58

Solution Manual for Law and Ethics in the Business

Environment 8th Halbert Ingulli 1285428560
9781285428567
Download full solution manual at:
https://testbankpack.com/p/solution-manual-for-law-and-ethics-in-the-business-
environment-8th-halbert-ingulli-1285428560-9781285428567/

Download full test bank at:

https://testbankpack.com/p/test-bank-for-law-and-ethics-in-the-business-
environment-8th-halbert-ingulli-1285428560-9781285428567/

LAW & ETHICS IN THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT 8e

Instructor’s Manual

CHAPTER FOUR

VALUING DIVERSITY: STEREOTYPING VS. INCLUSION

MAIN CONCEPTS
Equal protection
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Work-life balance
Gender inequity: a global perspective

INTRODUCTORY TIPS
A good way to introduce this chapter is to ask students to describe the times when they have
felt discriminated against because of their sex, clothes, age, height, religion, complexion,
accent, car, hairstyle, etc.

Their experience can be put into perspective by sketching the outlines of discrimination law:
(1) Explain that some situations or contexts (e.g. employment, education, housing, public
transportation) are governed by federal and/or state civil rights laws, including Title VII),
while others are not (entirely private clubs, purely social encounters); (2) that some reasons or
bases for discrimination are clearly illegal (race, sex, religion, age, national origin, disability),
others may be illegal depending on other circumstances (e.g., disparate impact of height and
weight requirements for a job), while others are largely permissible (e.g. favoring relatives,
 59

graduates of certain schools). Finally, some kinds of discrimination are permitted by federal
law, but outlawed in some states (e.g., sexual orientation, smokers).

United States v. Windsor, Questions, p. 130

1. & 2. Views about marriage and what is at stake for opponents of same-sex marriage?

These are very personal question that may be suitable for small group or class discussion or
for an essay assignment.

3. Impact of same-sex marriage on children

Significant research has been done on this issue and many articles are available including this
one which provides a recap of some of the research:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/impact-of-same-sex-parenting-on-children-
evaluating-the-research
4. Research: Loving v. Virginia

Loving v. Virginia can be found at 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (Va.1967).
The majority in Windsor determined that DOMA deprived people of the liberty of deciding
who to marry and thus, is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in Loving made a similar
argument and noted that disallowing inter-racial marriage violates the Fourteenth
Amendment. A difference is that the Court in Loving recognized that distinctions based on
race are subjected to “the most rigid scrutiny.” Although the majority in Windsor struck down
a prohibition of same-sex marriage, the Court did not set forth a strict scrutiny standard for
distinctions based on sexual preference.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

5. Wide-scale recognition of same-sex relationships on business.

There are several items that students can discuss here. There are tax implications- will
governments have to change tax structures or even statuses (married) which will impact the
operations of companies, from accounting to human resources. There are potential impacts on
how benefits are structured, negotiations with insurance companies, and other benefit issues.
Same-sex marriage might also open up new opportunities for businesses to provide goods and
services they do not currently offer.

6. & 7. Research: Individual states and same-sex marriages or partnerships

Have students search for the name of their state along with terms such as “gay marriage,”
“same-sex marriage,” or “gay partnership.” Students who cannot find any information from
their state likely live in a state that does not legally recognize such partnerships.
60

A search of the ACLU and same sex marriage leads to many articles regarding the
Pennsylvania lawsuit and lawsuits filed against other states.

As of February 2014 the Indiana debate is still in progress:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/17/us-usa-gaymarriage-indiana-
idUSBREA1G1H920140217

EQUAL PROTECTION
As an introduction to the discussion of the Equal Protection clause, you might want to discuss
some of the history of the 14th Amendment. After the Civil War, southern states responded to
the freeing of slaves by enacting Black Codes that severely limited the rights of just-freed
slaves to own property, enter contracts, leave jobs, etc. Congress responded by adopting the
Civil Rights Act of 1866, over President Andrew Johnson's veto. Worried that Johnson might
be right in his contention that the Act was unconstitutional, Congress pushed for the 14th
Amendment, which won ratification in 1868.

In its first interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court acknowledged the racial
basis for its guarantees of equal protection:

The one pervading purpose...lying at the foundation of [the 14th Amendment]

and without which none of [the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments] would have
been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and
firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made free
man and citizen from the oppression of those who had formerly exercised
unlimited domination over him.... The Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall 36
(1873).

In June 1996, the Supreme Court decided that the males-only policy of Virginia Military
Institute (VMI) violated the equal protection clause. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the
majority opinion, using language that may mean a new test for gender-based equal protection
claims:

Parties who seek to defend gender based government action must demonstrate
an exceedingly persuasive justification for that action.

See: United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 116 S.Ct. 2264 (1996).

Lozano v. City of Hazelton, Questions, pp. 133 - 135

1. Stakeholders

The stakeholders in the ordinance (which prohibit hiring or renting to illegal immigrants) are
1) the legal workers who might not get jobs that go to illegal immigrants; 2) the employers
who may have to pay more for legal workers; 3) the home and apartment owners who may
 61

have to charge less for their rent because of decreased demand; 4) the illegal immigrants who
are in this country trying to improve their living conditions; 5) the citizens of surrounding
towns where the illegal immigrants will go if they are “banned” from Hazelton; 6) the
government leaders in Hazelton who are responding to public demand for action.

2. Should states be permitted to create their own immigration policies?

This is an interesting question for class or group discussion. What are the pros and cons?
How would such laws impact employers who work in different states? What if an immigrant
who is covered under a state policy travels temporarily to a state with a more stringent policy?

3. Research: State and municipality immigration laws

An Internet search that includes the state in question and the words immigration law should
provide all the information needed to answer this question.
4. ITINs

Students should think broadly and creatively on this one. Some pros could be that taxes are
being paid as opposed to having the employees be paid “under the table” for work done. In
addition, it allows for locations where workers are desperately needed to have staff. Cons for
this approach could be that it allows immigrants to work in this country without going through
the process of becoming a citizen and obtaining a social security number, taking jobs away
from citizens.

5. E-Verify

Information about e-verify and various states may be found here:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/everify-faq.aspx

There are many articles available about the immigration reform bill and e-verify including:
http://www.usimmigrationblog.com/2013/06/immigration-reform-and-e-verify.html

6. Research: Crime statistics and immigration status

There are many web articles regarding crime and illegal immigrants. Some support the theory
that there in an increase in crime from illegal immigrants. Others do not. Examples from
both sides include:
http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080307/news_lz1e7piehl.html
http://cis.org/ImmigrantCrime

7. Research: Housing permits

.
The Appeals Court agreed that the ordnance was unconstitutional:
62

http://republicanherald.com/news/appeals-court-again-rules-hazleton-s-immigration-
ordinances-unconstitutional-1.1526908

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

In this section, it is easy to bring in the GINA from Chapter 3. It is also interesting to talk
about why race, religion, gender, ethnicity and color all fall under the same statute but age and
disability did not – they had separate statutes passed.

Affirmative Action
Fischer v. Texas, Questions, p. 140 & 141

1. What rules does Justice Kennedy say Bakke, Grutter and Gratz set forth? Why would
Justice Thomas not “take them as given?”
“Decisions based on race or ethnic origin by faculties and administrations of state
universities are reviewable under the Fourteenth Amendment” … Any racial classification
must meet strict scrutiny, for when government decisions “touch upon an individual’s race
or ethnic background, he is entitled to a judicial determination that the burden he is asked
to bear on that basis is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.”

The attainment of a diverse student body … serves values beyond race alone, including
enhanced classroom dialogue and the lessening of racial isolation and stereotypes …

“[A] race –conscious admissions program cannot use a quota system” … but instead must
“remain flexible enough to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not
in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her
application …” [J]udicial review must begin from that position that ‘any official action
that treats a person differently on account of his race or ethnic origin is inherently
suspect.”

Justice Thomas stated that “…. the equal protection principle reflects our Nation’s
understanding that [racial] classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the
individual and our society.”

Additionally, “the educational benefits allegedly produced by diversity must rise to the
level of a compelling state interest in order for the program to survive strict scrutiny.”

2. Lee C. Bollinger

Judge Thomas would disagree as he believes:

• “[racial] classifications ultimately have a destructive impact on the individual and
our society.”
 63

• “racial discrimination is never benign…”

• University discrimination ‘stamp[s] [blacks and Hispanics] with a badge of
inferiority.”

Judge Ginsberg would agree with Bollinger in that “consciousness to race issues” is what
is driving Texas’ plan.

3. More accessible higher education

This is a good question for class discussion. Students should consider the pros and cons
including the cost and the impact on students who are not economically disadvantaged.

4. Research: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

As of the time of this writing, the case was not yet decided. An Internet search should
find the status.
5. Admission policy

This is another good question for class discussion that fits in well with question 3.

Religion
Webb v. City of Philadelphia, Questions, p. 143 & 144

1. How does Directive 78 differ from the No beards policy?

Directive 78 does not have any documented exceptions. The no-beard policy had exceptions
for non-religious reasons, indicating that the no-beard policy was neither a safety issue nor an
issue related to impartiality. Directive 78 has no exceptions and is founded on ensuring that
officers of the law all look similar in dress to citizens.

2. You are the head of Human Resources. How do you handle:

a. Religious Attire
On one level, students should think about the “look” policy to determine if it is a
necessary or helpful policy. The HR director should look at the correlation between the
policy and sales. Does the “look” actually increase sales? If there is a reasonable
business reason for the policy, the employee can be asked to abide by it or face
disciplinary action. The HR director should talk with the employee about the policy, why
it exists and why it is important that it be maintained.

b. Religious Grooming
In evaluating the policy, the students may think about safety issues. It seems that to
enforce a clean shave in the upper-bay and not in the more dangerous lower bay is
counterintuitive. It is clear from the scenario that the employee would consider being
64

placed only in the lower bay as a form of demotion or a negative employment

consequence. The employer should document the business need for clean-shaven men in
the upper-bay. It may be possible to accommodate this employee by modifying the policy
to state “no or neatly kept beards.”

3. Dress Codes
a. Banks and earrings
Because the bank presumably allows females to wear earrings, this policy is based solely
on the gender of the employees. There are clearly no safety or health reasons for the
policy and so the policy is likely to be illegal.

b. Shoes
Just as the policy above was strictly gender-based, so is this policy. Without a solid
business justification, this policy will be illegal.

c. Pizza Delivery
Without having looked at the ADA yet, students may or may not identify the medical
condition as problematic. Without some legitimate business reason for the policy (health
and safety reasons), the policy disparately impacts the African American population.
Even if the employer did not intend to impact the population, this facially neutral policy
has a disproportionate impact on that population.

4. Religious Accommodations
a. Sabbath observance
The employer should document the necessity of having an employee deliver during those
time periods and the hardship that would be incurred by not having this employee work.
If it is possible to schedule shifts so that the employee does not have to work during those
24-hours, then it should be done.

b. Evangelism
In this case, the employee is not asking for an accommodation to practice her religion, she
is asking for an accommodation to bring her religion in to the workplace. Because the
First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act do not protect all behaviors, and require a
reasonable accommodation for religion, this employer has a good argument that the
behavior should not be allowed. Allowing her to continue this practice in the workplace
could create a hostile environment for the employee or others.

National Origin
Maldonado v. City of Altus, Questions, p. 148 & 149

1. Impact of English-only Rules

 65

There is a broad spectrum of individuals that may be hurt by English-only rules. Individuals
with little or no English skills and those with pride in their cultural heritage would be
impacted. Similarly, diverse individuals (and those of all races, creeds, and nationalities who
embrace diversity) who seek to create a work environment of respect and inclusion are also
affected. The EEOC Guideline on English-Only Workplace Rules (text, p. 144) provides
rationale for applying the English-only rules in the workplace. This application of English-
only rules does not promote diversity and create and reinforce stereotypes. Individuals that
would tend to benefit are people who occupy the “majority” in the workplace and wish to
maintain their position of power and the status quo. In that regard, it would include a universe
of individuals who are not members of protected classes on Title VI.

The operation of English-only rules create and reinforce stereotypes as they highlight
differences and create barriers for inclusion between all groups. It is difficult to create a
supportive work and productive environment when the focus is on differences instead of
commonalities. Respect and relationships are harder to establish and nurture in this type of
work environment when policy of English-only is driven down by those in leadership
positions.
2. Discrimination Claim and Proof

Hispanic city street department employees alleged that the English-only policy of the
employer created a hostile work environment for them based on their national origin. They
felt a sense of inferiority, isolation, and intimidation. The gravamen of their complaint was
these actions created a disparate impact -- fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. In the
seminal case of Griggs v. Duke Power (1971), the Supreme Court defined disparate impact
employment practices as those who are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups
but fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.

At trial, plaintiff has the burden of proof for a prima facie case showing the allegedly facially
neutral employment practice has disproportionally affected the protected group. Then, if the
defendant proves a business necessity, the plaintiff may still prevail by showing that the
employer has refused to adopt an alternative employment practice that would satisfy the
employer's legitimate interests without having a disparate impact on a protected class. The
fact that plaintiffs are bilingual (assuming fluency) may make it more difficult for plaintiff to
show a disproportionate effect, and to support a claim by plaintiff, there is no need to adopt an
alternative employment practice because the impact on bilingual employees would be
minimal. This presumes an ability to communicate effectively in the English language.

3. Case for Business Necessity

There is a business necessity for requiring airline pilots to speak English in all air traffic
communications within the United States, where English is the primary language. This
policy is based on bona fide safety concerns within the United States. There is little, if any,
tolerance for errors or mistaken communications given the high speed of which aircraft
operate in the sky and on the ground. Instructions from air traffic control need to be executed
immediately and with precision. The lives of passengers, crew, and people on the ground are
66

always risk with this mode of transportation and airline safety is paramount. All
communications must be clearly understood.

The case of the computer software salespersons at management meeting is a fact specific
inquiry. It is important to look at the diversity and composition of the members of the work
team. A company would need to articulate a reason why the use of another language hurts or
interferes with productivity and efficiency or to maintain order and discipline. In a
semiconductor assembly line, or an airline baggage handling area, business necessity would
include safety, and thus a need for effective communication.

For the foregoing hypotheticals, assume arguendo, the majority of the workforce was
Hispanic. A strong argument can be made for the application of a bilingual work
environment, as the majority of the employees are able to communicate effectively in their
primary language. Last, requiring English to be spoken during nonworking hours does not
constitute a business necessity. One exception may be a police officer who observes an off-
duty event and contacts dispatch. Then, a case can be made for an English-only interaction.

4. Preference for Hiring Non –English Speaking

There are many reasons (often business or profit driven) for an employer’s preference for
hiring persons who do not speak English. It can be an effective mechanism to discriminate
against people in protected classes and to circumvent wage, discrimination, workers’
compensation and other employment benefit laws. Examples include unskilled blue-collar
workers as well as migrant farm workers, landscape workers, meatpacking plants,
housekeepers, and hotel workers. It would be most unethical and fundamentally unfair to
prefer such persons for the reasons identified.

5. Prohibit students from Speaking Language Other than English

This is a most contentious area in the current political climate of immigration reform, and a
majority of the United States has enacted laws making English their official language.

The question calls for an analysis of a complicated area of law governed by a myriad of
federal, state, and local educational laws and federal/state constitutional law. The cited case
of Rubio v. Turner Unified School District No. 202, 453 F. Supp.2d 1295 (D. Kansas, 2006)
states that English-only policies are not inherently non-discriminatory as a matter of law and
points out that plaintiff was unable to cite any case that establishes a right to speak a foreign
language in a public school. It would matter if the school is public or private inasmuch there
is no precedent for asserting constitutional violations as “state action” by a private entity.

More information about Rubio may be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802122.html

Silva v. St. Anne’s Catholic School:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/kansas/ksdce/6:2008cv01143/66406/
 67

The “English only” approach appears to be at odds with educational law and a finding that
“… English language learners (ELLs) everywhere in the United States retain the right to use
their native language at any time, whether in or out of school.”
http://www.azbilingualed.org/AABE%20Site/AABE--
News%202004/a_guide_to_the_language_rights_o.htm.

6. Avoiding Litigation

This litigation might have been avoided by employing Alternative Dispute Resolution tools
including Court-Mandated Mediation Programs, community mediation, and community
dialogue.

The Community Relations Service of the Department of Justice is “the Department's

peacemaker" for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and
national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is the only Federal agency
dedicated to assisting state and local units of government, private and public organizations,
and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents,
and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony. See:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/

The HR consultant hired to lead the discussion on the English-only policy for the city should
bring together individuals with a primary stake or interest in the outcome for conversations.
This effort should begin with the mayor (who voiced bias toward individuals speaking
Spanish), governing bodies of the City, community members, clergy, union leadership, and
rank and file membership. It is a sustained process, and results are not likely to be achieved
quickly; however, with patience and agreement to participate fully and fairly in the process,
understanding and agreements are achievable.

Sex Discrimination
Begin this topic by asking students whether they have ever experienced sexual or racial
harassment in the workplace, the classroom, or if they have observed someone else being
harassed because of their sex, religion, race, or sexual orientation. Other students can then
comment on whether they would consider the same behavior "sexual harassment." One of the
thorniest problems in this area of the law is the lack of consensus concerning acceptable
workplace behavior, with men and women tending to have different perspectives on the
acceptability of various interactions. You can lead discussion to a continuum of behavior,
from "clearly harassment" to "clearly acceptable," exposing a large middle gray area. Students
can be asked to keep this continuum in mind as they read this section of the chapter. You
might also point out that there is a distinction between sexual harassment that is basically
illegal under Title VII (leading to damages in a civil suit), and the kind of conduct that is both
a violation of the statute and of state criminal laws (rape, assault). Advise the class that while
the text focuses on Title VII suits, sexual harassment victims often have other remedies as
well: suits based on state civil rights laws and/or tort cases (intentional infliction of emotional
distress.)
68

The Sanitized Workplace, Vicki Shultz, Questions, p. 154

1. Integration and equality throughout the firm

Schultz believes that claims of harassment mask other larger concerns such as the relegating
of women to low-status, low-pay positions. Elevating women to higher positions throughout a
firm would help in achieving equality. She would probably say, for example, that a firm that
had a larger number of women in executive positions would have a lower incidence of sexual
harassment complaints.

2. Research: Frederick W. Taylor

Information about Frederick W. Taylor and his “sterile” dream may be found here:
http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/taylor.asp

Schultz’ vision is one where the workplace is “a realm alive with personal intimacy, sexual
energy, and “humanness” ”.
Bending the Gender Stereotypes
Oiler v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., Questions, p. 157

1. Why did Oiler lose?

The court ruled that he was not fired because he failed to conform to a gender stereotype but
because he disguised himself as a person of a different sex. Oiler lost because cross-dressing
or being a transvestite is not prohibited by Title VII.

2. Dissenting opinion

Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, gender, religion, color, and national origin.
A dissenting opinion would not likely rely on the fact that the cross-dressing was done outside
of work because Title VII does not prohibit the use of off-duty activities to support a
discharge. The dissent would likely say that cross-dressing falls into the same category as
cases such as Back, and that discharging someone because of the failure to conform to
traditional ideas of masculinity violates Title VII. Constitutional guarantees are not present
with private employers and would not be a basis for a dissenting opinion.

3. Gender Identity Scenarios

a. Transgendered faculty

Articles about this situation can be found here:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_aYZ0rKq8eDhUrHe6My3s3O
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leora-tanenbaum/transgender-professor-at_b_127305.html
 69

b. Male editor
See: http://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases/glenn-v-brumby-et-al

c. Sales associate
Information on the Creed v. Family Express Corp. case may be found here:
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/01/i_hope_you_dont_think_im_being_stereotyp.php
http://transworkplace.blogspot.com/2008/03/transgender-discrimination-court-update.html

4. Protection for transgendered persons

The Human Rights Campaign website is a comprehensive tool for finding legislation based on
sexual orientation and transgender issues: http://www.hrc.org/

WORK-LIFE BALANCE
Family and Medical Leave Act, Questions, p. 161 & 162

1. Is the FMLA well-crafted to respond to congressional findings?

The gist of the congressional finding seems to be that care-taking responsibilities fall
disproportionately on women, and that no one should be forced to choose between family and
work. Among the problems that remain: how to encourage greater male participation in care-
taking; the limitations of unpaid leave policies; the continued high demand, yet low
availability of quality daycare for everyday (as opposed to new-child or sick-child) needs.

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Poster is available for download from the United
States Department of Labor: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/posters/fmla.htm

2. Paid Leave

The provisions quoted do not require paid leave, but also do not forbid it. In Santiago v. New
York Police Department 2007 WL 4382752 (S.D.N.Y.)), the federal court held that the
availability of a more favorable paid leave program can allow an employer to deny an FMLA
request. See a discussion at:
http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/2008/01/knwon-availabil.html

3. FMLA policy and Windsor

In 2013 the FMLA policy was extended to same sex married couples. Information:
http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2013/8/12/labor-dept-extends-fmla-benefits-to-
samesex-married-couples
70

4. Are stereotypes addressed by Congress? Is the law responsive to changes in ideas

about family? Who benefits from/is hurt by the Act? Amendments?

According to the “Findings and Purposes” of the law, “the primary responsibility for family
caretaking often falls on women, and such responsibility affects the working lives of women
more than it affects the working lives of men...”

The law recognizes that the number of single-parent households and two-parent households in
which the single parent or both parents work is increasing.

Employees (and their families) who can afford to be without salary for a period of time are
most benefited by the law; paid leave would make it a more viable option for the many who
cannot.

Despite strong opposition from some business groups, employers do not appear to have been
significantly hurt by the law. While two thirds of the employers covered by the law changed
their policies to come into compliance with it, most experienced little or no cost. In the 1996
government survey more than 90% of employers reported no changes or small increases in
benefits, hiring, or other costs. Overall, 86.4% reported no noticeable effect on business
productivity. See: "Report: Leave Law Works," Nat'l. L. J., May 20, 1996.

As noted in Question 3, the FMLA Act was extended to same-sex married couples in 2013.
Information on other changes may be found here: http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/2013rule/

5. Research: Paid Family and Medical Leave

(a) Organizations for and against paid lead for all new mothers

The National Partnership for Women & Families supports the leave:
http://www.whattoexpect.com/tools/photolist/why-the-u.s.-desperately-needs-a-national-
paid-family-and-medical-leave-program.aspx

Not an organization, but an interesting article against extended leave is found here:
http://blog.imperfectparent.com/2011/04/13/the-case-against-extended-maternity-leave/

(b) Current status of state proposals

A good source of information by state is: http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-

employment/state-family-and-medical-leave-laws.aspx

6. Research: Paid sick leave

(a) The Healthy Families Act

 71

This act has been introduced a number of times over the years. Status on the most
current version may be found here:
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1286

(b) State paid sick leave

An Internet search should provide information about specific states. One article that
discusses several states is:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/11/states-cities-prescribe-paid-
sick-leave-rules/4411597/

(c) Slate’s online map

The map is found here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/02/states_citi
es_consider_laws_requiring_paid_sick_days.html

7. Research: State laws preempting city laws

An article that includes this issue is found here:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/173265/paid-sick-leave-battle-widens-states
States may be concerned that allowing individual city laws may divide their cities or force
the states themselves to adopt statewide laws.

Reasonable Accommodation of Disabled Workers

Equal Opportunity for Individuals with Disabilities (Americans with Disabilities Act)
Questions, p. 164 & 165

1. Accommodation issues

(a) Morning sickness

For a discussion on this issue see:
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/employeerelations/articles/Pages/Employers-
Accommodate-Pregnancy.aspx

(b) & (c) Lifting restrictions – male and pregnant airline ticket agents
For a general discussion on ADA regulations including lifting restrictions see:
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-final-adaaa-regulations-issued-by-th-62119/

2. Extent of changes required to accommodate the disabled

(a) Websites
72

In National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 452 F.Supp.2d 946 (N.D. Ca.
2006), defendant Target contended that services did not occur on the premises of the
retailer's stores and blind customers were not denied physical access to retailer's stores. The
ruling appears to be a case of first impression where the ADA applies to a web site in
addition to physical locations. On September 28, 2007, Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is
GRANTED.
The nationwide class consists of all legally blind individuals in the United States who have
attempted to access Target.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of
goods and services offered in Target stores. The Order as well as supporting
documentation is available at the Disability Rights Advocates website:
http://www.dralegal.org/cases/private_business/nfb_v_target.php
In National Assn. of the Deaf v. Netflix, 869 F.Supp.2d 196 (D.Mass. 2012), defendant
Netflix argued that website-only businesses were not covered by the ADA. The motion was
denied and the Massachusetts court was the first in the county to hold that website-only
businesses are covered by the ADA. For more information see:
http://www.nad.org/news/2012/6/landmark-precedent-nad-vs-netflix
(b) ATM Access

This case has been ongoing for many years. A good recap of the entire case is found here:
http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=11459

(c) Kindles and the blind

The move to put Kindles in school was protested by the National Federation of the Blind
because they were not accessible to many students. See: https://nfb.org/kindle-books
While the issue of Kindle accessibility has not been totally resolved, Amazon’s step towards
resolution via an app was applauded by the organization.
https://nfb.org/national-federation-blind-comments-amazon-kindle-app

3. Redesigning Currency – Distinguishable by Blind/Visually Impaired

(a) Should the government do another redesign to address the needs of the blind or
visually impaired?
The question is somewhat mute based on the court decision (see part b.). A recent
article that addresses the issue is found here:
http://www.blindness.org/blog/index.php/show-us-the-money-updated-currency-for-
the-visually-impaired/

(b) American Council of the Blind v. Paulson

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 424. “Nous ne les plaçons ici qu’avec doute,” Règne Anim. éd. 3, tom. vi. p.
298.
425. Cf. also J. E. W. Ihle, “Phylogenie und systematische Stellung der
Pantopoden,” Biol. Centralbl., Bd. xviii., 1898, pp. 603–609; Meisenheimer, Verh.
zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, xii., 1902, pp. 57–64; also Stebbing, in Knowledge, 1902.
426. The chelate form of the foremost appendages is of little moment. A chela
consists merely of a more or less mobile terminal joint flexing on a more or less
protuberant penultimate one, and in the Scorpions, in Limulus, throughout the
Crustacea, and even in Insects (cf. vol. vi. p. 554), we see such a structure arising
independently on very diverse appendages.
427. Cf. Oudemans, Tijdschr. d. Ned. Dierk. Ver. (2), i., 1886, p. 41:
“Jedermann weiss nun, dass diese Tiere eine ganz besondere Urgruppe bilden,
ohne alle Verwandschaft mit irgend einer anderen Arthropodengruppe.”
428. Cole (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), xv., 1905, pp. 405–415) has attempted
such a phylogenetic classification, starting with Decolopoda, and leading in two
divergent lines, through Nymphon and Pallene to the Pycnogonidae, and through
Eurycide and Ammothea to Colossendeis. This hint is in part adopted in the
subjoined classification. Bouvier, in his recent Report on the Pycnogons of the
French Antarctic Expedition (t. cit.), gives reasons for separating the
Decolopodidae and Colossendeidae from all the rest. Loman, in Die Pantopoden
der Siboga Expedition, 1908, has recently suggested another, and in many respects
novel, classification of the whole group.
429. See (inter alia) Dohrn, l.c.; E. B. Wilson, Rep. U.S. Fish. Comm. (1878),
1880; Hoek, Chall. Report, 1881; G. O. Sars, Norw. N. Atl. Exp. 1891; Meinert,
Ingolf Exped. 1899; Möbius, Fauna Arctica, 1901, Valdivia Exped. 1902; Cole,
Harriman Alaska Exped. 1904; Hodgson, Discovery Exped. 1907; Bouvier, Exp.
Antarct. Fr. 1907.
430. Boston Journ. Nat. Hist. i., 1834, p. 203; Cf. Hodgson, Pr. R. Phys. Soc.
Edinburgh, xvi., 1905, p. 35; Zool. Anz. xxv., 1905, p. 254; Discovery Exp.,
“Pycnogonida,” 1907; Bouvier, Exp. Antarct. Fr. 1907.
431. See pp. 535, 541. Cf. Dohrn (t. cit.), p. 228.
432. The first known species was described as Phoxichilus proboscideus,
Sabine, from the shores of the North Georgian Islands (1821).
433. Pocock (Encycl. Brit., 10th ed., Art. “Arachnida”) makes Hannonia the
solitary type of a family. Cf. Loman, Zool. Jahrb., Syst., xx., 1904, p. 385.
434. Loman conjoins all these genera, and also Lecythorhynchus, with
Nymphopsis, as a sub-family Nymphopsinae of Ammotheidae.
435. Edinb. New Phil. Journal, Oct. 1842, p. 367 (P. capillata on Plate).
436. Proc. Boston Nat. Hist. Society, vol. i., 1841–44, p. 92.
 437. Found by Sir John Ross’s expedition in 1840, and subsequently by the
Challenger expedition and other visitors.
438. Stebbing has recently shown (Knowledge, Aug. 1902, p. 157) that the
genus Phoxichilus was instituted by Latreille (Nouv. Dict. d’hist. nat. 1804) for the
Pycnogonum spinipes of Fabricius, now Pseudopallene spinipes, auctt. Hence he
changes Pseudopallene to Phoxichilus, Latr., and Phoxichilidae and Phoxichilus,
auctt., to Chilophoxidae, etc.; it also follows that the family known to all naturalists
as Pallenidae should, according to the letter of the law of priority, be henceforth
known as the Phoxichilidae. In my opinion this is a case where strict adherence to
priority would serve no good end, but would only lead to great and lasting
confusion (cf. Norman, J. Linn. Soc. xxx., 1908, p. 231).
439. Vide note 2, p. 537.
440. Mag. Nat. Hist. vi., 1838, p. 42; Mag. Zool. and Bot. i., 1837, p. 368.
441. Edinb. New Phil. Journ. xxxii., 1842, p. 136; xxxiii., 1842, p. 367; Ann.
Mag. Nat. Hist. (1), xiv., 1844, p. 4.
442. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (3), xiii., 1864, p. 113.
443. Proc. R. Dublin Soc. (N.S.), viii., 1893, p. 195; Fisheries, Ireland, Sci.
Invest. 1904, No. iv. (1905).
444. Cf. A. M. Norman, J. Linn. Soc. xxx., 1908, pp. 198–238.
 THE CAMBRIDGE NATURAL HISTORY

Edited by S. F. Harmer, Sc.D., F.R.S., and A. E. Shipley, M.A.,

F.R.S.

In Ten Volumes. Fully Illustrated. Medium 8vo.

17s. net each.

FIELD.—“The Cambridge Natural History series of volumes is one of very great

value to all students of biological science. The books are not intended for popular
reading, but for utilisation by those who are desirous of making themselves
thoroughly acquainted with the branches of zoology of which they treat.”

VOLUME I.
Protozoa, by Marcus Hartog, M.A., D.Sc.; Porifera
(Sponges), by Igerna B. J. Sollas, B.Sc.; Coelenterata and
Ctenophora, by S. J. Hickson, M.A., F.R.S.; Echinodermata,
by E. W. MacBride, M.A., F.R.S.

FIELD.—“The book can be in the strongest manner recommended to those for

whose benefit it has been written. We know of no work from which a more truly
scientific account of the Protozoa, Echinodermata, and other lower forms of animal
life could be gained.”

VOLUME II.
Flatworms and Mesozoa, by F. W. Gamble, D.Sc.;
Nemertines, by Miss L. Sheldon; Threadworms and
Sagitta, by A. E. Shipley, M.A., F.R.S.; Rotifers, by Marcus
Hartog, M.A., D.Sc.; Polychaet Worms, by W. Blaxland
Benham, D.Sc., M.A.; Earthworms and Leeches, by F. E.
Beddard, M.A., F.R.S.; Gephyrea and Phoronis, by A. E.
Shipley, M.A., F.R.S.; Polyzoa, by S. F. Harmer, Sc.D., F.R.S.

CAMBRIDGE REVIEW.—“Most of the articles are of a very high order of merit—

taken as a whole, it may be said that they are by far the best which have as yet been
published.... We may say with confidence that the same amount of information,
within the same compass, is to be had in no other zoological work.”

VOLUME III.
Molluscs, by the Rev. A. H. Cooke, M.A.; Brachiopods
(Recent), by A. E. Shipley, M.A., F.R.S.; Brachiopods
(Fossil), by F. R. C. Reed, M.A.

TIMES.—“There are very many, not only among educated people who take an
interest in science, but even among specialists, who will welcome a work of
reasonable compass and handy form containing a trustworthy treatment of the
various departments of Natural History by men who are familiar with, and
competent to deal with, the latest results of scientific research. Altogether, to judge
from this first volume, the Cambridge Natural History promises to fulfil all the
expectations that its prospectus holds out.”

VOLUME IV.
Crustacea, by Geoffrey W. Smith, M.A., and the late W. F. R.
Weldon, M.A.; Trilobites, by Henry Woods, M.A.;
Introduction to Arachnida, and King-Crabs, by A. E.
Shipley, M.A., F.R.S.; Eurypterida, by Henry Woods, M.A.;
Scorpions, Spiders, Mites, Ticks, etc., by Cecil
Warburton, M.A.; Tardigrada (Water-Bears), by A. E.
Shipley, M.A., F.R.S.; Pentastomida, by A. E. Shipley, M.A.,
F.R.S.; Pycnogonida, by D’Arcy W. Thompson, C.B., M.A.

VOLUME V.
Peripatus, by Adam Sedgwick, M.A., F.R.S.; Myriapods, by F.
G. Sinclair, M.A.; Insects, Part I., Introduction, Aptera,
Orthoptera, Neuroptera, and a portion of Hymenoptera
(Sessiliventres and Parasitica), by David Sharp, M.A., M.B.,
F.R.S.
 Prof. RAPHAEL MELDOLA, F.R.S., F.C.S., in his Presidential Address to the
Entomological Society of London, said:—“The authors of this volume are certainly
to be congratulated upon having furnished such a valuable contribution to our
literature. When its successor appears, and I will venture to express the hope that
this will be at no very distant period, we shall be in possession of a treatise on the
natural history of insects which, from the point of view of the general reader, will
compare most favourably with any similar work that has been published in the
English language.”
 VOLUME VI.
Hymenoptera (continued) (Tubulifera and Aculeata),
Coleoptera, Strepsiptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera,
Aphaniptera, Thysanoptera, Hemiptera, Anoplura, by
David Sharp, M.A., M.B., F.R.S.

SATURDAY REVIEW.—“Dr. Sharp’s treatment is altogether worthy of the series

and of his own high scientific reputation.... Certainly this is a book that should be
in every entomologist’s library.”

VOLUME VII.
Hemichordata, by S. F. Harmer, Sc.D., F.R.S.; Ascidians and
Amphioxus, by W. A. Herdman, D.Sc., F.R.S.; Fishes
(exclusive of the Systematic Account of Teleostei), by T.
W. Bridge, Sc.D., F.R.S.; Fishes (Systematic Account of
Teleostei), by G. A. Boulenger, F.R.S.

ATHENÆUM.—“All who take a serious interest in the advance of ichthyology

will find this a fascinating book.”

VOLUME VIII.
Amphibia and Reptiles, by Hans Gadow, M.A., F.R.S.

NATURE.—“In concluding the review we would express the opinion that by this
handsome volume a very important addition to science has been made; that the
beautiful illustrations, together with the clear and charming accounts of the life-
histories which it contains, will do much to popularise the study of a rather
neglected section of zoology; and that lovers of Reptiles, of which there are more
than one generally thinks, will feel that the new knowledge imparted to them
emanates from one who is thoroughly in sympathy with their enthusiasm.”

VOLUME IX.
 Birds, by A. H. Evans, M.A.

IBIS.—“Mr. Evans has produced a book full of concentrated essence of

information on birds, especially as regards their outer structure and habits, and
one that we can cordially recommend as a work of reference to all students of
ornithology.”

VOLUME X.
Mammalia, by Frank Evers Beddard, M.A., F.R.S.

NATURE.—“Cannot fail to be of very high value to all students of the Mammalia,

especially from the standpoints of morphology and palæontology.”

LONDON: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd.

 TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and
variations in spelling.
2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings
as printed.
 *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE
CAMBRIDGE NATURAL HISTORY, VOL. 04 (OF 10) ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated
equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly
important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws

regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of
the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform
and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many
fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not
solicit donations in locations where we have not received written
confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or
determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states

where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know
of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from
donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot

make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations
received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp
our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current

donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a
number of other ways including checks, online payments and
credit card donations. To donate, please visit:
www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could
be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose
network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several

printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by
copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus,
we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any
particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear
about new eBooks.