CHICAGO (AP) — A former jail guard has filed a federal lawsuit against the Cook County sheriff for allegedly dismissing her bid to become a courthouse deputy because she failed a fitness test.
Denise Hobbs, 59, claimed the test is discriminatory based on age, sex and race and the sheriff has required it even after an administrative judge ruled otherwise, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Hobbs twice failed the test in 2019. She said she was told to go back to work at the jail but then retired soon after.
She was among 25 people taking part in the training academy for courthouse deputies. Six were rejected, including Hobbs and three other Black women, one Black man and a white man, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims the test was biased because it doesn’t correspond with a courthouse deputy’s duties and the standards were the same for all despite lower average abilities of older people and women.
Hobbs seeks unspecified damages and a court order blocking the sheriff from using the test.
The test, which was administered between 2014 and 2019, was agreed to by the union representing courthouse deputies
Matthew Walberg, a spokesman for Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, said that the test was eliminated in 2019 “for reasons unrelated to the merits of the test.”
He said the guards who failed, including Hobbs, threatened a lawsuit and were offered courthouse jobs and Hobbs declined.
A dentist from Sussex County faces three years in prison and fines for failing to report more than $114,500 in proceeds from his practice, authorities said.
Richard Golembioski, 61, of Vernon, pleaded guilty on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Newark to one count of making and subscribing to a false tax return, according to Michael Montanez, special agent in charge with the Internal Revenue Service.
Golembioski was a licensed dentist practicing in Vernon. He admitted filing a fraudulent tax return for the 2012 tax year. He also failed to report income from his practice on his 2013-2016 tax returns, Montanez said.
Sentencing is scheduled for March 8. Golembioski faces three years in prison and $250,000 in fines, Montanez said.
Thank you for relying on us to provide the journalism you can trust. Please consider supporting NJ.com with a subscription.
©2020 NJ Advance Media Group, Edison, N.J.
Visit NJ Advance Media Group, Edison, N.J. at www.nj.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
A Belfast dentist was “horrified” to discover he had failed to keep a controlled register of a drug he used to treat vulnerable patients, a court heard yesterday.
avid Jordan received a 12-month conditional discharge for breaching the requirement to maintain a chronological sequence of entries for Fentanyl.
Belfast Magistrates’ Court was told the 65-year-old is among a few dentists in Northern Ireland trained to carry out conscious sedation.
But records were not properly kept on up to 340 ampoules of Fentanyl Citrate used in the procedure at his practice on the Holywood Road.
Mr Jordan, of Knockmore Park in Bangor, Co Down, admitted failing to keep a controlled drugs register between January 2016 and March 2019.
His barrister described it as a sad case involving a dentist about to retire after a previously unblemished career.
Under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 dentists are legally required to keep an accurate, up-to-date and chronological register, with entries including details on the strength and quantities of stock.
Supplies of Fentanyl were obtained from a Boots pharmacy under a private requisition system and held safely at the practice.
But a prosecution lawyer said: “The defendant didn’t keep or maintain a controlled drug register in relation to all of the 340 ampoules.”
He confirmed the case only related to how the Fentanyl was recorded, with no issues over its use.
District Judge George Conner heard it had been an oversight by a dentist who used conscious sedation to avoid subjecting patients with learning difficulties to a full general anaesthetic.
It was stressed that the dentist cooperated fully in the investigation, going through all medical notes and records to match up all Fentanyl in the practice and used to treat patients.
Mr Connor imposed a conditional discharge for 12 months.
As a scientist and historian of science, I get asked a lot by friends and family to comment on scientific questions. Are vaccines safe? Is red meat bad for you? How much time do we have left to fix climate change? Many of these matters are not nearly as complicated as they have sometimes been made out to be. Vaccination is broadly safe for most people; eating large amounts of red meat is associated with higher rates of death from a number of cancers; and scientists think we have about a decade left to get greenhouse gas emissions under control and avoid the worst consequences.
Lately nearly all the questions involve COVID-19—particularly the matter of masks. The argument for wearing them is pretty straightforward: viruses are spread in droplets, which are expelled when an infected person talks, shouts, sings or just breathes. A properly constructed and fitted mask can prevent the spread of those droplets and therefore the spread of the virus. That is why surgeons have been routinely wearing medical-grade masks since the 1960s (and many doctors and nurses wore cloth masks long before then). It is also why in many parts of Asia, people routinely wear masks in public. A flimsy or poorly fitting face covering may not be much use, but—barring the risk of generating a false sense of security—it is unlikely to do harm. So it stands to reason that, when in public, most people should wear masks. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention summarizes: “Masks are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air…. This is called source control.”
So why are people confused? One reason is that we have been getting conflicting messages. In April the World Health Organization told the general public not to mask, while the CDC told us we should. In June the WHO adjusted its guidance to say that the general public should wear nonmedical masks where there was widespread community transmission and physical distancing was difficult. Meanwhile CDC director Robert R. Redfield declared that “cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus—particularly when used universally.” Today government guidance around the globe varies from masks only for sick people to masks mandatory for all.
Why the contradictory messaging? In particular, why did the WHO say in April not to wear masks? At the time, there was a severe shortage of personal protective equipment; the WHO evidently feared that ordinary people would rush out to buy masks, denying them to medical personnel. According to one report, officials were also concerned that widespread masking would lead to a false sense of security, leading people to ignore other safety measures, such as handwashing and self-isolation.
If the WHO had simply said this, there would have been a lot less confusion. But apparently there was another problem. At the time, no direct evidence existed regarding community spread of this particular virus, and