Nos. 08-1600 & 08-1601
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED
Jul 27, 2010
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
FRANK KEVIN FISCHER, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Inc., )
)
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. )
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, SUTTON and COOK, Circuit Judges.
COOK, Circuit Judge. Kevin Fischer sued his former employer, United Parcel Service, Inc.
(UPS), accusing it of firing him in retaliation for (1) a previous race discrimination lawsuit he
brought against the company; and (2) filing several internal complaints. A jury returned a verdict
in Fischer’s favor, awarding him back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. UPS filed
a post-trial motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, certain evidentiary rulings, and the
validity of the punitive damage award. UPS alternatively sought remittitur of the compensatory
award. The court vacated the punitive damage award but denied the other requests for relief, and
UPS appealed. Fischer cross-appealed, arguing that the district court erred by vacating the punitive
damage award and by granting summary judgment in favor of UPS on his state-law retaliation claim
based on his internal complaints.
TRUE INTRODUCTION I. Background
Fischer began his career with UPS in 1985 as an hourly worker and, over the years, rose
through the ranks to become a National Account Manager (NAM) in 1997. As a NAM, Fischer’s
principal responsibility involved selling UPS products and services to large corporate accounts.
Throughout his tenure as a NAM, Fischer produced excellent sales numbers.
In October 2000, Fischer, an African American, sued UPS in federal court, claiming race
discrimination, retaliation, and harassment. UPS obtained summary judgment on the race
discrimination and retaliation claims, and the harassment claim proceeded to trial in December 2001.
Fischer’s supervisor, Alison Jarlett, testified for the defense. The jury returned a verdict in UPS’s
favor. For much of the pendency of the suit, Fischer was on medical leave from his job. He returned
to work in February 2002, approximately two months after the harassment trial ended. The instant
case concerns Fischer’s experiences after his return. According to Fischer, Jarlett singled him out
for differential treatment beginning on his first day back on the job. Fischer claimed that the
retaliatory treatment continued for more than a year, eventually culminating in his termination on
February 11, 2003.
Fischer sued UPS in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
accusing the company of violating Title VII and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act by
unlawfully retaliating against him for his prior lawsuit and several internal complaints he filed just
prior to his termination. The district court granted UPS’s motion for summary judgment on the
portion of the claim premised on Fischer’s internal complaints, but, finding genuine disputes over
material facts, allowed the claim of retaliation for the prior lawsuit to go to trial. Fischer v. United
Parcel Serv., No. 05-70366,
2007 WL 313565 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2007). Following a seven-day
trial, the jury returned a verdict in Fischer’s favor, awarding him $150,000 in back pay, $650,000
in compensatory damages, and $1,300,000 in punitive damages. The court reduced the punitive
damages award to reflect Title VII’s $300,000 statutory cap and entered judgment in Fischer’s favor.
UPS then moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial or, as a second
alternative, for remittitur. The district court refused to grant judgment as a matter of law on the
merits but vacated the punitive damages award as unsupported by evidence of pervasive disregard
of anti-discrimination policies by the company. Fischer v. United Parcel Serv., No. 05-70366,
2008
WL 880521 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2008). It also denied UPS’s request for a new trial and refused
to remit the compensatory award. The court entered a second amended judgment for Fischer in the
amount of $800,000, and UPS brought this timely appeal. Fischer cross-appeals the adverse
summary judgment ruling on his internal complaints retaliation claim, as well as the district court’s
decision to vacate the punitive damages award.
On appeal, UPS attacks the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of
law, for a new trial, or for remittitur. UPS claims that Fischer failed to supply evidence from which
a reasonable jury could infer that his firing occurred in retaliation for his prior lawsuit, or that UPS’s
proffered legitimate reason for his discharge was pretextual. Alternatively, UPS seeks a new trial
on grounds that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the outcome of Fischer’s prior
lawsuit as unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403(b). As a second alternative, UPS
argues that the district court erred by failing to remit the compensatory damages award, which UPS
characterizes as excessive.
TRUE MOTION A. Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
We give fresh review to the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Lowery v.
Jefferson County Bd. of Educ.,
586 F.3d 427, 432 (6th Cir. 2009). “Judgment as a matter of law is
appropriate only when there is a complete absence of fact to support the verdict, so that no
reasonable juror could have found for the nonmoving party.” Pouillon v. City of Owosso,
206 F.3d
711, 719 (6th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
A prima facie unlawful retaliation claim under Title VII requires the plaintiff to demonstrate
that (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) the defendant knew of this exercise of protected rights;
(3) the defendant thereafter took adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and (4) a causal
connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Morris v.
Oldham County Fiscal Court,
201 F.3d 784, 792 (6th Cir. 2000). Once the plaintiff establishes a
prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant “to produce evidence of a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.” Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.,
529 F.3d 714, 720 (6th Cir. 2008). If the defendant meets its burden, then the plaintiff must demonstrate that the legitimate reason is pretextual. Id.
TRUE STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Fact of Causation
UPS argues that Fischer failed to prove any facts from which the jury could infer a causal
connection between his prior lawsuit (the protected activity) and his termination (the adverse
employment action). Causation exists where the plaintiff “proffer[s] evidence sufficient to raise the
inference that [the] protected activity was the likely reason for the adverse action.” Michael v.
Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp.,
496 F.3d 584, 596 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Dixon v. Gonzales,
481
F.3d 324, 333 (6th Cir. 2007)). “In determining whether there is a causal relationship between a
plaintiff’s protected activity and an allegedly retaliatory act, courts may consider whether the
employer treated the plaintiff differently from similarly situated individuals and whether there is a
temporal connection between the protected activity and the retaliatory action.” Barrett v. Whirlpool
Corp.,
556 F.3d 502, 516–17 (6th Cir. 2009).
At trial, both sides presented evidence that prior to the first lawsuit Fischer enjoyed a cordial,
productive relationship with Jarlett, his direct supervisor, and that the two experienced no difficulty
communicating. After he returned to duty, however, Fischer testified that from his first day back on
the job, Jarlett’s treatment of him differed noticeably. He described his post-return interactions with
her as “cold” and “distant,” and their communication as deteriorating to “terrible” and “almost
nonexistent.” Jarlett ignored Fischer’s presence in the office, even though she remained cordial with
the other NAMs. Two of Fischer’s co-workers corroborated his characterization of Jarlett’s changed
attitude. And Jarlett singled Fischer out for heightened scrutiny from the first day of his return, when
she emailed higher-ups about Fischer’s traffic-induced late arrival, precisely tracking his tardiness
down to the minute. Jarlett also restricted Fischer exclusively to the office for several months and
demanded to know his whereabouts at all times—negative treatment none of the other NAMs under
her supervision experienced.
“[W]here some time elapses between when the employer learns of a protected activity and
the subsequent adverse employment action, the employee must couple temporal proximity with other
evidence of retaliatory conduct to establish causality.” Mickey v. Ziedler Tool & Die Co.,
516 F.3d
516, 525 (6th Cir. 2008). UPS seizes on the time lapse between Fischer’s first lawsuit (filed in October 2000) and his firing (in February 2003), arguing that the delay between the filing of the first
suit and Fischer’s discharge suggests a lack of causation. But this portrayal of the timing skews the
practical reality—Fischer had been on medical leave from before his discrimination case came to
trial until his February 2002 return. And Fischer presented evidence that Jarlett’s retaliatory conduct
began on his very first day back on the job and continued unabated until his termination. Thus, as
the district court noted in denying UPS’s motion for summary judgment, “[t]he alleged retaliatory
acts began when the opportunity first presented itself, immediately after he returned to work just two
months after the lawsuit concluded.”
2007 WL 313565, at *15. And contrary to UPS’s claim that
Fischer failed to identify any similarly-situated employees who received different treatment, Fischer
presented a wealth of evidence that Jarlett treated him differently than all the other NAMs in his
office. Thus, the jury possessed sufficient evidence from which it could infer a causal link between
Fischer’s first lawsuit and his termination.
TRUE COMPLAINT 2. Complaint of Pretext
UPS proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing Fischer—insubordinate
conduct in three meetings Jarlett and local human resources manager Annie VanTilburg held with
Fischer during the week of his firing. Thus, the burden swung back to Fischer to prove that this
reason amounted to nothing more than a pretext for his firing, which required that he “produce
evidence that either the proffered reason: (1) has no basis in fact; (2) did not actually motivate the
adverse employment action; or (3) was insufficient to warrant the adverse action.” Ladd v. Grand
Trunk W. R.R., Inc.,
552 F.3d 495, 502 (6th Cir. 2009).
Fischer testified in detail about his behavior at the meetings where he allegedly acted
insubordinately. He explained that he responded to the questions asked of him, but when Jarlett and
VanTilburg insisted on repeating the same questions over and over, he refused to respond. Fischer’s
testimony, if credited by the jury, supported a finding that he did not act insubordinately as UPS
claimed. Moreover, the facts surrounding the meetings during Fischer’s final few days undermine
UPS’s contention that insubordination motivated his termination. At trial, UPS maintained that a
decision on Fischer’s firing came only during the second meeting on February 11. But Jarlett had
reassigned Fischer’s sales accounts the day before, and contacted the company IT department to reset
his email and voice mail passwords, suggesting that Fischer’s conduct during the next day’s meetings
did not affect the termination decision. In addition, the second February 11 meeting lasted only five
minutes, a UPS security officer (whose presence was required at all employee firings) attended the
meeting, and VanTilburg came prepared with Fischer’s termination paperwork in hand. Neither
Jarlett nor VanTilburg asked Fischer any questions during the second meeting, undercutting UPS’s
assertion that Fischer’s failure to commit to reforming his behavior led to his termination. And
although UPS insists that Fischer’s failure to complete training and tests in a timely fashion
evidences insubordination, the record shows that UPS routinely excused such failures for other
NAMs such that the jury could reasonably conclude that Fischer did not act insubordinately by
turning in his assignments late. Fischer’s testimony, combined with the factual inconsistencies in
UPS’s proffered reason for his firing, permitted the jury to infer that UPS concocted the
insubordination theory as a pretext for Fischer’s termination.
Because Fischer presented evidence sufficient to allow the jury to infer both a causal
relationship between his first lawsuit and his termination, and that UPS’s proffered reason for firing
him was pretextual, we affirm the district court’s denial of UPS’s motion for judgment as a matter
of law on liability.
TRUE MOTION B. Motion for a New Trial
Next, UPS challenges the denial of its motion for a new trial, which we review for abuse of
discretion, and reverse only if left with “a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed
a clear error of judgment.” Barnes v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.,
201 F.3d 815, 820 (6th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] district court should grant a motion for new trial only when a jury has reached a seriously erroneous result as evidenced by: (1) the verdict being
against the weight of the evidence; (2) the damages being excessive; or (3) the trial being unfair to
the moving party in some fashion, i.e., the proceedings being influenced by prejudice or bias.”
Mitchell v. Boelcke,
440 F.3d 300, 303 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
UPS claims entitlement to a new trial on grounds that the district court abused its discretion
by refusing to allow the jury to learn the outcome of Fischer’s first lawsuit. We find no abuse of
discretion in the denial of UPS’s motion for a new trial for two principal reasons.
First, UPS cannot show that the underlying evidentiary ruling it challenges—the exclusion
of the outcome of Fischer’s first lawsuit—amounted to an abuse of discretion by the trial court.
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 allows for the exclusion of relevant evidence “if its probative value
is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. This court
reviews a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on admissibility under Rule 403 for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Bonds,
12 F.3d 540, 554 (6th Cir. 1993). In this context, unfair prejudice “refers
to evidence which tends to suggest a decision on an improper basis.” Paschal v. Flagstar Bank,
295 F.3d 565, 579 (6th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The district court found that, although relevant, evidence that Fischer lost his first lawsuit
tended to suggest a decision on an improper basis: namely, that because Fischer’s first lawsuit ended
adversely to him, this case also lacked merit. UPS fails to identify any flaw in the district court’s
reasoning. The district court appropriately balanced the probative value of the evidence against the
danger of unfair prejudice and acted within its discretion in ordering exclusion. It necessarily
follows, therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant UPS’s Rule
59 motion where the asserted basis for the new trial—the purportedly erroneous evidentiary
ruling—does not merit relief.
Second, even if it could demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s evidentiary
ruling, UPS fails to show the requisite accompanying prejudice. “Even if a mistake has been made
regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence, a new trial will not be granted unless the evidence
would have caused a different outcome at trial.” Morales v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
151 F.3d 500,
514 (6th Cir. 1998). UPS never articulates how the exclusion of the outcome of Fischer’s first
lawsuit caused the verdict in this case to be against the weight of the evidence or infected the
proceedings with prejudice or bias. We find its theories of how the exclusion of the outcome
generated prejudice—by preventing the company (a) from showing that it possessed little motivation
to retaliate against Fischer because the UPS won the first suit; (b) from portraying Fischer as a
disgruntled employee resentful about the loss; and (c) from impeaching Fischer’s testimony about
the reasons for his divorce—unconvincing.
That Fischer lost the first suit does not, as UPS insists, necessarily suggest that the company
possessed less motivation to retaliate against him. A company required to defend a frivolous
employee lawsuit and then to restore that employee to his prior job seems just as, if not even more,
likely to harbor ill will (and potential retaliatory motives) against the complaining employee as a
company forced to restore an employee who successfully pursued a meritorious claim. And the fact
that Fischer lost the first suit holds little informational value regarding whether or not he was
“disgruntled.” Other than excluding evidence of the first trial’s outcome, the district court placed
no restrictions on UPS’s efforts to portray Fischer as a disgruntled employee. UPS employed dozens
of people who worked with Fischer during the time in question and could have called any of them
to testify that Fischer returned to work a malcontent. Under the circumstances, UPS’s argument that
the exclusion of the first lawsuit’s outcome crippled its trial strategy fails to persuade us that the jury
rendered a verdict against the weight of the evidence or that bias or prejudice tainted the proceedings.
UPS’s contention that excluding the first trial’s outcome stymied its efforts to impeach
Fischer regarding the reasons for his divorce also lacks merit because the trial court did, in fact,
permit UPS to impeach Fischer’s testimony on this point. Although not permitted to inform the jury
of Fischer’s deposition statement that the loss of the prior suit factored prominently in his divorce,
the court did allow UPS to impeach Fischer with his statement that the prior litigation played a
leading role in his divorce, and to argue that his decision to pursue that litigation—rather than his
termination—led to the divorce. Having presented essentially the same evidence and argument
without telling the jury about the outcome of the first case, UPS cannot demonstrate that the damage
award would have differed had the jury been informed of the outcome of the first trial. Accordingly,
we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of UPS’s motion for a new trial.
TRUE MOTION C. Motion for Remittur
UPS contends that the district court erred by denying a remittitur because the evidence
adduced on compensatory damages cannot sustain the $650,000 award. We review the denial of a
motion for remittitur for abuse of discretion and, since Fischer prevailed at trial, view the facts in
the light most favorable to him. Mid-Michigan Computer Sys., Inc. v. Marc Glassman, Inc.,
416
F.3d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2005). A district court properly denies a motion for remittitur unless the jury
award “clearly exceeds the amount which . . . was the maximum that a jury could reasonably find
to be compensatory for the plaintiff’s loss.” Roush v. KFC Nat’l Mgmt. Co.,
10 F.3d 392, 397 (6th
Cir. 1997) (quotation marks and citations omitted). To qualify for reduction, the award must be (1)
beyond the range supportable by proof; (2) so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court; or
(3) the result of a mistake. Leila Hosp. & Health Ctr. v. Xonics Med. Sys., Inc.,
948 F.2d 271, 278
(6th Cir. 1991).
Focusing on Fischer’s admission that he never sought medical treatment, UPS argues that
the $650,000 award exceeds the amount a reasonable jury could award as compensation for Fischer’s
emotional distress. By highlighting the lack of supporting medical evidence, UPS presumably means
to suggest that the award exceeded the range supported by proof.1
1 UPS’s briefing fails to construct this argument around the applicable standard of review.
Nowhere does UPS argue that the compensatory award “shocks the conscience of the court” or
resulted from mistake, leaving “beyond the range supportable by proof” as the only colorable avenue
for relief on this claim. Accordingly, we address it in those terms.
Although a plaintiff need not present medical evidence to receive compensation for
emotional distress, “damages for mental and emotional distress will not be presumed, and must be
proven by ‘competent evidence.’” Turic v. Holland Hosp., Inc.,
85 F.3d 1211, 1215 (6th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Carey v. Piphus,
435 U.S. 247, 263–64 n.20 (1978)). In denying UPS’s remittitur motion,
the district court summarized Fischer’s trial testimony pertinent to the damage award:
Plaintiff’s termination ended a long career (18 years) and he testified that: 1) his
firing was “horrible” and “depressing;” 2) he was unable to find any other
employment for one year afterwards; 3) he ultimately found work in different
industries which required him to live away from his family during the week; 4) his
termination played a large part in his divorce; and 5) the divorce and separation due
to his distant jobs strained his relationship with his minor children. Based on his
testimony alone, Plaintiff is entitled to recover for “humiliation, embarrassment,
disappointment, and other forms of mental anguish resulting from the
discrimination.”
2008 WL 880521, at *10 (citations omitted).
UPS fails to impugn any of the factual underpinnings the district court gave for refusing to
remit the award. Despite its relatively large size, the jury’s compensatory damage award does not
“clearly exceed[] . . . the maximum that a jury could reasonably find to be compensatory for the
plaintiff’s loss.” See Roush, 10 F.3d at 397 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Viewing the
evidence most favorably to Fischer, as we must, we find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in refusing to grant remittitur. And although UPS refers us to several similar cases
involving markedly lower damage awards, we decline the invitation to disturb the jury’s decision.
As the district court noted in its opinion, this court has cautioned against attempts by appellate courts
“to reconcile widely varied past awards for analogous injuries ‘which in the abbreviated appellate
discussion of them seem somewhat similar.’” Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co.,
915 F.2d
201, 211 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Precopio v. City of Detroit,
330 N.W.2d 802, 808 (Mich. 1982)).
TRUE DISCUSSION III. Fischer’s Cross-Appeal
Fischer cross-appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of UPS on his
internal-complaints-based retaliation claims, as well as the district court’s decision to vacate the
jury’s punitive damages award.
TRUE CLAIM A. Fischer’s Internal Complaints Claim
Fischer argues that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment in UPS’s favor
on his Michigan state law claim that UPS retaliated against him for filing two internal complaints
shortly before his termination.
We review this claim de novo. Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,
576 F.3d 576, 584 (6th Cir.
2009). Retaliation claims under Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act differ from Title VII in
that they require not just proof of a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse
employment action, but that the protected activity constituted a “significant factor” motivating the
adverse action. See Barrett v. Kirtland Cmty. Coll.,
628 N.W.2d 63, 70 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
Other than the temporal proximity between the filing of his internal complaints and his
termination, Fischer presented no evidence that his decision to engage in that protected activity
prompted UPS to terminate him. Under Michigan’s heightened standard, the “[p]laintiff must show
something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse
employment action.” West v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
665 N.W.2d 468, 473 (Mich. 2003). With respect to his internal complaints claim, Fischer failed to present any evidence beyond temporal proximity.
Neither Jarlett nor VanTilburg mentioned the internal complaints during the meetings leading to
Fischer’s termination, and nothing in the record suggests that those complaints specifically motivated
their decision. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment to UPS on this
claim.
TRUE STATEMENT OF FACTS B. Fact about Punitive Damages
The jury awarded Fischer $1.3 million in punitive damages. The district court initially
reduced the award to $300,000 to bring it into compliance with Title VII’s statutory cap. Then, on
UPS’s Rule 50 motion, the court vacated the entire award. Fischer appeals that determination, which
we review de novo. Lowery, 586 F.3d at 432. We will uphold a grant of judgment as a matter of
law “only when there is a complete absence of fact to support the verdict, so that no reasonable juror
could have found for the nonmoving party.” Pouillon, 206 F.3d at 719 (quotation marks and citation
omitted). As when reviewing summary judgment, we may “not weigh the evidence, evaluate the
credibility of witnesses, or substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” Black v. Zaring Homes, Inc.,
104 F.3d 822, 825 (6th Cir. 1997), but instead must “look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and decide if it was sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact for the
jury,” EEOC v. Harbert-Yeargin, Inc.,
266 F.3d 498, 510 (6th Cir. 2001).
Title VII limits recovery of punitive damages to cases where “the complaining party
demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices
with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.”
42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1). Kolstad v. American Dental Association,
527 U.S. 526, 539 (1999), establishes a three-part inquiry governing the recovery of punitive damages against an employer.
First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the individuals perpetrating the discrimination acted with
malice or reckless disregard toward the plaintiff’s federally protected rights. Second, the plaintiff
must impute liability to the employer by establishing that the discriminatory actor worked in a
managerial capacity and acted within the scope of his or her employment. Third, the defendant may
nevertheless avoid punitive damage liability by showing that it engaged in good faith efforts to
comply with Title VII. See Parker v. Gen. Extrusions, Inc.,
491 F.3d 596, 602–03 (6th Cir. 2007).
Only the third Kolstad inquiry—the employer’s good faith compliance—remains at issue in
this appeal. To determine whether an employer engaged in good faith efforts to comply with Title
VII, we focus “both on whether the defendant employer had a written . . . policy and whether the
employer effectively publicized and enforced its policy.” Parker, 491 F.3d at 603. We have
previously suggested that “the mere existence of a written anti-discrimination policy alone does not
shield the company from punitive damages.” Tisdale v. Fed. Express Corp.,
415 F.3d 516, 532 (6th Cir. 2005). “Rather, the employer must demonstrate that it engaged in good faith efforts to implement the policy.” Hall v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Del.,
337 F.3d 669, 675 (6th Cir.
2003).
While acknowledging that Kolstad does not spell out the type of evidence needed to establish
good faith, the district court found that UPS made the requisite showing by “present[ing] ample,
undisputed evidence that it formulated, disseminated, and trained employees on its anti-
discrimination policies.”
2008 WL 880521, at *4. It then concluded that Fischer failed to rebut
UPS’s evidence of its good faith Title VII compliance efforts, and vacated the punitive damage
award. The court endorsed UPS’s argument that Fischer “[could not] rely solely upon [UPS]’s
failings with regard to him to rebut cognizable evidence” of good faith. Id. Based on its reading of
Sackett v. ITC Deltacom, Inc.,
374 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Tenn. 2005), it concluded that Kolstad
required consideration of “the employer’s historical approach to such claims.” Id.
We do not understand Sackett or Kolstad as requiring such a holding, nor do later Sixth
Circuit cases. Indeed, none of this court’s cases vacate a jury award of punitive damages or specify
the precise showing required to establish good faith as a matter of law. See West v. Tyson Foods,
Inc., No. 08-6516,
2010 WL 1507629, at *13–14 (6th Cir. April 15, 2010) (holding that the
defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law); Parker, 491 F.3d at 604–05 (same);
Tisdale, 415 F.3d at 533–34 (same); Hall, 337 F.3d at 674–76 (same). Consistent with Supreme
Court and Sixth Circuit precedent, we thus inquire only whether—viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to Fischer—a reasonable juror could find in Fischer’s favor.
Relying on two cases from other circuits—Bryant v. Aiken Regional Medical Centers, Inc.,
333 F.3d 536 (4th Cir. 2003) and Harsco Corp v. Renner,
475 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2007)—UPS
nevertheless urges us to uphold the district court’s judgment because the record evidence of its
overall Title VII compliance mechanisms mandates finding good faith as a matter of law. We
distinguish both cases because, unlike UPS, the employers in those cases provided evidence from
which a jury could conclude effective policy implementation. In Bryant, the Fourth Circuit vacated
the jury’s punitive damage award where it found that the employer not only had an anti-
discrimination policy, a grievance policy encouraging employees to bring forward claims of
discrimination, and a diversity training program, but also ensured implementation by “voluntarily
monitor[ing] departmental demographics as part of an ongoing effort to keep the employee base
reflective of the pool of potential employees in the area.” 333 F.3d at 548–49. In Harsco, the
defendant introduced evidence of its comprehensive policies and training procedures and
demonstrated effective enforcement by offering undisputed evidence that, after the plaintiff met with
the human resources director, management followed policy by launching an investigation of the
plaintiff’s complaint. 475 F.3d at 1185, 1189.
Here, UPS introduced evidence that it promulgated an anti-retaliation policy, trained its
employees on implementing it, and established mechanisms for employees to lodge complaints. But
UPS presented no record evidence from which a reasonable juror would necessarily conclude that
UPS effectively advanced its policies. Unlike Harsco, where the plaintiff conceded that the
company launched an investigation after the plaintiff complained, a reasonable member of Fischer’s
jury could find that UPS failed to investigate Fischer’s complaint. Though VanTilburg claimed that
she possessed all of the information she needed to assess the complaint by virtue of her presence at
the February 5 meeting, a reasonable juror could have found otherwise—VanTilburg knew nothing
about Jarlett’s treatment of other employees, and reprimanding only one of the many employees with
similar performance issues could support Fischer’s retaliation claim. UPS thus failed to demonstrate
policy enforcement, distinguishing this case from both Bryant and Harsco. See also Green v. Adm’rs
of the Tulane Educ. Fund,
284 F.3d 642, 654 (5th Cir. 2002) (abrogated on other grounds by
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White,
548 U.S. 53 (2006)) (affirming decision not to submit punitive damages to the jury where defendant had and publicized an anti-harassment policy and
made a good faith effort when it learned of the potential harassment by placing the plaintiff on paid
administrative leave while investigating her case, reinstating plaintiff’s job duties, and directing the
offending manager to take corrective action). On the present record, we cannot conclude that UPS
presented evidence of its good faith compliance with Title VII “so overwhelming that reasonable
jurors could not conclude otherwise.” See Deffenabugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
188 F.3d
278, 286 (5th Cir. 1999).
TRUE REMOVAL Removal
UPS asserts that, had the district court permitted Jimmy Millard, then the Region Employee
Relations Manager, to testify, he would have manifested UPS’s good faith. But through Millard,
UPS proposed to supplement testimony about its knowledge of anti-discrimination/retaliation laws
and policies and procedures for combating discrimination, the existence of which Fischer did not
dispute. We thus find that the district court correctly labeled Millard’s testimony as cumulative and,
to the extent it differed from evidence already in the record, irrelevant.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Fischer, the record includes facts that
support a punitive damage award. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand
with instructions to reinstate the jury’s award (subject to the $300,000 statutory cap).
TRUE CONCLUSION IV. Conclusion
We affirm the district court’s Title VII liability judgment, affirm the summary judgment on
Fischer’s state law retaliation claim, reverse the judgment vacating the punitive damage award, and
remand with instructions to reinstate the award.


Born at a young age, easily distracted, convivial marketer and a self made thousandaire
Favorite Band is a fan website for my favorite music boyband the The Imagine Dragons. Technologies used in the development of the project include html for the basic structure of the project and css for the styling Favorite Band
Anitas Kitchen is an online menu for The Anitas Kitchen Cafe which has a variety of drinks and meals available at their cafe and special treats and offers. Technologies used in the development of the project include html for the basic structure of the project and css for the styling Anitas Kitchen
I was born and brought up in Kenya. I spent my early childhood life in Nakuru and went to school there before moving to Baringo my ancestral home. I went to highschool at a school in Baringo called Emining Boys High School before proceeding to pursue my degeree in Kabarak university. After successfully completing my degree program is when i got a refferal to join Moringa school and here we are. In a nutshell that is my story and hurray i am hopeful that i will complete my studies here and become a developer.


There were formerly a king and a queen, who were so sorry that they had no children; so sorry that it cannot be expressed. They went to all the waters in the world; vows, pilgrimages, all ways were tried, and all to no purpose.
At last, however, the Queen had a daughter. There was a very fine christening; and the Princess had for her god-mothers all the fairies they could find in the whole kingdom (they found seven), that every one of them might give her a gift, as was the custom of fairies in those days. By this means the Princess had all the perfections imaginable.
After the ceremonies of the christening were over, all the company returned to the King’s palace, where was prepared a great feast for the fairies. There was placed before every one of them a magnificent cover with a case of massive gold, wherein were a spoon, knife, and fork, all of pure gold set with diamonds and rubies. But as they were all sitting down at table they saw come into the hall a very old fairy, whom they had not invited, because it was above fifty years since she had been out of a certain tower, and she was believed to be either dead or enchanted.
The King ordered her a cover, but could not furnish her with a case of gold as the others, because they had only seven made for the seven fairies. The old Fairy fancied she was slighted, and muttered some threats between her teeth. One of the young fairies who sat by her overheard how she grumbled; and, judging that she might give the little Princess some unlucky gift, went, as soon as they rose from table, and hid herself behind the hangings, that she might speak last, and repair, as much as she could, the evil which the old Fairy might intend.
In the meanwhile all the fairies began to give their gifts to the Princess. The youngest gave her for gift that she should be the most beautiful person in the world; the next, that she should have the wit of an angel; the third, that she should have a wonderful grace in everything she did; the fourth, that she should dance perfectly well; the fifth, that she should sing like a nightingale; and the sixth, that she should play all kinds of music to the utmost perfection.
The old Fairy’s turn coming next, with a head shaking more with spite than age, she said that the Princess should have her hand pierced with a spindle and die of the wound. This terrible gift made the whole company tremble, and everybody fell a-crying.
At this very instant the young Fairy came out from behind the hangings, and spake these words aloud:
“Assure yourselves, O King and Queen, that your daughter shall not die of this disaster. It is true, I have no power to undo entirely what my elder has done. The Princess shall indeed pierce her hand with a spindle; but, instead of dying, she shall only fall into a profound sleep, which shall last a hundred years, at the expiration of which a king’s son shall come and awake her.”
The King, to avoid the misfortune foretold by the old Fairy, caused immediately proclamation to be made, whereby everybody was forbidden, on pain of death, to spin with a distaff and spindle, or to have so much as any spindle in their houses. About fifteen or sixteen years after, the King and Queen being gone to one of their houses of pleasure, the young Princess happened one day to divert herself in running up and down the palace; when going up from one apartment to another, she came into a little room on the top of the tower, where a good old woman, alone, was spinning with her spindle. This good woman had never heard of the King’s proclamation against spindles.
“What are you doing there, goody?” said the Princess.
“I am spinning, my pretty child,” said the old woman, who did not know who she was.
“Ha!” said the Princess, “this is very pretty; how do you do it? Give it to me, that I may see if I can do so.”
She had no sooner taken it into her hand than, whether being very hasty at it, somewhat unhandy, or that the decree of the Fairy had so ordained it, it ran into her hand, and she fell down in a swoon.
The good old woman, not knowing very well what to do in this affair, cried out for help. People came in from every quarter in great numbers; they threw water upon the Princess’s face, unlaced her, struck her on the palms of her hands, and rubbed her temples with Hungary-water; but nothing would bring her to herself.
And now the King, who came up at the noise, bethought himself of the prediction of the fairies, and, judging very well that this must necessarily come to pass, since the fairies had said it, caused the Princess to be carried into the finest apartment in his palace, and to be laid upon a bed all embroidered with gold and silver.
One would have taken her for a little angel, she was so very beautiful; for her swooning away had not diminished one bit of her complexion; her cheeks were carnation, and her lips were coral; indeed, her eyes were shut, but she was heard to breathe softly, which satisfied those about her that she was not dead. The King commanded that they should not disturb her, but let her sleep quietly till her hour of awaking was come.
The good Fairy who had saved her life by condemning her to sleep a hundred years was in the kingdom of Matakin, twelve thousand leagues off, when this accident befell the Princess; but she was instantly informed of it by a little dwarf, who had boots of seven leagues, that is, boots with which he could tread over seven leagues of ground in one stride. The Fairy came away immediately, and she arrived, about an hour after, in a fiery chariot drawn by dragons.
The King handed her out of the chariot, and she approved everything he had done, but as she had very great foresight, she thought when the Princess should awake she might not know what to do with herself, being all alone in this old palace; and this was what she did: she touched with her wand everything in the palace (except the King and Queen)—governesses, maids of honor, ladies of the bedchamber, gentlemen, officers, stewards, cooks, undercooks, scullions, guards, with their beefeaters, pages, footmen; she likewise touched all the horses which were in the stables, pads as well as others, the great dogs in the outward court and pretty little Mopsey too, the Princess’s little spaniel, which lay by her on the bed.
Immediately upon her touching them they all fell asleep, that they might not awake before their mistress and that they might be ready to wait upon her when she wanted them. The very spits at the fire, as full as they could hold of partridges and pheasants, did fall asleep also. All this was done in a moment. Fairies are not long in doing their business.
And now the King and the Queen, having kissed their dear child without waking her, went out of the palace and put forth a proclamation that nobody should dare to come near it.
This, however, was not necessary, for in a quarter of an hour’s time there grew up all round about the park such a vast number of trees, great and small, bushes and brambles, twining one within another, that neither man nor beast could pass through; so that nothing could be seen but the very top of the towers of the palace; and that, too, not unless it was a good way off. Nobody; doubted but the Fairy gave herein a very extraordinary sample of her art, that the Princess, while she continued sleeping, might have nothing to fear from any curious people.
When a hundred years were gone and passed the son of the King then reigning, and who was of another family from that of the sleeping Princess, being gone a-hunting on that side of the country, asked:
What those towers were which he saw in the middle of a great thick wood?
Everyone answered according as they had heard. Some said:
That it was a ruinous old castle, haunted by spirits.
Others, That all the sorcerers and witches of the country kept there their sabbath or night’s meeting.
The common opinion was: That an ogre lived there, and that he carried thither all the little children he could catch, that he might eat them up at his leisure, without anybody being able to follow him, as having himself only the power to pass through the wood.
The Prince was at a stand, not knowing what to believe, when a very good countryman spake to him thus:
“May it please your royal highness, it is now about fifty years since I heard from my father, who heard my grandfather say, that there was then in this castle a princess, the most beautiful was ever seen; that she must sleep there a hundred years, and should be waked by a king’s son, for whom she was reserved.”
The young Prince was all on fire at these words, believing, without weighing the matter, that he could put an end to this rare adventure; and, pushed on by love and honor, resolved that moment to look into it.
Scarce had he advanced toward the wood when all the great trees, the bushes, and brambles gave way of themselves to let him pass through; he walked up to the castle which he saw at the end of a large avenue which he went into; and what a little surprised him was that he saw none of his people could follow him, because the trees closed again as soon as he had passed through them. However, he did not cease from continuing his way; a young and amorous prince is always valiant.
He came into a spacious outward court, where everything he saw might have frozen the most fearless person with horror. There reigned all over a most frightful silence; the image of death everywhere showed itself, and there was nothing to be seen but stretched-out bodies of men and animals, all seeming to be dead. He, however, very well knew, by the ruby faces and pimpled noses of the beefeaters, that they were only asleep; and their goblets, wherein still remained some drops of wine, showed plainly that they fell asleep in their cups.
He then crossed a court paved with marble, went up the stairs and came into the guard chamber, where guards were standing in their ranks, with their muskets upon their shoulders, and snoring as loud as they could.  At last he came into a chamber all gilded with gold, where he saw upon a bed, the curtains of which were all open, the finest sight was ever beheld—a princess, who appeared to be about fifteen or sixteen years of age, and whose bright and, in a manner, resplendent beauty, had somewhat in it divine. He approached with trembling and admiration, and fell down before her upon his knees.
And now, as the enchantment was at an end, the Princess awaked, and looking on him with eyes more tender than the first view might seem to admit of:
“Is it you, my Prince?” said she to him. “You have waited a long while.”
The Prince, charmed with these words, and much more with the manner in which they were spoken, knew not how to show his joy and gratitude; he assured her that he loved her better than he did himself; their discourse was not well connected, they did weep more than talk—little eloquence, a great deal of love. He was more at a loss than she, and we need not wonder at it; she had time to think on what to say to him; for it is very probable (though history mentions nothing of it) that the good Fairy, during so long a sleep, had given her very agreeable dreams. In short, they talked four hours together, and yet they said not half what they had to say.
In the meanwhile all the palace awaked; everyone thought upon their particular business, and as all of them were not in love they were ready to die for hunger. The chief lady of honor, being as sharp set as other folks, grew very impatient, and told the Princess aloud that supper was served up. The Prince helped the Princess to rise; she was entirely dressed, and very magnificently, but his royal highness took care not to tell her that she was dressed like his great-grandmother, and had a point band peeping over a high collar; she looked not a bit less charming and beautiful for all that.
They went into the great hall of looking-glasses, where they supped, and were served by the Princess’s officers, the violins and hautboys played old tunes, but very excellent, though it was now above a hundred years since they had played; and after supper, without losing any time, the lord almoner married them in the chapel of the castle, and the chief lady of honor drew the curtains. They had but very little sleep—the Princess had no occasion; and the Prince left her next morning to return to the city, where his father must needs have been in pain for him. The Prince told him:
That he lost his way in the forest as he was hunting, and that he had lain in the cottage of a charcoal-burner, who gave him cheese and brown bread.
The King, his father, who was a good man, believed him; but his mother could not be persuaded it was true; and seeing that he went almost every day a-hunting, and that he always had some excuse ready for so doing, though he had lain out three or four nights together, she began to suspect that he was married, for he lived with the Princess above two whole years, and had by her two children, the eldest of which, who was a daughter, was named Morning, and the youngest, who was a son, they called Day, because he was a great deal handsomer and more beautiful than his sister.
The Queen spoke several times to her son, to inform herself after what manner he did pass his time, and that in this he ought in duty to satisfy her. But he never dared to trust her with his secret; he feared her, though he loved her, for she was of the race of the Ogres, and the King would never have married her had it not been for her vast riches; it was even whispered about the Court that she had Ogreish inclinations, and that, whenever she saw little children passing by, she had all the difficulty in the world to avoid falling upon them. And so the Prince would never tell her one word.
But when the King was dead, which happened about two years afterward, and he saw himself lord and master, he openly declared his marriage; and he went in great ceremony to conduct his Queen to the palace. They made a magnificent entry into the capital city, she riding between her two children.
Soon after the King went to make war with the Emperor Contalabutte, his neighbor. He left the government of the kingdom to the Queen his mother, and earnestly recommended to her care his wife and children. He was obliged to continue his expedition all the summer, and as soon as he departed the Queen-mother sent her daughter-in-law to a country house among the woods, that she might with the more ease gratify her horrible longing.
Some few days afterward she went thither herself, and said to her clerk of the kitchen:
“I have a mind to eat little Morning for my dinner to-morrow.”
“Ah! madam,” cried the clerk of the kitchen.
“I will have it so,” replied the Queen (and this she spoke in the tone of an Ogress who had a strong desire to eat fresh meat), “and will eat her with a sauce Robert.”
The poor man, knowing very well that he must not play tricks with Ogresses, took his great knife and went up into little Morning’s chamber. She was then four years old, and came up to him jumping and laughing, to take him about the neck, and ask him for some sugar-candy.  He had at the same time taken up little Morning, and carried her to his wife, to conceal her in the lodging he had at the bottom of the courtyard.
About eight days afterward the wicked Queen said to the clerk of the kitchen, “I will sup on little Day.”
He answered not a word, being resolved to cheat her as he had done before. He went to find out little Day, and saw him with a little foil in his hand, with which he was fencing with a great monkey, the child being then only three years of age. He took him up in his arms and carried him to his wife, that she might conceal him in her chamber along with his sister, and in the room of little Day cooked up a young kid, very tender, which the Ogress found to be wonderfully good.
This was hitherto all mighty well; but one evening this wicked Queen said to her clerk of the kitchen:
“I will eat the Queen with the same sauce I had with her children.”
It was now that the poor clerk of the kitchen despaired of being able to deceive her. The young Queen was turned of twenty, not reckoning the hundred years she had been asleep; and how to find in the yard a beast so firm was what puzzled him. He took then a resolution, that he might save his own life, to cut the Queen’s throat; and going up into her chamber, with intent to do it at once, he put himself into as great fury as he could possibly, and came into the young Queen’s room with his dagger in his hand. He would not, however, surprise her, but told her, with a great deal of respect, the orders he had received from the Queen-mother.
“Do it; do it” (said she, stretching out her neck). “Execute your orders, and then I shall go and see my children, my poor children, whom I so much and so tenderly loved.”
For she thought them dead ever since they had been taken away without her knowledge.
“No, no, madam” (cried the poor clerk of the kitchen, all in tears); “you shall not die, and yet you shall see your children again; but then you must go home with me to my lodgings, where I have concealed them, and I shall deceive the Queen once more, by giving her in your stead a young hind.”
Upon this he forthwith conducted her to his chamber, where, leaving her to embrace her children, and cry along with them, he went and dressed a young hind, which the Queen had for her supper, and devoured it with the same appetite as if it had been the young Queen. Exceedingly was she delighted with her cruelty, and she had invented a story to tell the King, at his return, how the mad wolves had eaten up the Queen his wife and her two children.
One evening, as she was, according to her custom, rambling round about the courts and yards of the palace to see if she could smell any fresh meat, she heard, in a ground room, little Day crying, for his mamma was going to whip him, because he had been naughty; and she heard, at the same time, little Morning begging pardon for her brother.
The Ogress presently knew the voice of the Queen and her children, and being quite mad that she had been thus deceived, she commanded next morning, by break of day (with a most horrible voice, which made everybody tremble), that they should bring into the middle of the great court a large tub, which she caused to be filled with toads, vipers, snakes, and all sorts of serpents, in order to have thrown into it the Queen and her children, the clerk of the kitchen, his wife and maid; all whom she had given orders should be brought thither with their hands tied behind them.
They were brought out accordingly, and the executioners were just going to throw them into the tub, when the King (who was not so soon expected) entered the court on horseback (for he came post) and asked, with the utmost astonishment, what was the meaning of that horrible spectacle.
No one dared to tell him, when the Ogress, all enraged to see what had happened, threw herself head foremost into the tub, and was instantly devoured by the ugly creatures she had ordered to be thrown into it for others. The King could not but be very sorry, for she was his mother; but he soon comforted himself with his beautiful wife and his pretty children.


{% include "stweb/views/networktrees/display_tree_info.html" %}
{% include "stweb/attributes/display_boxes.html" %}
{% include "stweb/views/networktrees/networks/display_network_info.html" %}
{% include "stweb/views/networktrees/networks/display_associated_devices.html" %}
{% include "stweb/views/networktrees/networks/display_networks.html" %}
{% include "stweb/attributes/display_attributes.html" %}
{% include "stweb/attributes/display_boxes.html" %}
{% include "stweb/templates/display_templates.html" %}
{% include "stweb/configs/display.html" %}
{% include "stweb/permissions/display_permissions.html" %}


HSL Color Picker 💅
Click on the value output to copy CSS
Background Color
Hue
Saturation
Lightness
Text Color
Hue
Saturation
Lightness


labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:49:51.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:49:51.labeled
by Kevin Reiss at 2023-01-20 03:34:16.unlabeled
by Kevin Reiss at 2023-01-20 03:34:22.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:20:08.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:20:08.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:14:36.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:14:36.Stopped at Fetched record C1065 at 2023-01-20 09:10:25 +0000
with error
/usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:1214:in `__connect_nonblock': Failed to open TCP connection to aspace.princeton.edu:443 (Connection refused - connect(2) for <IP_ADDRESS>:443) (Errno::ECONNREFUSED)
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:1214:in `connect_nonblock'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:56:in `connect_internal'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:137:in `connect'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:642:in `block in tcp'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:227:in `each'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:227:in `foreach'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:632:in `tcp'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:998:in `connect'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:1614:in `begin_transport'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:1565:in `transport_request'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:1539:in `request'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:1532:in `block in request'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:966:in `start'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:1530:in `request'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/httparty-0.20.0/lib/httparty/request.rb:152:in `perform'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/httparty-0.20.0/lib/httparty.rb:613:in `perform_request'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/httparty-0.20.0/lib/httparty.rb:527:in `get'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/archivesspace-client-0.1.11/lib/archivesspace/client/request.rb:40:in `execute'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/archivesspace-client-0.1.11/lib/archivesspace/client/client.rb:62:in `request'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/archivesspace-client-0.1.11/lib/archivesspace/client/client.rb:22:in `get'
from get_MARCxml.rb:48:in `block in fetch_and_process_records'
from get_MARCxml.rb:46:in `each'
from get_MARCxml.rb:46:in `fetch_and_process_records'
from get_MARCxml.rb:205:in `<main>'
/usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:1214:in `__connect_nonblock': Connection refused - connect(2) for <IP_ADDRESS>:443 (Errno::ECONNREFUSED)
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:1214:in `connect_nonblock'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:56:in `connect_internal'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:137:in `connect'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:642:in `block in tcp'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:227:in `each'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:227:in `foreach'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/socket.rb:632:in `tcp'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:998:in `connect'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:1614:in `begin_transport'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:1565:in `transport_request'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:1539:in `request'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:1532:in `block in request'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:966:in `start'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/3.1.0/net/http.rb:1530:in `request'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/httparty-0.20.0/lib/httparty/request.rb:152:in `perform'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/httparty-0.20.0/lib/httparty.rb:613:in `perform_request'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/httparty-0.20.0/lib/httparty.rb:527:in `get'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/archivesspace-client-0.1.11/lib/archivesspace/client/request.rb:40:in `execute'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/archivesspace-client-0.1.11/lib/archivesspace/client/client.rb:62:in `request'
from /opt/aspace_helpers/shared/bundle/ruby/3.1.0/gems/archivesspace-client-0.1.11/lib/archivesspace/client/client.rb:22:in `get'
from get_MARCxml.rb:48:in `block in fetch_and_process_records'
from get_MARCxml.rb:46:in `each'
from get_MARCxml.rb:46:in `fetch_and_process_records'
from get_MARCxml.rb:205:in `<main>'
And this is what I get for that IP:
Server: <IP_ADDRESS>
Address: <IP_ADDRESS>#53
Non-authoritative answer:
<IP_ADDRESS>.in-addr.arpa name = ec2-44-224-179-199.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com```
head_ref_deleted
by None at 2023-01-20 16:31:45.Hi @regineheberlein - I'm not sure what happened in importing the item records to production, but @phoebeno noticed that only the 11 boxes that are with P&C, the boxes we're don't want added to Alma as of yet, are in Alma. The 389 boxes for which you created item records in the Alma sandbox are not in prod. It looks like the correct item records are still in the sandbox. Thanks for your help!
We had already started sending boxes to ReCAP so hopefully this doesn't cause any issues. eek.
Odd--nothing changed since you QA'd it. I just reran the job, can you QA again please?
Thanks, Regine. The correct records are there now. Very odd.
reopened
by None at 2023-01-20 16:59:51.mentioned
by None at 2023-01-20 16:59:51.subscribed
by None at 2023-01-20 16:59:51.mentioned
by None at 2023-01-20 16:59:52.subscribed
by None at 2023-01-20 16:59:52.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:36:40.I believe Ryan tried to work this but found the example record would not reproduce an invalid UTF-8 error. @rladdusaw please correct this if I am wrong here.
unassigned
by None at 2023-01-20 20:41:10.mentioned
by None at 2023-01-20 20:42:11.subscribed
by None at 2023-01-20 20:42:11.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:52:36.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:09:28.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:09:28.This is another case in which authorizations are improperly set at the Item level:
This seems to have been a pattern set at the level of the Collection:
Unfortunately, adjusting the authorizations at the level of the Collection does not automatically propagate to member Items:
These Items have been audited, with the following Collections having had the authorizations properly corrected:
assigned
by James R. Griffin III at 2023-01-20 14:36:48.labeled
by James R. Griffin III at 2023-01-20 14:37:36.This has been confirmed by the user as resolved.
closed
by James R. Griffin III at 2023-01-20 20:27:27.labeled
by None at 2023-01-21 02:34:05.referenced
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-19 22:04:07.merged
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-19 22:04:07.closed
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-19 22:04:07.head_ref_deleted
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-19 22:04:08.this looks fantastic 👍🏻 💯
100% agree. its awesome, @sdellis !
mentioned
by Shaun Ellis at 2023-01-20 14:49:53.subscribed
by Shaun Ellis at 2023-01-20 14:49:53.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:49:02.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:49:02.referenced
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-20 16:55:53.merged
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-20 16:55:53.closed
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-20 16:55:53.head_ref_deleted
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-20 16:55:54.referenced
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-20 16:56:12.merged
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-20 16:56:12.closed
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-20 16:56:12.head_ref_deleted
by Trey Pendragon at 2023-01-20 16:56:13.head_ref_force_pushed
by None at 2023-01-20 16:57:34.referenced
by None at 2023-01-20 18:09:52.merged
by None at 2023-01-20 18:09:53.closed
by None at 2023-01-20 18:09:53.head_ref_deleted
by None at 2023-01-20 18:09:54.Link to find/fix goes to File Manager. Screenshot of File Manager error indicators coming soon.
This is looking nice to me; it would be good to also have a variant where the derivatives aren't healthy.
I'm still concerned that giving a date for the last fixity check could be misleading to users; they might think the whole resource was checked on that day when in reality the different files will have been checked on different days. Maybe it should just say, "for fixity check dates please see the file manager" with a link to that page?
there may also be some special cases around multi volume works here that we need to think about. In that case we'd need to direct folks to the individual volume resource show pages, and perhaps from there to the file manager for a given volume.
This is a first pass at error indicators on the File Manager page. I think this whole page could be redesigned but in the interest of getting this preservation work done, this mock-up is intended to be a way forward with minimal reworking. I'm struggling a bit with the indicator language since a file could potentially have problems with local, cloud, and derivatives and it would be hard to find space for all of them without extending the card element for that file and messing with the grid consistency. Also, it needs attention to color and icons, but don't want to go down that path until I get some feedback on the general approach.
I think this is looking good. The colors and icons and exclamation points all definitely call attention to the broken objects. This page would probably be the place to be able to list the last checked fixity date for both cloud and local fixity, if we want to add that. I'm also curious how "repair this file" works. Does it go to the file set page, where we have more info on what the options might be? Does it do something different for a fixity failure vs a derivative failure?
head_ref_force_pushed
by Eliot Jordan at 2023-01-20 15:34:24.head_ref_force_pushed
by Eliot Jordan at 2023-01-20 16:59:19.head_ref_force_pushed
by Eliot Jordan at 2023-01-20 18:21:15.unassigned
by None at 2023-01-20 18:29:30.head_ref_force_pushed
by None at 2023-01-20 18:56:06.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:10:08.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:54:11.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:53:38.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:53:38.Example database entry:
"id": "2938689",
"name": "National Bibliography of U.S. Government Publications. Historic Shelflist.",
"description": "The GPO Historic Shelflist is the U.S. Government Printing Office's (GPO) historic card catalog covering U.S. Government documents from the 1800s to October 1992.",
"url": "https://library.princeton.edu/resource/12459",
"site_id": "77",
"type_id": "10",
"owner_id": "231",
"az_vendor_id": "0",
"meta": {
"target": "",
"enable_proxy": "1",
"desc_pos": ""
},
"created": "2014-06-13 02:57:45",
"updated": "2022-12-19 17:56:24",
"slug_id": "2730085",
"enable_hidden": "0",
"az_vendor_name": null,
"subjects": [
{
"id": "214532",
"site_id": "77",
"parent_id": "0",
"name": "United States Documents",
"ordering": "0",
"slug_id": "2580075",
"subject_id": "214532",
"content_id": "2938689",
"featured": "1",
"content_id_count": "1"
}
],
"friendly_url": "https://libguides.princeton.edu/resource/12459",
"internal_note": null,
"library_review": "",
"alt_names": "Advanced Technologies and Aerospace Index (formerly Aerospace Database); Aerospace & High Technology Database"
},```
labeled
by Kevin Reiss at 2023-01-20 03:29:05.renamed
by Kevin Reiss at 2023-01-20 04:04:42.renamed
by Kevin Reiss at 2023-01-20 04:04:54.labeled
by Kevin Reiss at 2023-01-20 03:28:28.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:12:43.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:12:43.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:07:54.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:48:15.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:48:15.Coverage: 94.514%. Remained the same when pulling 47ba00614df994d58b4f65375ba1234606bae12a on dependabot/bundler/globalid-1.0.1 into 15beed761652e6856188ec6fd539cc055b222953 on main.
labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:17:05.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:17:05.labeled
by Jane Sandberg at 2023-01-19 23:07:31.labeled
by Jane Sandberg at 2023-01-19 23:07:31.mentioned
by None at 2023-01-19 23:07:31.subscribed
by None at 2023-01-19 23:07:31.mentioned
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-19 23:07:31.subscribed
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-19 23:07:31.Coverage: 94.514%. Remained the same when pulling 276f9bc5ae80c2f47d1e820965b531b533ae6625 on i3371runin_browser into 15beed761652e6856188ec6fd539cc055b222953 on main.
head_ref_force_pushed
by Jane Sandberg at 2023-01-19 22:27:08.referenced
by Christina Chortaria at 2023-01-20 14:38:09.merged
by Christina Chortaria at 2023-01-20 14:38:09.closed
by Christina Chortaria at 2023-01-20 14:38:09.head_ref_deleted
by Christina Chortaria at 2023-01-20 14:38:10.closed
by Christina Chortaria at 2023-01-20 14:38:12.renamed
by Christina Chortaria at 2023-01-20 14:42:45.assigned
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-20 16:47:15.labeled
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-20 16:47:24.deployed
by None at 2023-01-20 16:35:14.Superceded by https://github.com/pulibrary/orangelight/pull/3376
ready_for_review
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-20 18:06:03.convert_to_draft
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-20 18:25:02.closed
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-20 21:41:37.Coverage: 94.542% (+0.03%) from 94.514% when pulling 5e450c2e76fde68b9c9130e33bb3d50a93a04578 on i3329askaquestionuntangled into f2d307ae6e27787445d4670b19179a1844a01ea3 on main.
deployed
by None at 2023-01-20 21:42:35.head_ref_force_pushed
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-20 21:45:44.head_ref_force_pushed
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-20 21:51:03.head_ref_force_pushed
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-20 21:51:52.review_requested
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-20 22:13:05.review_requested
by Max Kadel at 2023-01-20 22:13:15.Given the discussion held on 01/20/23, it was confirmed by the Product Owners that submitters should not be able to modify metadata.
closed
by James R. Griffin III at 2023-01-20 15:19:44.updated_at
used to record the actual date, and created_at
used for the back-dated date. Happy to swap if these are not the desired semanticsrenamed
by Chuck McCallum at 2023-01-20 03:44:45.connected
by Chuck McCallum at 2023-01-20 16:05:36.Out of date; There's not much here, so best just to close to clean up the PR list.
closed
by Chuck McCallum at 2023-01-20 16:09:58.labeled
by None at 2023-01-20 16:20:09.assigned
by Chuck McCallum at 2023-01-20 17:09:50.ready_for_review
by Chuck McCallum at 2023-01-20 17:03:37.renamed
by Chuck McCallum at 2023-01-20 17:04:39.referenced
by Hector Correa at 2023-01-20 17:33:27.merged
by Hector Correa at 2023-01-20 17:33:27.closed
by Hector Correa at 2023-01-20 17:33:28.head_ref_deleted
by Hector Correa at 2023-01-20 17:33:29.ready_for_review
by Chuck McCallum at 2023-01-20 22:43:44.referenced
by Bess Sadler at 2023-01-20 15:21:26.merged
by Bess Sadler at 2023-01-20 15:21:26.closed
by Bess Sadler at 2023-01-20 15:21:27.head_ref_deleted
by Bess Sadler at 2023-01-20 15:21:28.closed
by Bess Sadler at 2023-01-20 15:21:29.referenced
by Bess Sadler at 2023-01-20 15:22:06.merged
by Bess Sadler at 2023-01-20 15:22:06.closed
by Bess Sadler at 2023-01-20 15:22:07.head_ref_deleted
by Bess Sadler at 2023-01-20 15:22:08.labeled
by None at 2023-01-20 16:17:18.closed
by Kevin Reiss at 2023-01-20 04:26:45.labeled
by Kevin Reiss at 2023-01-20 04:00:06.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:05:18.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:05:18.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:08:55.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 23:08:55.closed
by Kevin Reiss at 2023-01-20 03:29:52.labeled
by None at 2023-01-19 22:50:42.closed
by Kevin Reiss at 2023-01-20 03:30:58.


# NNVM Design Overview
NNVM is a reusable graph IR stack for deep learning systems. It provides useful API to construct, represent and transform computation graphs to get most high-level optimization needed in deep learning. As a part of TVM stack for deep learning, NNVM also provides a shared compiler for deep learning frameworks to optimize, compile and deploy into different hardware backends via [TVM](https://github.com/dmlc/tvm)
## Key Requirements and Design Choices
Have minimum dependency in the deployment module.
Being able to add new operators to the IR, in a decentralized fashion.
Being able to add new optimization passes to the IR and applies to existing graphs.
The item2 and 3 are particularly interesting if we compare it to a typical compiler IR. Compiler IR usually contains a fixed set of primitives(instructions), and use them as a contract between optimization pass designers. This design enables easy addition of new optimization passes, but not new operator(instruction). Because every time we add a new instruction, we need to modify the passes to accommodate these changes.
Deep learning frameworks usually have a fixed operator interface(schema). These interfaces can contain properties like shape inference function, whether in-place computation can happen. The operator interface is an again contract that makes it easy to add new an operator. But it is hard to add new passes in decentralized fashion a new optimization pass usually requires additional information, and this results in frequent changes of the centralized operator interface when we are exploring new optimizations. There is also a drawback of modularization. For example, a graph compiler for FPGA devices may not need the GPU device specific attributes.
During our explorations in graph optimization and compilation, we find that it is important to quickly add both operators and passes to the framework without changing the core library.
Here is a list of key elements in NNVM’s design
Operator registry system to register and add new operators
Operator attribute system provide property of operator in decentralized fashion
A reusable IR data structure for optimization passes.
The above list is more like the generic language part of NNVM, besides of that, we also provide a collection of core operator primitives, and graph optimization passes. The core tensor operator primitives and optimizations already cover commonly deep learning workloads. This design allows the NNVM compiler to be directly used as optimization and compilation stack for frameworks. The extendible nature of NNVM makes new adjustment easy without constraining the backend providers.
## Minimum Registration for a Symbolic Front-End To use NNVM to build language front end, a developer only needs to register minimum information about each operator.
```c++ NNVM_REGISTER_OP(add) .describe(“add two data together”) .set_num_inputs(2);
NNVM_REGISTER_OP(conv2d) .describe(“take 2d convolution of input”) .set_num_inputs(2);
NNVM_REGISTER_OP(assign) .describe(“assign second input argument to the first one”) .set_num_inputs(2); ```
Compiling the code with NNVM library. User can use the following interface to compose the computation graph in python, like the following code.
```python import nnvm.symbol as nn
# symbolic variable x = nn.Variable(‘x’) y = nn.Variable(‘y’) w = nn.Variable(‘w’)
z = nn.conv2d(nn.elemwise_add(x, y), w, kernel_size=(2,2), name=’conv1’) ```
The graph structure is interchangeable between the frontend and the backend. Python interface is supported currently. More language support can be easily moved in the future.
## Operator Attribute for More Extensions
The minimum information provided by the operator is enough to get a front-end. However, we need more knowledge about each operator to do transformations and executing the graph. A typical difference between neural nets’ computation graph and traditional compiler IR is that there are a lot more high-level operators. We cannot fix the set of operators in the IR.
NNVM allow developers to register attributes of each operator. The attributes can include shape inference function, whether the operator can perform in-place calculation etc.
This design to having an operator attribute registry is not uncommon in deep learning systems.
For example, MXNet has a `OpProperty`
class, Tensorflow has a `OpDef`
and Caffe2 have a `OperatorSchema`
class.
However, the operator attribute interface listed in these frameworks only support a fixed number of defined attributes of interest to the system. If we want to extend the framework to add a new attribute in each operator, we need to change the operator registry.
Eventually, the operator interface grows into to be very big and have to evolve in the centralized repo.
In NNVM, we decided to change the design and support arbitrary type of operator attributes, without changing the interface registry. The minimum interface also makes it easier to share across multiple projects
User can register new attribute, such as inplace property checking function as follows. ```c++ using FInplaceOption = std::function<
std::vector<std::pair<int, int> > (const NodeAttrs& attrs)>;
// we can register attributes from multiple places. NNVM_REGISTER_OP(elemwise_add) .set_num_inputs(2);
// register to tell first input can be calculate inplace with first output NNVM_REGISTER_OP(add) .set_attr<FInplaceOption>(“FInplaceOption”, [](const NodeAttrs& attrs) {
return std::vector<std::pair<int, int> >{{0, 0}};
});
NNVM_REGISTER_OP(exp) .set_num_inputs(1) .set_attr<FInplaceOption>(“FInplaceOption”, [](const NodeAttrs& attrs) {
return std::vector<std::pair<int, int> >{{0, 0}};
});
We can query these attributes at arbitrary parts of the code, like the following parts. Under the hood, each attribute is stored in a columnar store, that can easily be retrieved table and do quick lookups.
const Op* add = Op::Get(“add”); // if we need quick query, we can use static variable // attribute map contains attributes of all operators. static auto& finplace_option_map = Op::GetAttr<FInplaceOption>(“FInplaceOption”);
// quick look up attribute of add, O(1) time, vector index lookup internally. auto add_inplace = finplace_option_map[add];
}¶
Besides making the code minimum, this attribute store enables decentralization of projects. Before, all the attributes of operator have to sit on a centralized interface class. Now, everyone can register attributes of their own, take some other attributes they need from another project without changing the operator interface and core library
## Graph and Pass
We can use the additional information on attribute registry to do optimizations and get more information about the graph. Graph is the unit we manipulate in these steps. A Graph in NNVM contains
two parts:
- The computation graph structure
- A attribute map from string to any type `map<string, shared_ptr<any> >`
The second attribute map is quite important, as we may need different kinds of information about the graph during the transformation process. Let it be shapes of each tensor, types of each tensor or the storage allocation plans.
A `Pass`
can take a graph with existing attribute information,
and transform it to the same graph structure with more graph attributes or another graph.


We have made a niche for ourselves in the world of fashion garments and herbal health products over this short span of time.
Robe India Marketing
Pvt Ltd
Success story of Empire
Gurpreet Singh
2 minutesSuccess story of Imperial
Rohan
2 minutesSuccess story of Crown
2 minutesWe have been able to provide quality clothing and herbal health products right into the homes of our end users through our ever-growing channels of direct sales.unde?
Our never-ending pursuit of excellence is proof of our testimony to provide the best quality and value for money to our esteemed distributors and end-users.
We set our own standards and toil not only to achieve. But to surpass them. Today, we proudly offer more than 100 products which are their category-best in quality, fashion and workmanship! Over the coming months, we plan to add new lines of garments and accessories in sync with the demand and global trends.


➢ Module 2 input file
➢ AEWS data validation spreadsheet
In this module we will be mapping payroll data items to AEWS so that regular input files are quickand easy to upload.
One of the key items in the mapping process is the group Group Code, this is unique to every group that is set up within AEWS and allows employees to be split across multiple groups with one file upload.
ABC Employers used the ledgers codes within their payroll system as the AEWS group codes below:
➢ Directors and Managers: 1234
➢ Warehouse Staff: 5678
➢ Reviewed the AEWS Data Reguirements documetn with their payroll provider.
➢ Identified how they build the source data for AEWS Input files.
➢ Defined a process to exract the data items on a regular basis.
➢ Completed the Mapping Process.
➢ Getting accurate and reliable data for AE has been a real challenge for many employers, you should start this process as soon as possible
➢ Group code cannot start with a leading zero.
Continued on next page


This component is dividing a table's columns down to the number that was given to the number property.
number
If you want to know more about bootstrap grid:
The slot inside the component will render the text between the tags.