We make it our mission to provide the world with Safe Water and Sanitation through innovative microfinancing solutions. Meet the people you impact. Meet to visitors from around the world and catchsomeair.us (and be of aide. Cons Sanitation Worker (Former Employee) – New York, NY – June 2, Meet Robin Nagle, New York City Department of Sanitation 12, (Richard Drew / PA) Published Monday, August 31, AM EDT. New York's.
We appreciate your continued interest and support for the MEA.
Meet Robin Nagle, New York City Department of Sanitation anthropologist-in-residence | CTV News
The purpose of the event is twofold: Our Community Partnerships Unit, which has helped to develop and promote Clean Slate, will also host a resource fair on-site, offering job training, health care information, and other assistance. Together, about 1, individuals were helped with their warrant matters, and about warrants were cleared.
These warrants were from all counties in NYC, some as old as 36 years ago. Clean Slate is limited to summonses returnable to the NYC SAP Courts, and limited to low-level offenses including open containers of alcohol, riding bicycles on sidewalks, littering, and disorderly conduct.
To participate, individuals must bring valid ID and undergo screening on-site. Individuals with an outstanding warrant on a misdemeanor or felony case are not eligible for forgiveness on their summons warrant. However, these individuals can receive on-site assistance from Legal Aid and NDS to voluntarily return themselves to Criminal or Supreme Court next week.
We expect that a majority of attendees will get their bench warrants vacated and receive Adjournments in Contemplation of Dismissal. He was demoted during a probationary period, 22 while White supervisors in the same position were allowed to finish probation and remain as 23 supervisors.BREAKING: DSNY Sanitation Agent Caught On Video Committing Class A Misdemeanor To Meet Ticket Quota
He has never been recommended to level 2, even though White males in 4 his borough have been recommended and promoted.
He has never been recommended for level 2, even though less qualified 8 White males in his borough have been recommended and promoted. He took the test for promotion to general superintendent 11 level 1, but has not been promoted, though many of his White counterparts who took the test at 12 the same time have been promoted despite being less qualified.
Burgis v. New York City Dep’t of Sanitation, No. 14-1640 (2d Cir. 2015)
Despite having passed the exam, he has not been 15 promoted to general superintendent level 1, while White employees with lower scores have been 16 promoted.
He has never been recommended for level 2, even though less qualified White employees 20 have been recommended and promoted. Doherty, reflecting his approval of this disparate classification, has taken no action to 2 change it, and has, therefore condoned the discrimination. As to the City and defendant Doherty in his official 6 capacity, the district court further found that plaintiffs had not sufficiently pleaded that the 7 alleged discrimination was the result of an official policy, custom, or practice.
As to defendant 8 Doherty in his individual capacity, the district court concluded that plaintiffs had not adequately 9 alleged that he was personally involved in the alleged discriminatory promotion practices and 10 only made conclusory allegations that he knew the racial composition of the workforce.
Indeed, each 2 plaintiff has at some point been promoted from a sanitation worker to supervisor, and five of the 3 nine were subsequently promoted to general superintendent level 1.
While the SAC generally 4 alleges with respect to seven plaintiffs that they have been passed over for subsequent 5 promotions while White individuals, who were allegedly less qualified, were promoted, the SAC 6 fails to provide meaningful specifics of the alleged difference in qualifications, let alone 7 discriminatory intent.
It simply alleges that plaintiff Burgos was promoted to supervisor in 9has taken the exam for general superintendent level 1, and is currently on the list for 10 promotion. Plaintiff Duncan, it alleges, was promoted to supervisor but subsequently was 11 demoted during a probationary period while White individuals in an allegedly similar situation 12 were not demoted.
See Iqbal, U. United 7 States v.
City of New York, F. United States, 17 U. In these situations, we have held, broad statistical evidence, without evidence of specific instances of discrimination, is not relevant to whether any specific individual acted with discriminatory intent or whether any specific individual was the target of discrimination.
Shultz, 4 F.
Working at Times Square Alliance: Employee Reviews | catchsomeair.us
Among other shortcomings, the statistics provided by plaintiffs show only the 7 raw percentages of White, Black, and Hispanic individuals at each employment level, without 8 providing any detail as to the number of individuals at each level, the qualifications of 9 individuals in the applicant pool and of those hired for each position, or the number of openings 10 at each level.
While there is 2 an increase in racial and national origin disparities between general superintendent level 1 and 3 levels 2 and 3, the racial composition returns at level 4 to essentially the same percentage as at 4 level 1.
This rule is hardly applicable here, where individuals are not promoted at random from the general population, but are considered for promotion on the basis of their individual qualifications. Here, plaintiffs again rely on statistical evidence to infer a municipal policy of discrimination.