Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights : New Jersey Labor and Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild LLP Law Firm : Serving Essex County, Sussex County, Roseland, New Jersey

I have written several times about Assistant Manager class actions being quite difficult to defend because these employees often perform a great deal of “subordinate” type work, making the issue of “primary duty” a tricky one.  In a recent class action involving these employees, a federal judge has denied a motion for conditional certification (which does not often happen) on the basis that the lead plaintiff Assistant Manager was not similarly situated to the people he tried to represent. The case is entitled Guillen v. Marshalls of MA Inc and was filed in the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff had claimed that the violations were willful, thereby entitling him (and the other opt-ins) to a third year of recovery.  Then, going after the primary duty requirement, the plaintiff alleged that he devoted the bulk of his time to non-exempt tasks such as janitorial work and unloading trucks.

The deficiency in the plaintiff’s motion, however, was that he failed to show that Assistant Managers throughout the country were performing their jobs in precisely the same manner.  Put differently, there was not a strong showing that Assistant Managers elsewhere were discharging non-exempt duties.  The court stated that “Guillen’s latest motion adds virtually no evidence suggesting that Guillen is similarly situated to ASMs in Marshalls stores nationwide with respect to the main contention in this case: that he was required to perform tasks that rendered him nonexempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements.”

The court noted that there was nothing in the job description for this classification that required the performance of non-exempt work that the plaintiff alleged was done.  There was no evidence of any nationwide requirement(s) in this area as well.  The plaintiffs could not find a companywide policy that would apply to all of these employees.  As I have often noted, that is the anathema for an employer defending such a case. In this case, there could have been thousands of employees employed in these jobs across the country and without a showing of commonality (i.e. a policy), there would be a need for individual scrutiny of what each employee actually did.

What this case again reinforces for me is that the knee jerk reaction of any company defending a FLSA collective action should be to look for and solidify all evidence of the dissimilarity of the lead plaintiff and the “others.”  Company compensation policies should also be examined and, if need be, appropriately revised.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 11, 2012, a Nike, Inc. factory in Indonesia agreed to pay its workers more than $1 million in unpaid overtime.  The factory workers claimed that Nike required them to work an hour of overtime each day for which they were not paid.  The matter was settled prior to a lawsuit being filed following almost a year of negotiations.  The settlement will affect nearly 4,500 factory workers.

Under Indonesian law, a company must pay workers overtime for any hours worked beyond the standard 8 hour work day.  According to the trade union representing the factory workers, Nike had failed to pay the factory workers overtime for the past 18 years.  However, Indonesian law only permits employees to recover unpaid overtime for the previous two years.
 

In addition to the monetary settlement, Nike has agreed to training programs for local managers that includes “cultural sensitivity, respectful supervisory skills, team leadership and human resource management” training.  Moreover, Nike has agreed to hire a third party advocacy group to monitor workplace conditions.

While Indonesian factory workers are not subject to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, U.S. companies should be careful to rectify any wage and hour violations that may be occurring overseas.  Indeed, Karishma Vawani, a BBC correspondent in Indonesia, states that “The fact that Nike’s Indonesia factory has opted to hand over this million dollars and an apparent admission of some wrong doing at their Indonesia plant, may serve as a warning to other companies here to be more mindful of what happens at their Indonesia subsidiary.”  Not surprisingly, trade unions are threatening to target Adidas and Puma, who both have large factories in Indonesia, for similar overtime violations.

The bottom line is that, as surprising as it may sound, other countries have wage hour laws and believe in the concept of “overtime.”  Nike learned this the hard way, but other companies can benefit from this lesson.
.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a recent case, a federal judge in New York has allowed a class action to proceed for thousands of employees who allege that they were misclassified as exempt by an accounting firm.  The case is entitled Pippins et al. v. KPMG LLP and was filed in the Southern District of New York.  The judge also ordered that the Company turn over a computer-readable list of the names and contact information for possible opt-in plaintiffs.

The judge found there to be commonality because the accounting field is governed in large part by a number of regulations and standards that would render the plaintiffs as “similarly situated.”  The court noted, however, that “the uniformity does not mean audit associates are entitled to overtime.” The Company has claimed that these employees are exempt under the administrative and/or professional exemptions.  The Company also defended by asserting that, because each employee’s duties may have differed, there would be required an individualized scrutiny as to what each employee did, thus destroying the necessary element of commonality.

What is important is that the “individualized” defense may ultimately prove to be successful, although at the conditional certification step, a court is not focusing on these individual differences but rather looking at what elements of commonality may be present, such as similar educational backgrounds and similar training regimens.

The plaintiffs (naturally) contend that they performed clerical-type work, which was routine and repetitive.  They claimed that “all” they do is do basic reviews of documents and financial records.  I imagine the Company will defend not only on the individual scrutiny basis but will also try to knock out as many plaintiffs as it can but pointing to the higher levels of education they possess, the degrees and certificates, which will evidence that they do more than just “clerical” work and are using their advanced education (college or above) to conduct financial analyses, (which is the essence of an administrative or professional defense) and not just crunching numbers.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 22, 2011, we posted an article about the US Supreme Court holding in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.,  in which the Court held that a retaliation cause of action could lie even if the complaint was not in writing, but was made verbally.  We cautioned about the danger of that holding for employers.  Now, the US Department of Labor has issued  Fact Sheet 77A codifying this holding in DOL guidelines.  The Fact Sheet makes clear that oral complaints are protected and internal complaints to the employer, as opposed to (or, in addition to, complaints to the DOL) are also protected.

The Fact Sheet also makes clear that the retaliation protection applies to all employees of an employer even in those instances in which the employee's work and the employer are not covered by the FLSA.

The Fact Sheet also makes clear that the retaliation protection applies where there is no current employment relationship between the parties, such as an instance where there is alleged retaliation against an employee by a former employer.

Now that this holding has been formalized in DOL guidance and will "enjoy" widespread dissemination, my recommendation is that employers implement a mechanism (similar to the complaint mechanism in anti-harassment policies) where employees may complain about pay errors, or classification issues, or working time issues.  These complaints would then be investigated and if found to have merit, an appropriate remedy issued to the employee.  The important point is that even if the complaint is made orally, the employer (e.g. HR Department) should reduce the complaint to writing so there exists a record of what was complained of, the action taken and the resolution.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I am always counseling clients to have very good and strict time reporting systems so that employees cannot claim they performed work and want to be compensated for it.  I also caution clients that if they “see” employees working or “hear” about it, they have an obligation to make them stop or to pay them.

A recent Seventh Circuit case proves this premise admirably.  The Court (in upholding a trial court's ruling) held that an employer did not have to pay overtime to an employee who had been “working” prior to the normal start of her shift but who had neglected to inform her employer that she was doing this work  The case is entitled Kellar v. Summit Seating Incorporated.

The appellate Court affirmed the ruling that no compensation was due to the factory manager, who claimed that she, virtually on a daily basis, arrived for work prior to the start time but was never paid for the extra work.  The Court held, however, that as the plaintiff never informed her supervisor that she was working this extra time.  The Court found no obligation to pay because the Fair Labor Standards Act “stops short of requiring the employer to pay for work it did not know about and had no reason to know about.”

The Court held that the Company “had little reason to know, or even suspect, Kellar was acting in direct contradiction of a company policy and practice that she herself was partially responsible for enforcing.”  Therefore, no jury could reasonably conclude that the Company knew or had a reasonable basis to know that the employee was performing work prior to her shift commencing. The employee had asserted that she often arrived before 5AM to prepare for her day’s work.  She claimed that the pre-shift job duties, i.e. turning on the lights, unlocking doors, taking deliveries, setting up work stations for rank-and-file employees, etc took between 15-45 minutes.

The lower court held that the work was “preliminary” in that it was not integral to the performance of the plaintiff’s duties, but it was for her own convenience.  This, however, is a different basis for denying the claim for compensation.  The trial court also relied on the de minimis doctrine as an alternative basis for dismissing her claim.  Significantly, the Seventh Circuit held, in contrast to the lower court, that the activities engaged in were not preliminary.  Thus, if the employer had known of the work and allowed it to still be performed, it would have been compensable.

The lesson for employers is to have explicitly drawn policies that disallow any preliminary or postliminary work to be performed without express permission of the employer.  The best crafted policy, however, is to no avail because if a supervisor (whether first level or higher up) has knowledge that work is being done, that work will likely be compensable.  To then argue that it is for the convenience of the employee, not the employer, will be quite difficult and if unsuccessful, quite costly to the employer.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the Southern District of Texas denied a motion by Power Line Services Inc. (“Power Line”) to dismiss a class action alleging that the company improperly docked employee paychecks.  The claim arises out of a company policy permitting Power Line to make payroll deductions for any charges made on a corporate credit card for which an employee fails to provide an itemized receipt.  The lawsuit is entitled Thurmon, et al. v. Power Line Services Inc., et al., and was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that Power Line regularly made improper deductions from the paychecks of exempt employees for failing to comply with its receipt policy.  These deductions range from $3.44 for a lost receipt from a convenience store to $2,500 for repairs to a company issued truck. The named plaintiff in the lawsuit, Jerry Thurman, claims that these payroll deductions evidence that he, as well as other individuals, were improperly classified as exempt employees.  As a result, Thurman is seeking to recover unpaid overtime.

This lawsuit highlights the danger of docking an exempt employee’s pay.  In 2006, United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued an opinion letter stating that “any employer policy that requires deductions from the salaries of its exempt employees to pay for the costs of lost or damaged tools or equipment” constitutes an “improper deduction,” thereby invalidating the exempt status of any affected employee.  While the opinion letter only addressed deductions based on lost or damaged equipment, employers can expect the DOL to take a similar stance with respect to any deductions resulting from infractions of company policy.  Put simply, the DOL will likely prohibit any payroll deduction that can be viewed as a penalty.

As discussed in my earlier posting on this subject, employers are best served by maintaining a policy of disciplining, rather than docking, employees who are responsible for lost equipment or a violation of company policy.  Employers should consider that the potential liability for the loss of an employee’s exempt status will likely far outweigh the cost of any lost or damaged property.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have been representing an employer in a class action in which Registered Nurses, paid hourly, sought overtime.  We won on summary judgment at the trial court, on the strength of two New Jersey Department of Labor Opinion Letters (one going back to 1975), that held that it was the DOL’s interpretation that as long as the Nurses (or other professionals) performed “professional” work, they were exempt from overtime provided they made the minimum amount required (i.e. $400 per week).  The claimed liability reached into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  In sum, on the basis of two pieces of paper, we succeeded in securing the dismissal of the case.  The case is entitled Anderson v. Phoenix Health Care, Inc., A-2607-10T2 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 16, 2011).

On November 16, 2011, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed this lower court holding.  The Court noted that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own laws and regulations if that interpretation was not “plainly unreasonable.”  Against that framework, the Court held that this interpretation was not, in fact, “plainly unreasonable,” even though hourly payment was not ostensibly “allowed” by the applicable regulations.  The Court reasoned that the “critical question is whether the employee is a professional, not whether that professional’s compensation is determined by reference to an hourly rate instead of a salaried rate.”

The Court also concluded that, even if this longstanding, i.e. almost forty years, interpretation was not reasonable, my client could avail itself of the safe harbor, good faith exception found in New Jersey law (and the FLSA and, more likely than not, the wage hour laws of many States).  That good faith exception provides “immunity” for a defendant when that entity has conducted itself in reliance upon or in conformity with interpretations or enforcement practices of a the relevant agency.  That is what my client had done in this case.

So, in essence, we used the Opinion Letters for both of these purposes, in an offensive manner, as a sword, rather than a shield.  First, we argued that the interpretation was not unreasonable, but even if we lost on the ground, we claimed the refuge of the safe harbor.  The lesson for employers is that if they wish guidance on a certain point of law, securing an Opinion Letter provides not only guidance, but also protection, even if the logic or reasoning of the Letter is ultimately struck down by a Court, the particular employer that conducted itself in accord with the Letter will not be held liable.

The irony in this is that as New Jersey has now adopted the FLSA regulations (as of a few months ago), this defense would likely not be available to an overtime claim filed by an hourly paid Registered Nurse.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 1, 2011, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced that it will be conducting an “enforcement initiative” focused on the residential care industry in North Carolina. The residential care industry consists of group homes, long term care facilities, and other businesses that provide care for individuals who are incapable of caring for themselves.

As part of the initiative, the DOL plans on visiting residential care facilities to interview employees and review their pay practices and records.  The DOL stated that that since 2006, it has investigated 120 residential care facilities and recovered more than $980,6000 in back pay for 1,077 employees.

According to the DOL, businesses in the residential care industry have, among other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, failed to pay workers for attending required staff meetings and training.  This practice contradicts the general rule that time spent attending employer sponsored meetings and training is compensable.  Additionally, the DOL claims that residential care employers have consistently deducted 8 hour sleeping periods for employees who work fewer than 24 hours.  The federal regulations are clear that an employee who is on duty for less than a 24 hour period must be paid for all of his or her time, including sleeping time.

Another area of concern not specifically addressed in the press release is whether such facilities, as is often standard practice, automatically deduct a set period of time for lunch periods (e.g. 30 minutes or an hour).  In such instances, employees have successfully filed complaints that they worked through these automatically deducted lunch periods and are entitled to compensation.

Employers in the residential care industry should review their pay practices in anticipation of heightened scrutiny by the DOL.  In particular, businesses within this industry need to carefully examine whether they are paying employees for all time worked in a given day.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent holding in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion has been increasingly used by employers in defending against and, in seeking dismissal of, FLSA collective actions.  This tenet received new emphasis in a recent decision by the US Supreme Court in which the Court vacated a California court decision holding that an employee could proceed before the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) with wage claims against his employer, notwithstanding that he had executed an arbitration agreement.  The case is entitled Sonic-Calabasas A. Inc. v. Moreno in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court sent the case back to California state courts for further processing in light of the April 2011 decision in Concepcion.  The essence of that earlier holding was that “states cannot require a procedure that is inconsistent with the [Federal Arbitration Act], even if it is desirable for unrelated reasons.”  Counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he could not understand how the Concepcion holding applied to the facts of the case.  The case involved a claim by an employee against a car dealership for allegedly unpaid vacation days.

Although he had signed an arbitration agreement, the employee submitted an administrative wage claim with the DLSE, under the state Labor Code.  The Company petitioned state courts for an order compelling arbitration.  The Company argued that the worker had waived his right to proceed judicially and had to utilize arbitration for a resolution of his claim..

Although the Concepcion holding applied to a consumer transaction, where arbitration provisions are commonplace in consumer contracts, a number of federal courts have extended its reach to collective and class action overtime cases.  In this case, the rationale was applied to a wage payment action where no wages are sought but rather only accrued vacation time.

I am still cautious, however, about urging clients to incorporate arbitration provisions and class action waivers in every employee handbook as I worry about the specter of a dozen (or hundred) individual employee arbitrations where the claims and defenses are the same, which is why the “class action” manner of proceeding was “invented.”
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Doug Weiner and Meg Thering, in the Wage Hour Defense Blog, recently commented on the introduction of the Computer Professionals Update Act in the US Senate on October 20, 2011.  They posit that this is a good development for employers, as employers would be more easily able to classify employees as exempt under the computer exemption.

The new legislation would expand the coverage of the exemption to individuals who work in a "computer or information technology occupation, including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet or websites, as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator or other similarly skilled worker."   Also, employees who direct the work of individuals performing these duties would be exempt.

I welcome this development.  I have had numerous cases and matters for clients where the focus has been whether certain computer employees were exempt or not.  There are many fine lines in undertaking this analysis, almost as many as there are titles in this field.  The employer is forever placed in the difficult position of having to make a judgment call ion the exemption question and if it is proven wrong. almost astronomical liability is the result, as these workers are often earning very good compensation (whether at an hourly rate or a salary).  To take the more conservative approach and simply treat the workers as non-exempt is not the answer either because although it spares the employer the specter of a possible lawsuit (usually class action) it escalates the overtime outlays that the employer is subject to.

Now, if the legislation passes, employers will not be forced to make what are now very difficult decisions.  I believe employers are, for the overwhelming most part, intent on doing the right thing and complying with the law.  When the law is not easily amenable to reasonable interpretation and forecasting, that desire to comply is hampered.  With this new law, employers may be able to correctly classify computer workers and not have to be stressed out over whether they will be hit with a FLSA class action.

To be continued...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 7, 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”) filed an amicus brief in support of the motion by KPMG LLP (“KPMG”) to set aside the Southern District of New York’s denial of its application for a protective order.  The protective order sought to limit the number of employee hard drives that KPMG is required to preserve while awaiting a decision on the plaintiffs’ motion for collective action certification.  Specifically, KPMG requested to preserve a random sampling of 100 hard drives rather than thousands of hard drives.  The Court denied KPMG’s motion even though the cost of preserving the hard drives is extremely high (e.g. KPMG has spent more than $1.5 million on maintaining these hard drives since January 2011).

The lawsuit, entitled Pippins, et al. v. KPMG LLP, is brought by a group of former auditors who allege that KPMG intentionally misclassified entry level auditors as exempt to avoid paying them overtime.  The hard drives in question contain data relating to the employees’ job duties and activities. By all accounts, such information is necessary to determine whether the employees fall within one of the exemptions to the overtime requirements under federal and state law.

The Chamber argues that the Court erred in denying KPMG’s for a protective order.  The Chamber asserts that the Court ignored the “test of proportionality,” which requires courts to restrict discovery when the cost outweighs the potential benefits.  Additionally, the Chamber claims that the Court incorrectly labeled each of the potentially thousands of class members as “key players.”  The Chamber explains that the identification of “key players” should be used to “focus discovery” and achieve “savings in time and expense.”  However, this did not happen in Pippins.

Employers should be crossing their fingers that the decision by the Court is set aside and the protective order entered. Should the decision stand, employers may be required to preserve the hard drives for every potential class member in a lawsuit. This could result in a company being ordered to maintain hard drives for tens of thousands of employees going back three years, or possibly longer. The cost of such an exercise would be astronomical.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After a three-week jury trial, Southern New England Telephone Company has won a verdict finding that employees who were titled as field managers and classified as exempt, were in fact exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law.  This case is significant because, as a rule, first-level managers are often in reality “working foreman” type of workers and are usually found to be non-exempt.  The case is entitled Perkins et al., v. Southern New England Telephone Company and was filed in federal court in the District of Connecticut.

Under the FLSA, employees classified as executive exempt must supervise at least two workers on a full time and direct basis, must have input into or authority over different personnel decisions, such as hiring, firing, compensation, promotion, etc and must have management as their primary duty.  With first-level managers, the problem (for defense counsel) often arises because these managers do the same kind of work as their subordinates so the primary duty factor often is an issue.

The plaintiffs had claimed that they were merely given the title of manager and were, under that umbrella, compelled to work 50-70 hours per week, without overtime payment.  The plaintiffs contended, as indicated above, that they had and exercised no managerial authority over their so-called subordinates.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers had valued the case at a startling figure exceeding $50 million.  This verdict is even more significant given the fact that the judge had ruled (prior to trial) that the Company had destroyed a very large chunk of evidence that the plaintiffs’ lawyers asserted hampered their prosecution of the case and benefited the defendants.

The judge evidently agreed with the plaintiffs, as he had rejected defendant’s motion to dismiss the case, finding that the field managers were themselves closely supervised and actually earned less than the people they supervised.  The defendant will not, I daresay, argue with the result, but, on balance, this is against the odds.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced that United States Beef Corp., doing business as Arby’s, has agreed to pay back wages in the amount of $55,838 based on their failure to properly calculate overtime.  This agreement came following an investigation by the DOL, which found that 255 Arby’s restaurants had failed to include bonuses paid to managers when computing the “regular rate” of pay for overtime compensation. The settlement affects 759 current and former hourly paid managers in Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), overtime for hourly workers “must be compensated at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which the employee is actually employed.”  The “regular rate” is computed by dividing the total compensation paid to an employee (including all commissions, bonuses and incentive pay) by the hours worked in a given week.  Contrary to an hourly rate, the “regular rate” of pay will vary from week to week depending on the number of hours worked and the monetary amount of any bonus or commission paid to the employee.

The DOL found that Arby’s had computed overtime for the hourly managers using their hourly rate of pay rather than their “regular rate.”  The DOL stated in a press release that “Fast food restaurants are frequently found by the Wage and Hour Division to be in violation of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime wage provisions.  Because historical data indicate that the majority of violations are committed by franchisees rather than by corporate-owned establishments, the division is focusing its enforcement efforts accordingly.”

All employers, not just fast food franchisees, need to make sure that they are calculating overtime correctly.  This is especially true for businesses that pay employees lump sum amounts, such as bonuses, pursuant to company policy or practice.  As seen above, even a relatively small deviation from the required computation can lead to significant liability.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 A few months ago, the US Supreme Court issued the landmark decision in ATT Mobility LLC v. Concepcion in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state law that forces class arbitration on parties that have not consented to it.  The Court ruled that a California rule that found class action waivers on consumer arbitration agreements unconscionable was preempted by the FAA.  Now, a New Jersey federal judge has applied Concepcion to dismiss a FLSA class action and has sent the case to be arbitrated instead.  The case is entitled Opalinski et al. v. Robert Half International Incorporated and was filed in federal court in the District of New Jersey.

District Judge Faith S. Hochberg granted the motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case, relying on Concepcion and held that its tenets were applicable to FLSA actions.  Judge Hochberg did not accept the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant had waived its right to go to arbitration, because the Company had waited more than fourteen months before moving to compel arbitration.

Judge Hochberg wrote that “after determining that the arbitration clauses in both Opalinski’s and McCabe’s employment agreements require them to arbitrate their FLSA claim and that [Robert Half] has not waived its right to compel arbitration, this court sees no reason to permit plaintiffs to continue to litigate this action in this forum.”

The Company contended that its ostensible delay in moving to compel arbitration was allowable because the Concepcion case had “dramatically changed the legal landscape” in class actions where arbitration clauses existed and were potentially applicable to a given case.  The Judge held that the motion to compel arbitration satisfied all of the requirements established by the Third Circuit for granting , including finding that the Company had a reasonable basis for the delay, i.e. the issuance of the Concepcion decision, which had changed the law.

I predict this is but the first of many cases that will follow the same pattern.  Also, more employers will be inserting class action waiver language into their arbitration agreements with employees (which are often included in Employee Handbooks) and this tactic may well significantly hamper the ability of plaintiff attorneys to file FLSA class/collective actions.  On the other hand, employers may be unhappy by getting what they “wished for,” because one possible outcome is that the employer may have to arbitrate dozens, if not hundreds, of arbitrations where the facts and law are the same.

To be (surely) continued…
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link