Food Service Support Short-Term

first_imgThe physical demands are representative of those that must bemet by an employee to successfully perform the essential functionsof this job.The work environment characteristics are representative ofthose an employee encounters while performing the essentialfunctions of this job.Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individualswith disabilities to perform the essential functions.A detailed list of physical demands and work environment is onfile and will be provided upon request.This direct link 2020 Annual Security and Fire Safety Report (ASFSR) is the 2020Annual Security and Fire Safety Report for Coast Colleges. Thecrime statistics for calendar years 2017, 2018, and 2019 weresubmitted to the U.S. Department of Education as required under theJeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus CrimeStatistics Act. A hardcopy can be provided from one of the CampusSafety Offices. Please contact any of the Campus Safety Offices forany questions regarding the report.The Coast Community College District is a multi-college districtthat includes Coastline Community College , Golden WestCollege , and Orange Coast College . The three colleges offerprograms in transfer, general education, occupational/technicaleducation, community services and student support services.Coastline, Golden West and Orange Coast Colleges enroll more than60,000 students each year in more than 300 degree and certificateprograms.Since it’s founding in 1947, the Coast Community College Districthas enjoyed a reputation as one of the leading community collegedistricts in the United States. Governed by a locally elected Boardof Trustees, the Coast Community College District plays animportant role in the community by responding to needs of achanging and increasingly diverse population.Coast Community College District is an Equal OpportunityEmployerThe Coast Community College District is committed to employingqualified administrators/managers, faculty, and staff members whoare dedicated to student learning and success. The Board recognizesthat diversity in the academic environment fosters awareness,promotes mutual understanding and respect, and provides suitablerole models for all students. The Board is committed to hiring andstaff development processes that support the goals of equalopportunity and diversity, and provide equal consideration for allqualified candidates. The District does not discriminate unlawfullyin providing educational or employment opportunities to any personon the basis of race, color, sex, gender identity, genderexpression, religion, age, national origin, ancestry, sexualorientation, marital status, medical condition, physical or mentaldisability, military or veteran status, or geneticinformation.APPLICATIONS MAY BE FILED ONLINE AT:http://www.cccd.edu1370 Adams AvenueCosta Mesa, CA [email protected] DefinitionUnder direct to minimum supervision of the head of the Division,Department, or Program, the non-academic, non-classified short-termsupport employee will provide services to the department to supportand assist regular employees by performing a variety of neededtemporary tasks.Non-academic, non-classified short-term employees are notpart of classified service. Non-academic, non-classified short-termemployees are at-will employees, have no entitlement rights to anyposition in the District, and are not benefits eligible. Short-termemployment shall not result in the displacement of Classifiedpersonnel.Non-academic, non-classified short-term employees perform servicesand tasks, which once completed, will not be extended or needed ona continuing basis. Short-term non-classified employees performservices that are not re-occurring and are not a permanentcomponent of the District’s operations. Short-term employees may beemployed to perform work at a one-time event that occurs on anirregular basis.Short-term non classified employees may not exceed 160 workingdays within a fiscal year (July 1 – June 30) and may not exceed 19working hours per week and may only occupy one primary assignmentwithin the District.* Retired CalPERS Annuitants: may not exceed 960 hours in afiscal year (July 1 through June 30)*REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES:On a temporary basis, provide assistance in tasks related to foodservice areas. Performs additional related duties asassigned.Qualifications and Physical DemandsMINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:Education and Experience:Dependent on the specific Division, Department or Program jobassignment.Or, any combination of education an experience that wouldprovide the required equivalent qualifications. LICENSES OR OTHER REQUIREMENTS :Some job assignments may require a valid California driver’slicense and/or possession of a license and/or certificate ofcompletion from an accredited college or agency relative to theassigned area. Continuing education, training or certification maybe required.Knowledge of:Dependent on the specific Division, Department or Program jobassignment.Ability to:Dependent on the specific Division, Department or Program jobassignment.Conditions of EmploymentUnder direct to minimum supervision of the head of the Division,Department, or Program, the non-academic, non-classified short-termsupport employee will provide services to the department to supportand assist regular employees by performing a variety of neededtemporary tasks.Non-academic, non-classified short-term employees are notpart of classified service. Non-academic, non-classified short-termemployees are at-will employees, have no entitlement rights to anyposition in the District, and are not benefits eligible. Short-termemployment shall not result in the displacement of Classifiedpersonnel.Non-academic, non-classified short-term employees perform servicesand tasks, which once completed, will not be extended or needed ona continuing basis. Short-term non-classified employees performservices that are not re-occurring and are not a permanentcomponent of the District’s operations. Short-term employees may beemployed to perform work at a one-time event that occurs on anirregular basis.Short-term non classified employees may not exceed 160 workingdays within a fiscal year (July 1 – June 30) and may not exceed 19working hours per week and may only occupy one primary assignmentwithin the District.* Retired CalPERS Annuitants: may not exceed 960 hours in afiscal year (July 1 through June 30)*Employment is contingent upon verification of employment history,background verification as governed under Education Coderequirements, eligibility to work in the United States, andapproval by the CCCD Board of Trustees. Short term/temporaryassignments do not offer fringe benefits or pay for holidays ortime not worked but are entitled to sick leave per Labor Code2810.5. However, CalPERS retired annuitants are not entitled tothis benefit. The hours of work and effective date of employmentwill be arranged with the supervisor.Regular attendance is considered an essential job function; theinability to meet attendance requirements may preclude the employeefrom retaining employment.The person holding this position is considered a mandatedreporter under the California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Actand is required to comply with the requirements set forth in CoastCommunity College District policies, procedures, and Title IX.(Reference: BP/AP 5910)The Coast Community College District celebrates all forms ofdiversity and is deeply committed to fostering an inclusiveenvironment within which students, staff, administrators, andfaculty thrive. Individual’s interested in advancing the District’sstrategic diversity goals are strongly encouraged to apply.Reasonable accommodations will be provided for qualified applicantswith disabilities who self-disclose.Application materials must be electronically submitted on-lineat http://www.cccd.edu/employment . Incomplete applications and applicationmaterials submitted by mail will not be considered.Additional InformationAPPLICATION REQUIREMENTSTo be considered for employment you must submit a completeapplication packet. A complete application packet includes:Online Employment ApplicationAnswers to all of the supplemental questions.Candidates will also be responsible for all travel expenses ifselected for an interview, the Coast Community College Districtdoes not reimburse for candidate travel expenses.Disability AccommodationsIf you require accommodations in the Application or ExaminationProcess, please notify Human Resources by calling (714)438-4714.PHYSICAL DEMANDS AND WORK ENVIRONMENTlast_img read more

Judge Calls Notre Dame’s Third Try At Avoiding Contraceptive Mandate ‘Absurd’

first_imgAt times describing the defendants’ argument as bordering “on the absurd” and noting the policies are already causing injury, the Northern District of Indiana has blocked another attempt by the University of Notre Dame and federal agencies to limit women students’ access to contraceptives. FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmailShare Judge Calls Notre Dame’s Third Try At Avoiding Contraceptive Mandate ‘Absurd’January 20, 2020  Marilyn Odendahl for IndianaLawyercenter_img The ruling in Irish 4 Reproductive Health et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., 3:18-cv-491, allows a group of female undergraduate and graduate students at Notre Dame to continue their fight for FDA-approved contraceptives, including birth control pills, at no cost, as guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act.This represents the third time Notre Dame has tried to get an exemption from the federal mandate. In two prior attempts — University of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 743 F.3d 547, 554 (7th Cir. 2014) vacated on other grounds, 135 S. Ct. 1528 (2015) and University of Notre Dame v. Burwell, 786 F.3d 606, 612 (7th Cir. 2015), vacated on other grounds, 136 S. Ct. 2007 (2016) — the private Catholic education institution was unable to convince the federal judiciary that the contraceptive provision in the ACA violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.However, the Trump Administration reversed the stance taken by the Obama Administration and bolstered the exemption through two interim final rules. These new rules enabled for-profit businesses, nonprofits and universities to invoke religious and moral objections to the ACA contraceptive coverage requirement without having to explain their reasoning.One week after issuing the interim final rules, the named federal defendants in Irish 4 Reproductive Health’s lawsuit entered into a settlement agreement with Notre Dame and more than 70 other entities. The agreement, according to the Northern Indiana District Court, not only absolved the university from offering contraceptive coverage but also inoculated the school from any future regulation that might mandate the provision of birth control.After the agreement was reached, Notre Dame amended its health plans to terminate coverage for certain contraceptives it views as abortifacients or sterilization. It also imposed cost-sharing, which included co-payments, for other types of contraceptives such as birth control pills.“Although the Federal Defendants contend the Settlement Agreement still allows for ‘full coverage’ in accordance with (Zubik v Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016) and Notre Dame v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 2007 (2016)) because Notre Dame insured can go find ‘a separate or distinct health plan’ elsewhere, this argument borders on the absurd,” Northern Indiana District Judge Philip Simon wrote in his 49-page order issued Thursday. “I’d like to see a plan that offers Notre Dame students and faculty (who are already covered under Notre Dame’s insurance plan) additional health care coverage for contraceptive care with no cost-sharing. There is no such thing.”Simon went further in highlighting what he saw as the fallacy of the defendants’ argument.“The Settlement Agreement does not ensure that women get full contraceptive coverage without cost-sharing,” he wrote. “To the contrary, it authorizes Notre Dame to give them no contraceptive coverage at all — now, and in the future.”Plaintiffs in Irish 4 Reproductive Health survived the motion to dismiss on most of their claims. The district court found their arguments plausible that the final rules violate the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act; the settlement agreement and final rules substantively violate the APA; the settlement agreement is void for illegality, and the settlement agreement and rules violate the Establishment Clause.Two additional claims — that the settlement agreement and final rules violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment — were dismissed with prejudice. The court held the plaintiffs did not establish that subsidized contraceptive coverage is a fundamental right.Also, the court brushed aside the defendants’ contention that the claims based on the settlement agreement were not ripe for adjudication.“The Settlement Agreement challenges are ripe now because Plaintiffs’ claims address an active controversy that turns on Defendants’ past actions and legal issues, not on uncertain future contingencies,” Simon wrote. “There is no doubt that the Plaintiffs are currently experiencing an injury — they have lost coverage for contraceptive care and are currently paying out-of-pocket for those needs. And there is no question in my mind that the Settlement Agreement is causing this injury – Notre Dame has repeatedly and specifically invoked it as a basis for refusing to provide contraceptive coverage.”As part of the original Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in 2010, insurance companies were mandated to cover women’s preventive health services, which included providing FDA-approved contraceptive methods, at no cost.Three years later, the government carved out an exemption from the contraceptive mandate for houses of worship. After religiously affiliated employers and universities objected to still having to provide contraception coverage, accommodation was created that allowed them to opt-out. They could file a one-page form that would enlist the entity’s insurance company or third-party administrators into providing the coverage.Notre Dame and other nonprofit religious organizations filed suits challenging the contraceptive mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A divided 7th Circuit panel upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction in University of Notre Dame. The appellate court agreed the accommodation did not impose a substantial burden on Notre Dame’s religious exercise.A short time later, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc, 573 U.S. 682 (2014) which pushed the government to extend the accommodation to certain closely held for-profit entities with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.Still, many organizations continued to challenge the contraceptive-coverage mandate. Notre Dame argued the accommodation made the university a “conduit” for contraceptives in violation to its religious beliefs. Again, the 7th Circuit rejected those arguments in In Univ. of Notre Dame v. Burwell.Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Notre Dame case and similar ones in Zubik. The cases were remanded with instructions that the parties “should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates (the entities’) religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by (the entities’) health plans receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.”Notre Dame’s Burwell returned to the 7th Circuit, where the same panel affirmed its earlier decision.Subsequently, two federal courts issued preliminary injunctions against the Trump Administration’s final rules in December 2017. However, the government pushed forward and the rules took effect Jan. 14, 2019.Before the Northern Indiana District Court, the federal defendants asserted the final rules are not contrary to the women’s health amendment because the Affordable Care Act does not specify the types of preventive services that must be provided. Moreover, the defendants argued they have the authority to decide who must abide by the health care law.While Simon conceded an agency can have deference in interpreting an ambiguous statute, he pointed out “no deference is due when an agency’s interpretation conflicts with the statute’s plain language.”“Here, the plain language of the ACA specifically requires that all group health plans ‘shall’ cover ‘preventive care’ as defined by the (Health Resources and Services Administration. Contrary to Notre Dame’s suggestion, I fail to see the ambiguity in this directive. ‘[S]hall’ is a mandatory term that ‘normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial [or agency] discretion,’” Simon wrote, citing Pennsylvania v. Trump, 351 F.Supp.3d at 818 (quoting Lexecon, Inc. v. Millberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1988)).last_img read more

State Lawmakers Favor Spending on Teacher Raises, Tourism and Affordable Housing

first_imgAs state lawmakers move closer to finalizing a $92 billion budget, they are also monitoring the global spread of the coronavirus, which could end up disrupting the anticipated revenues needed for major items in their spending plan.“It’s a serious concern,” says Republican House Speaker Jose Oliva. “It’s a concern because we are making some strong spending commitments in areas that everyone can support, but they’re strong recurring spending commitments.”On Saturday, lawmakers agreed to put more than $500 million into teacher pay raises, which is a three percent across-the-board raise for state workers. They also decided to preserve the full $387 million in the affordable housing trust fund and to set aside $50 million for Visit Florida, the state’s tourism marketing organization.Each one of those initiatives could instead see cuts if the coronavirus affects tourism.“We’re all concerned primarily for the lives of Floridians and all of our brothers and sisters around the world,” says Senate budget chief Rob Bradley. “The governor and his team are on the case and they’re being very aggressive in dealing with it.”DeSantis recently asked lawmakers for $25 million to help fight the threat of the coronavirus, which has already resulted in two deaths in the state.However, Oliva says people should go about their lives and not give in to “panic” over the virus.He adds, “There is a difference between legitimate concern – and we should all be very legitimately concerned – and panic. When we begin to act in a panicked way the structures of things around us begin to crumble and then we get ourselves into a situation that a special session cannot repair.”last_img read more