Harassment News
Demanda de acoso en California contra las industrias Goodwill
Oakland, California: Una demanda de acoso en California ha sido presentada contra las industrias Goodwill y una afiliada, alegando que las dos organizaciones permitieron que el personal de conserjería femenino fuera acosado sexualmente. La demanda fue presentada por cinco empleados y la Comisión de Igualdad de Oportunidades de Empleo (EEOC) en la Corte de Distrito de California para el Distrito Norte de California, esta demanda reclama violaciones de la Ley de Derechos Civiles y la Ley de Americanos con Discapacidades.
Según documentos judiciales, Goodwill Industries y Calidad Industries sometieron a las empleadas a acoso sexual, tomaron represalias contra supervisores que apoyaban las quejas de acoso por parte de los empleados, sometieron a empleados discapacitados a términos y condiciones de empleo diferentes y forzaron a un supervisor a jubilarse debido a condiciones de empleo opresivas.
Las mujeres trabajaban como conserjes nocturnos en el Edificio Federal de Oakland. Estas afirman que su supervisor "participó en repetidas ofensivas verbales sexualmente explicitas y actos físicos indebidos hacia sus subordinadas femeninas". Incluido en estos supuestos actos, el supervisor sujetando sus genitales de manera sugestiva mientras estaba en presencia de las empleadas, haciendo comentarios indeseados y sexualmente cargados a las mujeres, y realizando un contacto inapropiado e inoportuno.
Las mujeres alegan que se quejaron repetidamente de las acciones de su supervisor, pero los acusados no tomaron medidas para detener el acoso o proteger a los empleados de un ambiente de trabajo hostil. El hostigamiento se inició alrededor de 2009 y continuó hasta 2012, cuando el acceso del supervisor al Edificio Federal de Oakland fue revocado por la Administración de Servicios Generales de los Estados Unidos como resultado de las quejas de acoso.
A pesar de esta acción de la Administración de Servicios Generales, los acusados trasladaron al supervisor a otro lugar y no lo disciplinaron por su presunto trato a las mujeres.
La demanda también alega que dos supervisores se opusieron al acoso sexual y proporcionaron evidencia o testimonio en apoyo de las demandas de los empleados y luego se tomaron represalias en su contra. Una supervisora, Lisa Short, fue presuntamente reprendida y disciplinada después de asistir en una investigación de acoso sexual. Entre las consecuencias que enfrentó fue ser transferida al turno de la noche.
"Desde abril del 2012 hasta a octubre del 2012, los demandados tomaron represalias contra Short a tal grado que se creó un ambiente tan abusivo y opresivo que ella no tuvo más remedio que renunciar", dice la demanda. Otro supervisor, Doward Washington, habría sido advertido de no participar en una investigación de acoso.
Cuando participó en la investigación, fue sometido a críticas injustas en su trabajo, incluyendo ser reprendido por no realizar tareas que no formaban parte de su descripción de trabajo.
Los trabajadores que demandan por hostigamiento fueron empleados a través del programa de trabajo del afiliado Goodwill Calidad que ayuda a las personas que tienen deficiencias físicas, mentales o psicológicas severas a encontrar trabajo y ser financieramente independientes.
La demanda es EEOC v. Goodwill Industries del Gran Área de la Bahía Este, caso no. 3: 16 - 9093.
California Harassment Lawsuit Finds for Movie Actor Defendant
Los Angeles, CA: A harassment lawsuit against a movie actor / comedian ended with a finding for the defendant following a decision by a California appeals court affirming a lower court’s ruling over alleged harassment of a movie extra by defendant Marlon Wayans.
According to court documents, the harassment was alleged to have occurred on the set of the movie A Haunted House 2. Pierre Daniel, an African American, was working as an extra during the filming of the movie starring Wayans, who also wrote the script. Daniel had a non-speaking part in the film.
According to the harassment lawsuit filed in August, 2014 Daniel alleged that Wayans, who is also an African American, repeatedly referenced a racial slur allegedly directed at the plaintiff. Daniel also asserted that Wayans, who is also a comedian, mocked the plaintiff’s hair (Daniel sported an Afro), and is alleged to have called the plaintiff a “black fat ass” in addition to the racial slur.
It was further alleged in the harassment lawsuit that Wayans proceeded to post a photograph of Daniel to social media, comparing him to the black character on the animated TV show Family Guy.
Daniel alleged harassment from Wayans – specifically, racial harassment, misappropriation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Wayans, in response at trial, asserted that his alleged comments were protected under a California statute known as anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). To wit, such comments are part of the creative process and are protected.
The trial court sided with the defendant, noting that Wayan’s alleged comments and the related conduct the plaintiff asserts was injurious to him, was associated with the creative process involved with crafting the film and the promotion of the film across the internet.
In sum, the trial court found that Wayan’s comments were tied to his constitutional right to free speech.
The appellate panel, comprised of three judges, affirmed the lower court’s ruling in a majority decision. “The allegedly harassing and offensive conduct and comments by Wayans on the set of A Haunted House 2 were made in furtherance of his constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest,” wrote Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson for the panel.
There was a dissenting opinion, however: Judge Elwood Lui disagreed with his other two colleagues with regard to the scope of anti-SLAPP and the statute’s capacity to protect free speech on constitutional grounds in view of alleged harassment.
“Under the majority’s analysis, it seems that a writer or actor has free rein to insult and degrade others so long as he or she claims that it somehow helps him or her to make movies,” Judge Liu wrote.
The California harassment lawsuit is Daniel v. Wayans, Case No. B261814, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One.
California Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Goodwill Industries
Oakland, CA: A California harassment lawsuit has been filed against Goodwill industries and an affiliate, alleging the two organizations allowed female janitorial staff to be sexually harassed. The lawsuit was filed by five employees and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in US District Court for the Northern District of California and claims violations of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to court documents, Goodwill Industries and Calidad Industries subjected female employees to sexual harassment, retaliated against supervisors who supported employee claims of harassment, subjected disabled employees to disparate terms and conditions of employment, and forced a supervisor to retire due to oppressive employment conditions.
The women all worked as night-shift janitors at the Oakland Federal Building. They claim their supervisor "engaged in repeated sexually offensive verbal and physical acts toward his female subordinates." Included in these alleged acts are the supervisor groping and/or adjusting his genitals while in the presence of female employees, making unwelcome and sexually charged comments to women, and engaging in inappropriate and unwelcome touching.
The women allege they repeatedly complained about their supervisor's actions but the defendants failed to take action to stop the harassment or protect the employees from a hostile work environment. The harassment reportedly began around 2009 and continued to 2012, when the supervisor's access to the Oakland Federal Building was revoked by the U.S. General Services Administration as a result of the harassment complaints.
Despite this action by the General Services Administration, the defendants reportedly transferred the supervisor to a different location and did not discipline him for his alleged treatment of the women.
The lawsuit also alleges that two supervisors opposed the sexual harassment and provided evidence or testimony in support of the employees' claims and were then retaliated against. One supervisor, Lisa Short, was allegedly reprimanded and disciplined after assisting in an investigation. Among the consequences she faced was being transferred to the night shift.
"From April 2012 through October 2012, Defendants retaliated against Short to such a degree that it created an environment so abusive and oppressive that she had no choice but to quit," the lawsuit alleges. Another supervisor, Doward Washington, was allegedly warned against participating in a harassment investigation. When he did participate in the investigation, he was subjected to unfair criticisms of his work, including being reprimanded for not carrying out duties that were not part of his job description.
The workers claiming harassment were all employed through Goodwill affiliate Calidad's work program that helps people who have severe physical, mental, or psychological impairments find work and become financially independent.
The lawsuit is EEOC v. Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay Area, case no. 3:16-9093.
Wells Fargo Whistleblower Files California Harassment Lawsuit
San Francisco, CA: A woman who reported wrongdoing at Wells Fargo has filed a lawsuit in California alleging she was fired in retaliation for reporting illegal activity and was harassed by her superiors. Diana Duenas-Brown, who worked at Wells Fargo in California for 14 years and was a branch manager for 11 years, filed the lawsuit on December 9 alleging wrongful termination and retaliation.
According to Northern California Record (12/27/16), Duenas-Brown was fired on March 16, 2015, after having reported illegal sales practices by Wells Fargo employees, including opening customer accounts and issuing credit cards without customer consent. Wells Fargo faced sanctions following an investigation that uncovered widespread wrongdoing on the part of its sales representatives.
Duenas-Brown alleges that she reported the illegal activity to her superiors and, after doing so, was harassed by her bosses, including being handed unwarranted discipline, hostile interrogations, and poor performance evaluations. She was allegedly also demoted, transferred, and had her wages reduced in the 10 months before she was fired.
The lawsuit claims Duenas-Brown suffered loss of financial and employment benefits and loss of advancement opportunities as a result of Wells Fargo's actions.
Wells Fargo responded to the lawsuit saying it has zero tolerance for retaliation against employees, including retaliation against employees who report wrongdoing. Although Duenas-Brown's allegations against her employer could be considered harassment, her lawsuit claims wrongful termination and retaliation.
The financial firm also faces lawsuits from customers who allege the bank opened fake accounts on their behalf without their consent. Those customers allege their credit scores were harmed by the fake accounts and they paid fines they shouldn't have linked to those accounts. Lawmakers have proposed legislation that would prevent Wells Fargo from holding customers to the arbitration agreements in their bank contracts. Wells Fargo also paid $185 million in fines for the illegal activity.
California employment laws require training to prevent abusive conduct against employees, but that abusive conduct—including verbal abuse, physical abuse, and derogatory remarks—is defined as acts that occur repeatedly. Furthermore, the law does not outright ban abusive conduct, it merely requires training to prevent such activity.
Sexual harassment against employees and discrimination against certain protected groups of people is also prohibited under employment law.
The lawsuit is case number 4:16-cv-07066, in US District Court for the Northern District of California.
California promulga Ley de Acoso Sexual para trabajadores de limpieza
Sacramento, CA.: Una nueva ley laboral de California intenta asistir a los trabajadores de la industria de limpieza en combatir el acoso sexual en el trabajo. La ley, firmada el 15 de septiembre de 2016 por el gobernador Jerry Brown (D), asiste a los conserjes en entender y protegerse a sí mismos del acoso sexual y requiere a los patrones registrarse con la División de Cumplimiento de Normas Laborales de California.
Bajo la Ley de Asamblea No. 1978, la división establecería entrenamiento preventivo en violencia y acoso sexual interpersonal para tanto empleadores como empleados. Además, ambos grupos recibirán panfletos sobre el acoso sexual. Los empleadores tendrán que registrarse anualmente con el comisionado de trabajo empezando el 1 de julio de 2018, y podrían, en algunas instancias, tener dicha registración revocada. Además, los empleadores se verán requeridos en pagar una cuota de aplicación inicial de $500 y una de registración anual de la misma suma.
Aquellos que no se registren o violen la ley podrían enfrentarse a multas civiles de hasta $10.000.
La ley, auspiciada por la asambleísta del Estado de California Lorena González, ha dicho en una rueda de prensa que la ley agre gwará transparencia y responsabilidad a la industria de limpieza, de forma similar a las leyes enactadas en la industria textil y de limpieza de automóviles. Empleados en la industría de limpieza -particularmente mujeres Latinas- son vulnerable al acoso porque normalmente trabajan solas y temen la deportación si reclaman.
“Muy a menudo estas mujeres son pasadas por alto porque trabajan solas en medio de la noche o después de que el resto de nosotros nos hemos ido a nuestras casas, y merecen algo mejor.” Dijo González. “Así como en otros sectores, tenemos que asegurarnos que los trabajadores vulnerables reciban el entrenamiento apropiado y protección del asalto sexual, y formas efectivas y seguras de reportar estos crímenes.”
Estimados del Departamento de Justicia de EE. UU estima que 80% de todas las violaciones ocurren mientras la víctima está en el trabajo, mientras que alrededor de 50 trabajadores son víctimas de acoso sexual o violación en el trabajo cada día. Sin embargo, este tipo de crimen es uno de los casos de violencia laboral menos reportados a la policía.
“Hemos permitido que estas mujeres se vuelvan objetivos de la violencia sexual por desatender sus condiciones laborales y seguridad básica en el trabajo, pero ya no podemos ignorar está amenaza más.” Aseguró González.
Un reporte de PBS titulado “Rape on the Night Shift” expuso el acoso sexual y abuso de mujeres que trabajan en la industria de limpieza. De acuerdo con el reporte, ABM -una empresa de conserjería grande- se ha enfrentado a tres demandas desde el 2000 hechas por la Comisión de Igualdad de oportunidades de Empleo de Estados Unidos, alegando que la compañía ha fallado en atender las quejas de acoso sexual o violación.
En 2010, según se informa, la compañía accedió a pagar 5.8 millones de dólares para acordar una demanda hecha por 21 mujeres, que alegaron que la empresa no las protegió del acoso sexual.
California Enacts Sexual Harassment Law Targeting Janitorial Industry
Sacramento, CA: A new California labor law attempts to assist workers in the janitorial industry combat sexual harassment at the workplace. The law, which was signed on September 15, 2016, by California Governor Jerry Brown (D), assists janitors in understanding and protecting themselves from sexual harassment and requires janitorial employers to register with California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.
Under Assembly Bill 1978, the division would establish in-person sexual violence and harassment prevention training requirements for both employees and employers. Furthermore, employees and employers would receive pamphlets about sexual harassment. Employers would have to register annually with the Labor Commissioner beginning July 1, 2018, and could, in some instances, have registration revoked. Employers will also be required to pay an initial $500 application fee and an annual registration fee of $500.
Those who don't register or who violate the law could face civil fines of up to $10,000.
The bill was sponsored by California State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), who said in a news release that the bill will add transparency and accountability to the janitorial industry, similar to laws enacted in the garment manufacturing and car washing industries. Employees in the janitorial industry—particularly Latina females—are vulnerable to harassment because they often work alone and fear deportation if they complain.
"Too often these women are overlooked because they work alone in the dead of night after the rest of us have gone home, and they deserve better," Gonzalez said. "As we have in other sectors, we have to make sure that vulnerable workers receive appropriate training and protections from sexual assault, and effective, safe ways to report crimes."
Estimates from the US Department of Justice suggest that eight percent of all rapes happen while the victim is at work, while around 50 workers a day are victims of sexual assault or rape on the job. Rape and sexual assault, however, are among the least reported violent workplace crimes reported to police.
"We have allowed these women to become targets for sexual violence by neglecting their working conditions and basic safety on the job, but we cannot ignore this threat anymore," Gonzalez said.
A PBS report titled Rape on the Night Shift exposed the sexual harassment, abuse, and rape of women who work in the janitorial industry. According to that report, ABM—a large janitorial company—has faced three lawsuits since 2000 filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging the company failed to address complaints of sexual harassment or rape.
In 2010, the company reportedly agreed to pay $5.8 million to settle a lawsuit filed by 21 women who alleged the company did not protect them from sexual harassment.
Makers of Rooster Sauce Sues over California Harassment
Irwindale, CA: Harassment can take on many forms, and in this case it’s not so much an employee feeling harassed by an employer at the workplace, but the manufacturer of a hot sauce suing the City of Irwindale, for California harassment.
The product, Sriracha Hot Sauce with the distinctive depiction of a rooster on the bottle (known amongst fans and users as ‘Rooster Sauce’), is made by Huy Fong Foods. There is little doubt that Sriracha hot sauce, amongst hot sauce aficionados, is somewhat revered for its eye-watering heat.
However, hotness so robust it brings forth tears appears not to be limited to mere consumption of the product. It was alleged at one time that fumes originating with the Sriracha manufacturing facility have severely impacted residents of Irwindale.
According to a report carried by FOX News (07/25/16), the municipality filed a lawsuit against Huy Fong in 2013 over the fumes. Residents were complaining. However, health officials looked into the matter and found no health violations, so the City dropped its lawsuit against the manufacturer. Huy Fong, for its part, pledged to resolve the issue of robust fumes.
Then, earlier this year, a second lawsuit was filed against Huy Fong by the municipality - this time, for a tax issue. It was alleged that Huy Fong had been late filing its municipal taxes. The City sought $427,085 in damages.
Huy Fong responded with a California harassment lawsuit, countering the municipality’s legal challenge. In its harassment lawsuit, Huy Fong seeks a court order declaring any previous fees to be invalid. Failing that, the manufacturer seeks the consideration of alternative actions, including a ruling that would allow Huy Fong to recover not less than $750,000 in previous legal fees incurred while defending itself against previous and current legal action pursued by Irwindale.
“Huy Fong Foods has employed local residents and held job fairs for local workers for the past three years,” the California harassment countersuit states.
“The factory is a popular tourist destination and brings visitors and revenue into the city - so popular, in fact, that Huy Fong Foods added two trams to transport visitors around the plant and even opened a gift shop.”
The manufacturer notes that it employs dozens of Irwindale residents, hosts events for the community and provides free Rooster sauce and related merchandise to the community worth about $100,000.
As a result of the 2013 lawsuit, Huy Fong pledged to eradicate fumes escaping the plant as part of a written commitment. There was no mention in the municipality’s subsequent lawsuit with regard to the unsavory fumes continuing, or having been successfully eradicated.
University of California, Former Berkeley Dean Face Harassment Lawsuit
Berkeley, CA: The esteemed Berkeley School of Law is writhing in the shadow of yet another cloud of controversy following the resignation of the dean of law at the University of California school, amidst allegations of sexual harassment. To that end, the dean’s former executive assistant has launched a California sexual harassment lawsuit against both the former dean of law, and the University of California Board of Regents for, in the plaintiff’s view, failing to undertake sufficient measures to prevent such harassment from taking place.
According to a report from the Associated Press (AP 3/10/16), Tyann Sorrell accuses Sujit Choudhry of unwanted kissing and touching that began soon after Choudhry joined Berkeley as the dean of law. Sorrell served as his executive assistant. Her lawsuit accuses Choudhry of near-daily unwanted contact and what the plaintiff interprets as sexual advances. The contact, according to the AP report, included but was not limited to bear hugs, arm and shoulder rubs, kisses on the face, and her boss once placing her hands on his waist.
The defendant, according to the California harassment report, told investigators that his behavior was intended only as gestures of appreciation or emotional support, and not sexual harassment. Choudhry also disputed the frequency at which the plaintiff asserts the unwanted touching took place.
That said, the defendant did not deny his conduct.
When the plaintiff reported the dean’s behavior to Berkeley administration, an investigation revealed that Choudhry had “demonstrated a failure to understand the power dynamic and the effect of his actions on the plaintiff personally and in her employment.”
Berkeley’s response was to dock Choudhry’s pay by 10 percent for a period of one year, required him to undergo counseling, required that he apologize, and allowed Sorrell to take leave from her position with full pay. Berkeley provost Claude Steele noted in the AP report that in the university’s view the consequences doled out following the California employment harassment investigation constituted “an appropriate and effective response, and would produce the necessary changes in [Choudhry’s] behavior.”
That wasn’t good enough for Sorrell, who earlier this month launched a California employment harassment lawsuit against Choudhry and the university. Her legal team notes that in the plaintiff’s view, the university failed to approach the matter with sufficient seriousness for a respected law school dealing with accusations of sexual harassment.
Sorrell filed her California harassment lawsuit on March 8. The following day, Choudhry approached his employer with an offer to step down from the dean’s post in an effort to minimize any distractions the lawsuit might foster for the law school.
It was reported that Berkeley agreed to those terms, placing Choudhry on an indefinite leave of absence while the employment harassment lawsuit is active. His salary will drop from $415,000 - which he earned in his role as dean - to a professor’s salary of $284,200. It is assumed he will continue to earn the salary while on leave. It is not known if Choudhry would return to the dean’s position pending the outcome of the California Harassment lawsuit. It was reported that an interim dean would serve in his place.
Further details of the harassment lawsuit were not available. Berkeley School of Law has faced allegations of harassment involving its faculty in the past.
Los Angeles to Pay Almost $4 Million to Settle Harassment and Discrimination Lawsuit
Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles has agreed to pay almost $4 million to a city parks worker who filed a lawsuit against the city alleging he suffered harassment and retaliation for years at the hands of one of his supervisors. After years in court, the Los Angeles City Council reportedly agreed to the payment after the court issued a ruling in favor of the city worker.
James Duffy worked as a gardener for the City of Los Angeles from 1991 to 2010, according to court documents. From 2001 to 2006, Duffy was allegedly the victim of discrimination and harassment from his supervisor, Abel Perez. The harassment reportedly included being called derogatory names, being given poor treatment and being written up without cause.
“During his tenure as plaintiff Duffy’s foreman, defendant Perez consistently gave plaintiff bad assignments and bad parks to work in and would not assign anyone to help him, while Hispanic gardeners usually got two assistants,” the lawsuit alleged. “Perez promoted Hispanic employees but refused to promote plaintiff. He stole tools from plaintiff’s truck and threatened to write plaintiff up when the tools were discovered in Perez’s truck.”
Making the situation worse, in 2004, Duffy suffered a serious brain injury while at work. That brain injury caused Duffy to speak more slowly and have difficulty thinking. He also developed a tendency to repeat himself. Perez reportedly mistreated Duffy, hiding his tools so he could not carry out his job duties. Perez was transferred after an investigation into his behavior but still allegedly harassed and discriminated against Duffy because he was indirectly still Duffy’s supervisor.
“From mid-2008 until Duffy’s retirement, Perez allegedly drove by Duffy’s assigned parks several times a week during which he honked his horn at Duffy and called him derogatory names,” judges wrote in their decision. “Duffy reported that, on two occasions, Perez threatened him with physical harm. Perez repeatedly made references to Duffy’s race and disability during the incidents, and threatened to kill him if he reported Perez to his superiors and made him lose his job.”
Despite Duffy reporting the harassment to supervisors, no further action was taken. Perez has maintained he did not harass or discriminate against Duffy, but other workers on the job backed up Duffy’s claims that Perez said he was biased against white employees.
Duffy was awarded $3,255,000 at trial, but the city appealed, arguing that Duffy had waived his right to sue when he opted for early retirement. The appeals court agreed with the trial court and included appeal costs in its award.
The lawsuit is James Duffy v. City of Los Angeles, case number B252465, in the Court of Appeal for the State of California.
Retired Teacher Files $12 Million Lawsuit
Los Angeles, CA: A retired teacher has filed a $12 million lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District, alleging her employer did not provide her with a working environment that was free from harassment. Cathy Figel, an openly gay teacher, alleges in her lawsuit that she was subject to an unsafe work environment, including anti-gay language, vandalism and physical violence.
CBS News (11/12/15) reports that Figel, who taught physical education for 13 years at Marina del Rey Middle School, retired because of the repeated harassment. Figel alleges the school district did not take her complaints seriously, repeatedly dismissed her reports of harassment and was told not to identify herself as gay. Figel also said she was transferred to a different school, which she feels was retaliatory, and was prevented from participating in her school’s marine science program. The school district said in a written statement to CBS that it disagrees with the allegations and is vigorously defending itself.
Meanwhile, a California call center has agreed to pay $600,000 to settle allegations of harassment and retaliation. VXI Global Solutions was accused by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of allowing a hostile work environment in which male and female employees were subjected to various sexual harassment including groping and touching, sexual propositioning, and comments of a sexual nature from their supervisors.
The EEOC further alleged that supervisors threatened staff and VXI Global Solutions retaliated against staff that reported the harassment. In addition to paying the $600,000, VXI Global Solutions will retain a consultant to revise policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment and retaliation; to create a system to track sexual harassment and retaliation complaints; and to provide training in dealing with harassment complaints.
“Sexual harassment continues to be a persistent problem in the workplace and a priority for EEOC,” said Rosa Viramontes, district director for EEOC’s Los Angeles District, in a written statement. “Workers should not have to endure a hostile work environment because of their sex which, if unchecked, is a violation of federal law.”
Sexual harassment and retaliation are violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The lawsuit, which was initially filed in September 2014, is EEOC v. VXI Global Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-07444.
About . TOS . Privacy . Disclaimer . Contact . Advertise . Member Login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License ©2026 Online Legal Media. All rights reserved.
Visit other Online Legal Media Websites:
