Adverse Action Notice Sample: Fill & Download for Free

Many of these answers relate to students masturbating somewhere during the school day. Most of them are probably similar to one a fellow student of mine reported from her time subbing … she went to check on a male student who was making up a test he’d missed and so was in a special area for that purpose, a curtained-off area of another classroom that happened to be vacant that period. When she went in, he was, shall we say, hard at work (She went and got a male teacher to go talk to him).But it’s not always boys …My mother, years ago when she was an elementary school teacher (like just before I was born, in the late 1960s) told me that she had once had a girl in fifth grade who regularly put her hand under her skirt during class and masturbated. Working with the girl’s mother, she came up with a code phrase to get the girl to stop whenever she noticed it.I told her that, based on mandatory-reporting training that we get now, that just screams “sexually abused at home” and would have to be reported. She agreed, but back then this was a long way off. She doesn’t think that even if she had reported it to her principal at the time, anything would have happened … except possibly some adverse action against her, as her principal was a much older, never-married woman who held the girl’s father (some local business big shot, apparently) in rapt awe.Outside of this area, another teacher at a school I worked at once told of having written a kid up because, during a science lab which involved testing samples of lake or river water (or looking at it under the microscope, I think), he kept offering fifty bucks (as if!) to any other kid in the class who would drink the water (this meets the legal definition of creating a dangerous situation in the classroom, so under New York law he could be, and was, removed from the room).And when I was in third grade, once during lunch time, some other kid in the class took a leak in my boot, something I only found out after I’d put my own foot in it (yes, quite literally) and dumped what I thought was water in the sink. We spent half the afternoon as a class trying to figure out who might have done it. Since I was a new kid that year, I thought it might have been directed at me personally, but based on what I’ve learned since then about children’s behavior I think it might just have been chosen totally at random. Whatever, it never happened again.

I can't say whether or not affirmative action is ethical, and its existence is an admission that different races are still not socially equal. But I can say that in contemporary American society, affirmative action is a "necessary evil." Please bear with me as I explain why. (Hopefully I won't get downvoted into oblivion, because this is a controversial issue, and one that needs to be discussed.)Americans especially, but white society in general, like to think that we live in a sort of post-racial or colorblind world. Our laws no longer discriminate on the basis of race. In fact, we have laws banning discrimination. We judge others solely on the basis of their individual merits. Any time we display dislike or disdain towards, say, a black person, it is because she herself is a terrible person, and not because we subconsciously view all black people with dislike or disdain. Right?Wrong.While each of us likes to think that we are race-blind, it is simply not true. Stephen Colbert satirizes this tendency by saying things like "They tell me you're black. I wouldn't know that, because I don't see race," to his black guests. His point is obvious. And though there is no biological basis for race, it is a social reality, and an impossible issue to avoid. Of course, it is no longer polite to be openly racist, or to even be a closeted racist (though that doesn't deter some people). But this doesn't mean that latent racism has evaporated, or that it can be considered unimportant.There have been studies conducted that reveal a shocking degree of hidden racism in the hiring process. A few years ago, Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainthan conducted a study called "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?"[1] They responded to wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers with over 5,000 generic resumes. The main variable in these resumes was the name of the applicant. Some names were stereotypically "white" while others were stereotypically "black." With virtually identical resumes, those with "white" names received 50% more callbacks for interviews than their black counterparts. The reseachers themselves say that the results suggest that there is a significant amount of real racial discrimination within the job market. No one puts up signs saying "blacks need not apply" because that is against the law, but the fact that racism is no longer plainly visible is even more dangerous.Jay MacLeod investigates dimensions of race- and class-based discrimination in his ethnographic study Ain't No Makin' It [2]. (Anyone who claims that affirmative action is wrong or unnecessary should read this book.) MacLeod observed and interacted with two groups of working-class youth from the same neighborhood, one mostly white and one mostly black. In this particular instance, he noted that the black youth...Submitted better resumes.Prepared better for job interviews.Were, in general, better job candidates than their white counterparts.Were optimistic about their potential for social mobility, and believed strongly in the achievement ideology.Yet MacLeod found that the black youth, despite their better qualifications, were less likely to get second interviews or job offers. The only conclusion he could come to was that there was still a thread of institutional racism in the labor market. While his sample size was admittedly small, his results indicated that, rather than less qualified black applicants being favored over more qualified white applicants, as affirmative action policies would suggest, the opposite was true. More qualified black applicants were less likely to get job offers than less qualified white applicants. And shockingly enough, these black youths did not "play the race card" to justify their failures. When asked asked directly if they believed race was a factor, they flatly denied it, remained optimistic, and said that must simply have not worked hard enough on their applications.There are also several studies in housing discrimination in the United States. Some studies have callers of various names and English-language accents express interest in purchasing or renting living spaces over the phone. The content of their calls are kept largely the same, with the main differences being the "whiteness," "blackness," or "foreignness" of the callers' names and their accents. Results typically reveal that there is significant discrimination against those of black and Hispanic names and accents.The Department of Housing and Urban Development conducts periodic studies in housing discrimination as well [3], and typically finds that blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans report more adverse treatment than their equally qualified white counterparts. Minority applicants are far more likely to be told that available units are actually unavailable, or quote higher prices for the same units than they do for their white counterparts. So yes, housing discrimination on the basis of race is also very real.Keep in mind that all of these studies control or otherwise account for socioeconomic discrimination as a variable. Almost all of these results can be attributed to race-based discrimination alone.The idea of a "race blind" or "post-racial" society is problematic because it denies the existence of race as a social reality. I remember having a brief discussion about affirmative action with two friends of mine. One is a black female, and the other is a white male. My male friend said that one of the reasons he opposes affirmative action and race identification questions on college and job applications is because he felt that checking the word "white" somehow reduced his worth as a person. It made him feel uneasy because he knew that self-identifying as a white male would, at best, not benefit him, and at worst harm him.My other friend retorted that, as a black woman, her race is the first thing that people notice when they meet her. Simply upon seeing her, without even knowing her name, they begin to form judgments about her. She has little choice in how she identifies, because others define her as they see fit, not in a malicious way, but in a way that is still very real. And while she can't know for sure how they feel about the fact that she is black, she has a similarly uneasy feeling that whatever their judgments are, at best her race won't benefit her, and worst it will harm her. In fact, the only time she doesn't feel this way is when she marks "black" on job applications.It is very easy for middle-class white Americans to lose sight of the fact, or never even be aware of, how privileged they are. I know that most white people living in the US today bear no personal responsibility for the evils of slavery, Jim Crow, etc. But that doesn't mean that they don't still benefit from those past evils, or that nonwhites don't still face the legacies of institutional discrimination. That needs to be acknowledged. Affirmative action is one of the few ways we have of doing that.I used to be very much opposed to race-based affirmative action. Why would I want to support a system that supposedly works against me as an Asian? But once I understood that racism against blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans is still painfully real, if more hidden than ever before, a number of convincing arguments in favor of affirmative action came to light [4]. No, affirmative action is not a perfect system. There are problems with it, and it doesn't work well in all cases. It's far too simplistic to "level the playing field" in every respect. But it's the best system we have right now, and it's better than nothing. And at least, for a start, affirmative action acknowledges the fact that despite what we like to tell ourselves, we don't live in a racially colorblind society.[1] A link to the paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf[2] I strongly recommend reading Jay MacLeod's Ain't No Makin' It which in part investigates the extent of race- and class-based discrimination in the labor market, revealing that black job applicants are often passed up for job offers over less qualified white applicants.[3] A HUD study: http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/hsgfin/hds.html[4] Slightly outdated, but a good start: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/readroom/articles/affirm.htm

There are a few important things to note here that are evident if you read the FDA alert (which you can find here - Breast Implant Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) - Letter to Health Care Providers)First, it appears based on data cited in the report that the percentage of impacted patients is somewhere between 0.026% and 0.003% of patients with breast implants. That puts this in the world of ‘Yes, it happens, but it’s somewhere between rare and really rare.’Second, while there have been studies and reports dating back several years, the specific studies that the FDA cited were published relatively recently (2017 and 2018.) The FDA last report on this, in 2011 included the following:One possible exception is the rare development of Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL) in 28 women with breast implants. Reports in the scientific community have suggested a possible association between ALK-negative ALCL and silicone gel-filled and saline-filled breast implants. In a thorough review of scientific literature published from January 1997 through May 2010, the FDA identified 34 unique cases of ALCL in women with breast implants throughout the world. The FDA’s adverse event reporting systems also contain 17 reports of ALCL in women with breast implants. Additional cases have been identified through the FDA’s contact with other regulatory authorities, scientific experts, and breast implant manufacturers. In total, the FDA is aware of approximately 60 case reports of ALCL in women with breast implants worldwide. [1]60 cases world wide is a pretty small sample set.The recent studies provided more information, more data, more cases, and were (likely) sufficiently compelling for the FDA to look back at their own collection of reports. This time around, “The FDA's additional data analysis identified 457 unique MDRs for BIA-ALCL, including the death of nine patients which may be attributable to BIA-ALCL.”[2]So, in 2011 when they published their report on implant safety, they had 60 cases. Now, following studies released in 2017 and 2018, they have 457 cases. That’s more, and prompted the FDA’s new guidance.The two most relevant parts of the FDA guidance are these:Consider the possibility of BIA-ALCL when treating a patient with late onset, peri-implant seroma. In some cases, patients presented with a mass or masses adjacent to the breast implant. If you have a patient with suspected BIA-ALCL, refer the individual's case to a multidisciplinary team for evaluation.Collect fresh seroma fluid and representative portions of the capsule and send for pathology tests to rule out BIA-ALCL. Diagnostic evaluation should include cytological evaluation of seroma fluid or mass with Wright Giemsa stained smears and cell block immunohistochemistry/flow cytometry testing for cluster of differentiation (CD30) and Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) markers.[3]Translation - Hey providers, if you see this symptom set, collect a sample and consider that this might be a thing.Cool. Useful to let providers know. Here’s a thing you might see in patients with this kind of medical device and this set of post-operative symptoms. Good on the FDA for recommending specific testing for providers.That’s it. In the grand scheme of things, this isn’t earth shattering. It’s a minor update to clinical practice based on a few years worth of additional data collection. The FDA has also alerted providers to report further cases. If it turns out more serious action is required based on that additional data, I expect the FDA to take appropriate steps.For the rest of us including people like me with textured implants? If I notice this symptom set, I’m informed and can talk to my doctor about it. Otherwise? It happens in between 1 in 3,800 and 1 in 30,000 patients. That’s higher odds than the chance of being struck by lightning (1 in 700,000) but it’s about on par with the odds of being hit by a car / or being killed by a car… Yeah, I look both ways before I cross the street and I wait at cross walks but I don’t stay off the roads. I’ll keep having regular checkups, mammograms and MRIs at the recommended frequency but I’m not scared that my implants will give me cancer or kill me.Context and perspective are everything.Footnotes[1] https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/implantsandprosthetics/breastimplants/ucm260090.pdf[2] Breast Implant Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) - Letter to Health Care Providers[3] Breast Implant Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) - Letter to Health Care Providers