 1 ) Dockboards shall be strong enough to support the loads imposed on them.
( 2 ) Portable dockboards shall be anchored in position or be equipped with devices to prevent their movement.
( 3 ) Hand holds or other effective means shall be provided on portable dockboards to permit safe handling.
( 4 ) Positive means shall be used to prevent railcars or highway vehicles from being moved while dockboards or bridge plates are in position.
( 5 ) Be designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent vehicles from running off the edge.[10]
( 6 ) Dockboards shall be well maintained.
( d ) *Ramps.* ( 1 ) Ramps shall be strong enough to support the loads imposed on them and be designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent vehicles from running off the edge.[11]
( 2 ) Ramps shall be equipped with a guardrail meeting the requirement of § 1917.112(c)(1) if the slope is more than 20 degrees to the horizontal or if employees could fall more than 4 feet (1.22 m).
( 3 ) Ramps shall have slip-resistant surfaces.
( 4 ) When necessary to prevent displacement by vehicle wheels, steel plates or similar devices used to temporarily bridge or cover uneven surfaces or tracks, shall be anchored.
( 5 ) Ramps shall be well maintained.
[48 FR 30909, July 5, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 40201, July 25, 1997; 65 FR 40942, June 30, 2000] Footnotes -
1917.124
[10] When the gap to be bridged to greater than 36 inches (.91 m), an acceptable means of preventing vehicles from running off the edge is a minimum side board height of two and three-quarter inches.
[11] When the gap to be bridged is greater than 36 inches (.91 m), an acceptable means of preventing vehicles from running off the edge is a minumum side board height of two and three-quarter inches.
EXHIBIT 12


                         KERR-McGEE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
                       COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES(1)



(In millions of dollars)         1996      1995      1994      1993      1992
                                 ----      ----      ----      ----      ----

Income (loss) from
   continuing operations         $220      $(24)     $ 69      $ 95      $(12)

Add -
   Provision (benefit) for
      income taxes                103       (45)       30        54       (23)
   Interest expense                52        61        58        45        64
   Rental expense representa-
      tive of interest factor       5         4         4         4         5
                                 ----      ----      ----     -----      ----

         Earnings                $380      $ (4)     $161      $198      $ 34
                                 ====      ====      ====      ====      ====

Fixed Charges -
   Interest expense              $ 52      $ 61      $ 58      $ 45      $ 64
   Rental expense representa-
      tive of interest factor       5         4         4         4         5
   Interest capitalized             9        11        10        20        15
                                 ----      ----      ----      ----      ----

         Total fixed charges     $ 66      $ 76      $ 72      $ 69      $ 84
                                 ====      ====      ====      ====      ====

Ratio of earnings to fixed
   charges                        5.8         -(2)    2.2       2.9         -(2)
                                 ====      ====      ====     =====      ====   



(1)The  computation  of the ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been restated
   to conform with the current year's presentation.

(2)Earnings  were  inadequate   to  cover  fixed  charges by $80 million and $50
   million in 1995 and 1992, respectively.
§ 1650.203 Notification of intent to collect. EEOC's notification of intent to collect by tax refund offset shall provide: ( a ) The amount of the debt;
( b ) That unless the debt is repaid within 60 days from the date of EEOC's notification of intent, EEOC intends to collect the debt by requesting Treasury to offset an amount equal to the amount of the debt and all accumulating interest and other charges against any overpayment of tax after liabilities subject to 26 U.S.C. 6402(a) and (c) have been satisfied;
( c ) A mailing address for forwarding any written correspondence and a contact and a telephone number for any questions;
( d ) That the debtor may make a written agreement with EEOC to repay the amount of the debt; and
( e ) That the debtor may present evidence within 60 days to EEOC that all or part of the debt is not past due or legally enforceable by: ( 1 ) Sending a written request for a review of the evidence to the address provided in the notification;
( 2 ) Stating in the request for review the amount disputed and the reasons why the debtor believes that the debt is not past-due or is not legally enforceable; and
( 3 ) Including in the request for review any documents that the debtor wishes to be considered, or stating that the additional information will be submitted within the remainder of the 60 day period.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 12, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00292

- CR

David CASTILLO , Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court

, Zavala County, Texas

Trial Co urt No. 20

- 01

- 003847

- ZCRAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal III , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due on July 11, 2022. Ms

. Patricia Salina s is the court reporter

responsible for preparing, certifying, and filing the reporter’s reco rd in this appeal. On July 7,

2022, Ms. Salinas filed a Notification of Late Recor d reques t in g an additional thirty day s to file

the reporter’s record. The request is GRANTED. M s . Salina s is ORDERED to file the reporter’s

record no later than August 5, 2 02 2

.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of July, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
§ 1912a.6 Quorum. ( a ) A majority of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum.
( b ) In an absence of brief duration of its Chairman, the Committee may designate a public member to preside at any meeting thereof. In case of an extended absence, the Secretary of Labor or his delegate shall appoint a public member to preside.
[38 FR 28934, Oct. 18, 1973, as amended at 48 FR 23185, May 24, 1983]
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Report of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, D. Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | Such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 18, 2008



/s/ D. Michael ParkerD. Michael Parker Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
#### Charles E. Simmons, App’lt, *v.*John Bigelow *et al.,*Executors, etc., Resp’ts.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed July 9, 1889.)*

Reference—Cannot be ordered in action upon a special contract.

An action upon a special contract for long and continuous service,.cannot "be referred against the will of the defendant, merely because at, some stage of the trial the plaintiff may find it necessary to go over every part of his long service.

Appeal from order denying motion for a reference.

*Joseph U. Choate,*for app’lt; *J. C. Carter,*for resp’ts.

Per Curiam.

The order should be affirmed on the opinion of Ingraham, J., at special term.

The only additional point made upon this appeal, not covered by Judge Ingraham’s opinion, is that in case the plaintiff fails to establish his special contract, he may be permitted to proceed as upon a *quantum meruit.*

*.*Whether this can be done without an amendment of the present complaint, we need not now decide.

But the court cannot take such a possible contingency into consideration. We must treat the case, for the purposes of this motion, according to the averments of the complaint as now formulated. It is the character of the complaint, and that alone, which governs.

The case made by the present complaint is not upon an account at all, but upon a,special contract involving long and continuous service.

For this service, the plaintiff has charged a lump sum, and although that lump sum may be made up of many daily visits, running through several years, the character of *807the action remains the same. It is well settled that such considerations are not controlling. The action must be upon an account, and its examination must be the immediate object of the action. *Camp*v. Ingersoll, 86 N. Y., 436; *Kain*v. *Delano,*11 Abb. N. S., 29. That is not this case, and the action cannot be referred against the will of the defendant merely because at some stage of the trial the plaintiff may find it necessary to go over every part of his long service and thus burden the court and jury by a tedious recital.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Exhibit
23




CONSENTS
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-86722 and
333-130276 of The Laclede Group, Inc., and in Registration Statement Nos.
333-90248, 333-90252, 333-90254, 333-102835, 333-102836, and 333-131830 of The
Laclede Group, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated
November 21, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule of The Laclede Group, Inc. (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the
Company’s adoption of FIN 48, Accounting
for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an Interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109, effective October 1, 2007, and Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employer’s
Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans — an
amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132(R), effective
September 30, 2007), and the effectiveness of The Laclede Group,
Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of The Laclede Group, Inc. and Laclede Gas Company for the
year ended September 30, 2008.




We also
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement No. 333-141439 of Laclede Gas Company on Form S-3 of our reports
dated November 21, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Laclede Gas Company (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption
of FIN 48, Accounting
for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an Interpretation of FASB Statement
No. 109, effective October 1, 2007, and Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employer’s
Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans — an
amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106 and 132(R), effective
September 30, 2007) and the effectiveness of Laclede Gas Company’s internal
control over financial reporting, appearing in Exhibit 99.1 of this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of The Laclede Group, Inc. and Laclede Gas Company for the
year ended September 30, 2008.








/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


St.
Louis, Missouri


November
21, 2008
# EUR-Lex - 32000R2364 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000R2364

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2364/2000 of 25 October 2000 concerning the fourth list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 273 , 26/10/2000 P. 0005 - 0007 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2364/2000

of 25 October 2000

concerning the fourth list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances(1), and in particular Articles 8 and 10 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 envisages a system of evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances and stipulates that in order to undertake the risk evaluation of existing substances it is appropriate to identify priority substances requiring attention.

(2) Consequently Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 requires that the Commission shall draw up lists of priority substances taking into account certain factors thereinafter indicated.

(3) Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 provides that for each substance on the priority lists a Member State shall be given responsibility for its evaluation and that the allocation of substances shall ensure a fair sharing of the burden between Member States.

(4) A first, a second and a third priority list have been adopted by Commission Regulations (EC) No 1179/94(2), (EC) No 2268/95(3) and (EC) No 143/97(4).

(5) The provisions of this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. The fourth list of priority substances as foreseen in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

2. This list of priority substances also indicates the Member State which is responsible for each of the substances.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 October 2000.

For the Commission

Margot Wallström

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 131, 26.5.1994, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 231, 28.9.1995, p. 18.

(4) OJ L 25, 28.1.1997, p. 13.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 88 (Friday, May 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 26269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11327]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Special Committee 196 Night Vision Goggle (NVG) Appliances 
and Equipment

    Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for Special 
Committee (SC)-196 meeting to be held March 28-29, 2000, starting at 
9:00 a.m. each day. The meeting will be held at RTCA Inc., 1140 
Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
    The agenda will include: May 31: (1) Welcome and Introductory 
Remarks; (2) Agenda Overview; (3) Review/Approval of Previous Minutes; 
(4) Action Item Status Review; (5) Overview SC-196 Working Group (WG) 
Activities: (a) WG-1, Operational Concept/Requirements; (b) WG-2, Night 
Vision Goggles Minimum Operational Performance Standards; (c) WG-3, 
Night Vision Imaging System Lighting; (d) WG-4, Maintenance/
Serviceability; (e) WG-5, Training Guidelines/Considerations; (6) WG 
Breakout Sessions. June 1: (7) Night vision Imaging Systems Terminology 
Review; (8) Technical Standard Order Process; (9) RTCA Ballot Process; 
(10) Risk and System Safety Assessment Discussion; (11) Working Group 
Breakout Sessions. June 2: (12) Status of SC-196 WG Activities; (a) WG-
1, Operational Concept/Requirements; (b) WG-2, Night Vision Goggles 
Minimum Operational Performance Standards; (c) WG-3, Night Vision 
Imaging System Lighting; (d) WG-4, Maintenance/Serviceability; (e) WG-
5, Training Guidelines/Considerations; (13) Other Business; (14) 
Establish Agenda for Next Meeting; (15) Date and Location of Next 
Meeting; (16) Workgroup Breakout Sessions; (17) Working Group 
Chairpersons Meeting; (18) Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web 
site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the 
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2000.
Jane P. Caldwell,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 00-11327 Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
From: gthomas@bp.Guardian.com

To: Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/17/2012 05:39 PM

Subject:Guardian Kingman Preliminary Test Results

Susan, as you requested, I am forwarding the preliminary test results from the Kingman furnace stack. 

See the pdf files attached to the email below.

The Method 0061 chrome results were slightly lower compared to the Method

29 chrome results for the other three melters already tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood & Winnsboro) but 

the same order of magnitude.

The Method 29 chrome results were higher compared to the Method 29 chrome results for the other 

three melters already tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood & Winnsboro) but the same order of magnitude as 

the Winnsboro melter.

The vaporous back half chrome emissions are an order of magnitude lower, so, in our case, the filterable 

front half represents over 80% of the chrome.

The hexavalent chrome emissions were slightly higher compared to the other three melters already 

tested in 2010 (Albion, Inwood & Winnsboro) but the same order of magnitude and almost no 

difference.

We also tested HF and HCL and they were an order of magnitude lower compared to the Albion, Inwood 

and Winnsboro furnaces.

In sum, nothing surprising. The emissions for the four (4) plants tested so far are about the same.

I am headed to Inwood next week for testing of that furnace. As time permits, I will forward the 

Kingman test report when it becomes available.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Grover Thomas

----- Forwarded by Grover Thomas/BP/Guardian_Industries on 02/17/2012

05:01

PM -----

 "Tony Blanton"

 <tony@integrityai
 r.net>

To

 <gthomas@bp.Guardian.com>

 02/17/2012 03:41

cc

 PM "Jim Lewis"

<jim@integrityair.net>

Subject

 Kingman Results

 Please respond to

 "Tony Blanton"

 <tony@integrityai

 r.net>

Grover,

Please see attached the results from the Kingman Melter sampling.

Thank you

J.A. "Tony" Blanton, QSTI

President

Integrity Air Monitoring, Inc.

PO Box 559

Huntersville, NC 28070-0559

www.integrityair.net

(704) 948-2359

(704) 948-2361 fax

(704) 618-5082 mobile(See attached file: 26A.pdf)(See attached file: 29 w particulate.pdf)(See attached 

file: 0061.pdf) [attachment "26A.pdf" deleted by Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "29 w 

particulate.pdf" deleted by Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "0061.pdf" deleted by Susan 

Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US]