BE HEARD Act would harm small business and Virginia’s business climate

Small businesses in Virginia could face a very different business climate next year, due to Joe Biden’s support for laws like the BE HEARD Act.

Under the BE HEARD Act, even the tiniest employers with only one or two employees will face unlimited liability in lawsuits, for things like discrimination, or harassment committed by an employee. It would also make confusing changes to the legal definition of sexual harassment that could lead to small businesses being liable for trivial acts by an employee. These small employers would also be liable for attorneys fees that could dwarf what they end up paying workers who sue them.

Right now, small businesses in Virginia aren’t covered by most federal discrimination laws like Title VII, unless they have at least 15 employees. This doesn’t mean they can get away with being racist. If they intentionally discriminate based on race, they can be sued under a federal race discrimination law that covers even the smallest employers, 42 U.S.C. 1981. And if they fire someone for a non-race-based reason — such as because of their sex, age, or religion — they can be sued under Virginia state law, if they have more than five employees. Under the 2020 Virginia Values Act, they can be ordered to pay such employees lost wages; emotional-distress damages; and up to $350,000 in punitive damages. (As originally introduced, the Virginia Values Act removed limits on punitive damages, but the final version of the law leaves in place the general $350,000 limit contained in Virginia state law).

But businesses with fewer than 15 employees aren’t covered by federal laws against unintentional discrimination, or non-racial discrimination.

But the “BE HEARD” Act, which Biden has repeatedly touted, would change this. It treats small business just like big businesses, by subjecting them to unlimited damages in lawsuits. It does that by first subjecting even the tiniest employers to federal law (Title VII) — and then by abolishing the limits on compensatory and punitive damages. Right now, federal law doesn’t limit the amount of lost wages workers can collect in a lawsuit. But it does limit the amount of punitive and compensatory damages that the business has to pay for things like emotional distress. Such punitive and compensatory damages are typically capped at levels that vary based on the size of the employer ($300,000 for the largest employers. See 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3)).

The BE HEARD Act would abolish those caps for every employer, including the tiniest. So they would be subject to liability without limit.

But the biggest problem small business would have as a result would not be those damages, but lawyers’ bills. Every time an employer loses a federal discrimination lawsuit, it has to pay the attorneys’ fees of the workers’ lawyer. But if the employer wins, it typically doesn’t recover any of its attorneys’ fees from the worker. This means the employer always ends up paying a bundle when it is sued for discrimination.

Big businesses can afford to pay hundreds of thousands or millions in attorneys fees. Small businesses can’t, and can go broke due to a single protracted discrimination lawsuit.

Those attorneys’ fees are often much bigger than the amount of money the worker gets from suing the employer — meaning that it is lawyers, not workers, who are the primary beneficiaries of federal antidiscrimination laws. That can encourage lawyers to sue businesses over minor violations. For example, a court awarded a worker over $40,000 in attorney fees against her employer, even though she suffered only $1 in damages in Brandau v. State of Kansas (1999).

And that doesn’t cover a business’s own legal costs. Remember, it has to pay its own lawyer, too. Years ago, it was estimated to cost $25,000 for an employer to get a very weak discrimination lawsuit against it dismissed at the earliest phase of litigation (“motion to dismiss”), $75,000 to get it dismissed at a later phrase (“summary judgment”) and $250,000 to defeat a discrimination lawsuit that makes it all the way to a trial.

The BE HEARD Act would also allow businesses to be sued long after memories have faded, making it hard to defend themselves. It extends the statute of limitations from 180 days to 4 years. It classifies commonplace hiring criteria as “discrimination,” by expanding the legal definition of unintentional discrimination to put the “burdens of production and persuasion” on employers in disparate-impact lawsuits. It also holds employers liable for certain unintended pay disparities by incorporating the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is discussed at this link.

It holds employers strictly liable for harassment committed by supervisors in violation of company policy. It defines people as supervisors, even when they really aren’t, because they lack the authority to hire, fire, or promote anyone. It allows not just employees, but also interns and independent contractors, to sue employers.

It also redefines sexual harassment and discriminatory harassment in ways that will be confusing to jurors and may lead them to find an innocent employer guilty.

For example, it says conduct can be “workplace harassment” even if “the conduct occurred outside the workplace.” It gives a long long list of things that typically are not true of workplace harassment, and then says that conduct may be harassment “regardless” of them. It states:

conduct may be workplace harassment regardless of whether, for example—

“(A) the complaining party is not the individual being harassed;

“(B) the complaining party acquiesced or otherwise submitted to, or participated in, the conduct;

“(C) the conduct is also experienced by others outside the protected class involved;…

“(F) the conduct occurred outside of the workplace.”

But according to court rulings, all these things logically weigh against a finding of workplace harassment. If conduct occurs outside the workplace, it is less likely to be workplace harassment. (See Alvey v. Rayovac Corp. (1996)).

If conduct is not even aimed at you, it is less likely to harass or intimidate you. (Gleason v. Mesirow Financial).

If you participated in the conduct without being pressured to do so, it wasn’t sexual harassment. (Scusa v. Nestle USA (1998)).

If conduct is experienced by both men and women, it is less likely to be sexual harassment. (See Holman v. Indiana (2000)).

So it is foolish and misleading to suggest that conduct is “harassment regardless” of these factors.

Telling juries they don’t matter could lead to confused juries finding a small business liable for harassment based on trivial things that aren’t harassing, such as speech about racial, sexual, or religious issues.

The BE HEARD Act also fosters confusion and ambiguity in other ways. Under current Supreme Court precedent, conduct has to be more than trivial — “severe or pervasive” — to constitute sexual or discriminatory harassment. (See Clark County School District v. Breeden (2001)).

So employers don’t need to ban harmless joking. The bill complains that “some lower court decisions have treated ‘severe or pervasive’ as a threshold for liability.” But that’s exactly what the Supreme Court did in its Breeden decision.

By eroding the “severe or pervasive” limit, the bill will pressure institutions to restrict speech about sexual, religious, or racial issues that is not severe or pervasive, leading to First Amendment violations: Courts have overturned campus sexual harassment policies that prohibited speech that was not severe or pervasive. (See Saxe v. State College Area School District (2001); DeJohn v. Temple University (2008)). A college lost a First Amendment lawsuit after it punished a professor for a sexual metaphor that mildly offended listeners. (See Silva v. University of New Hampshire (1994)).

Similarly, judges have also questioned the constitutionality of religious harassment rules that penalize workplace speech about religion that does not really harm the complainant. (See Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, 903 P.2d 351 (Or. 1995) (Unis, J., concurring)).

The BE HEARD Act ignores those court rulings.

It declares that several well-known court rulings contain an “erroneous analysis” about what constitutes sexual harassment — such as “Black v. Zaring Homes.”

But there was nothing wrong or odd about that 1997 federal appeals court decision, which was written by a female judge, and issued by a mostly-female panel of judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. It dismissed a sexual harassment lawsuit because the plaintiff had sued over relatively trivial things, like a worker joking about liking “sticky buns,” while reaching for a pastry.

By rejecting sensible court rulings clarifying what does — and doesn’t — constitute “harassment,” the BE HEARD Act could lead to sexual harassment law being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

The definition of sexual harassment is already rather vague. A court ruled that a standard college sexual harassment policy was unconstitutionally vague as applied to a professor’s longstanding sexually-oriented lectures, because it lacked detailed guidance clarifying and fleshing out its meaning. (See Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College (1996)).

By classifying more speech as harassment, the BE HEARD Act will lead to censorship. Its many provisions hostile to employers will harm the business climate and make it harder for businesses to thrive and create jobs.

A version of this commentary was originally published on August 4, 2020 in the online Liberty Unyielding.

Share this article on:
Posted in Economy | Leave a comment

Little for Farmers in Dem Party Platform

The Democratic party released its draft platform for 2020 this month with 10 sections, and not one is on agriculture!

The platform has sections on “Building a Stronger, Fairer Economy”; “Achieving Universal Affordable Quality Healthcare”; “Combatting the Climate Crisis and Pursuing Environmental Justice”; “Providing a World-Class Education in Every Zip Code” and “Renewing American Leadership”.

There are other sections, but none mention agriculture.

There is plenty in the platform about securing reproductive health rights and justice, and of course we must end the epidemic of gun violence, guarantee self-determination for Puerto Rico, achieve racial justice and equity, and reduce health care costs.

Enormous amounts of ink are spent on the COVID-19 issue. In fact, the Democrat platform declares “America must never again be left vulnerable to a global pandemic.” This from a party who opposed President Trump shutting down travel from China and Europe, and party leaders attacked him for doing so.

Ag’s first mention

The first mention of agriculture is under a section “Investing in the Engines of Job Creation”. On page 17 of the draft Democrat platform there is finally a reference to agriculture. It is “Democrats will invest in the American heartland and rural economies.” The platform recognizes there has been a history of racial discrimination at USDA and that the new Democrat administration will “…take a more proactive approach to supporting training and resources for families of color.”

One interesting plank is “Democrats believe farmers should have the right to repair their own farming equipment, rather than being forced to rely on large corporations for even the simplest fixes.” Sounds like the ‘Right-to-repair’ folks got in someone’s ear.

“Democrats will partner with America’s farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to make the U.S. agriculture sector the first in the world to achieve net-zero emissions…” Another plank is to support E15 blends by supporting more research on this and other advanced biofuels.

A third paragraph on agriculture states “America’s farmworkers are essential to our economy, our communities, and our security. We will enforce labor and environmental protections for farmworkers, including overtime and safety rules protecting the workers from exposure to pesticides and extreme heat, …”

One final plank in the platform assures all in agriculture that Democrats will tackle market concentration in the packing house industry by strengthening efforts to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act.

The Vilsack connection

At the end of last week a story was published indicating Friends of the Earth had sent several recommendations regarding agriculture to former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. Vilsack, a Democrat, is alleged to receive over $1 million a year as CEO of the U.S. Dairy Export Council. He is on the Democrat Party platform committee representing agriculture, but indicated he never received any of the Friends of the Earth recommendations.

The letter signed by Friends of the Earth, Family Farm Action, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, and The Land Stewardship Action Fund and Peoples Action, among others, suggests several additions to the Democrat platform. The Democrat platform committee will be urged to:

  • transition away from carbon intensive animal agriculture and monoculture;
  • start a moratorium on new concentrated animal feeding operations;
  • grow demand for low-carbon diversified and humanely raised foods;
  • direct the USDA to ensure fair prices and access to land and credit for Black Indigenous, and immigrant producers of color;
  • pass a National Right to Repair law;
  • help farmers to reduce pesticide and chemical fertilizers, and BAN chemicals such as chlorpyrifos, neonicotinoids, glyphosate, and dicamba;
  • support food waste reduction programs;
  • end exploitation of incarcerated people for food production; and
  • end the privatization of meat inspection.

 

Former Secretary Vilsack said of these recommendations that he thinks the agriculture community will tackle many of these issues and believes the net zero language “…will resolve a number of concerns folks have expressed about farming today.”

Vilsack, as CEO of U.S. Dairy Export Council, faces a membership where 83% of the dairy producers say his million-dollar salary was “inappropriate”. No concern was voiced by Vilsack in the Democrat Platform that over 200,000 dairy farms closed over the last ten years.

A version of this commentary originally appeared on August 4, 2020 in the online Farm Futures.

Share this article on:
Posted in Agriculture | Leave a comment

Job Recovery Will Be Slow

Employment figures for regions and localities across Virginia for June came out last week, showing that the economy is trying to dig its way out of a deep hole.

But it is going to be a slow recovery as long as social distancing and fear of contracting the virus continue.

Firms in the Richmond metro area employed 633,700 people in June. That’s down by 58,000 when compared to February’s pre-coronavirus level.

After hitting a low point in April, employment increased in May and June here and across the nation. Employment in the Richmond region dropped by a whopping 70,000 between February and April — that loss is the equivalent to wiping out every job in the Harrisonburg area.

Employment in the state fell by 429,000 people from February to April and employers have since added 86,000 workers back to their payrolls.

The leisure and hospitality sector is one that has been hit hardest in the Richmond area and across the nation.

Forty percent of jobs lost in the Richmond area from February to April, or about 28,000, were in this sector. During the same time period, leisure and hospitality firms in Virginia laid off 189,000 people.

But the number of people laid off is more when considering the ripple effect. Businesses laying off workers are not buying as many supplies as before while the laid off employees don’t have a paycheck to spend in the region.

The multiplier for leisure and hospitality is 0.25. Every one job lost in leisure and hospitality causes an additional 0.25 people to lose their jobs.

So, for the 28,000 jobs lost in the Richmond region, it causes a ripple effect of having another 7,000 job loss.

The sheer size of the employment losses in the region and around the nation provides a better understanding of why federal, state and local governments have put together programs to support the firms and employees that have been adversely affected by the pandemic.<

The wide distribution of a vaccine also is critical to the economic recovery. For that reason, there are three scenarios to consider with vastly different views on when employment in the nation returns to pre-COVID levels.

On the optimistic side, if a vaccine is widely distributed in the first quarter of 2021, employment should reach pre-coronavirus levels in the second quarter of 2021.

In the most-likely scenario, with a vaccine widely dispersed in the fourth quarter of 2021, employment could reach levels seen before pandemic hit two or three quarters later.

In the pessimistic scenario, the infection remains heightened and we don’t see a widely distributed vaccine until the first or second quarter of 2023. Then employment would not reach pre-COVID levels until at least three quarters later.

A version of this commentary originally appeared in the August 2, 2020 edition of The Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Share this article on:
Posted in Economy | Leave a comment

How Discount Power For Poor Will Raise Your Bill

Virginia’s two major electric utilities estimate that as many as 150,000 of their poorest residential customers will see their monthly bills reduced next year using money extracted from all their other customers on their own power bills.

Appalachian Power Company projects about 30,000 of its low income customers will receive subsidies of $500-$600 per year. Dominion Energy Virginia projects bill subsidies to about 120,000 households of about $750 per year.

Both companies told the State Corporation Commission recently that to pay for this, about $1.12 will be added to the cost of every 1,000 kWh of electricity used by homes, businesses, and industries in Virginia. The cost per kWh is the same for all customer classes, and thus represents a larger percentage price increase for the commercial and industrial users.

Neither utility is sure that $1.12 or so is going to be the correct amount, but once the process starts annual adjustments can be made, just as with other costs collected through rate adjustment “riders”. A similar Ohio program costs customers three times as much, about $3.7 per 1,000 kWh, APCo reported. It is fair to expect Virginia costs will also rise.

This is the promised Percentage of Income Payment Plan, or PIPP, mandated by the 2020 Virginia General Assembly as part of its massive energy revisions earlier this year. The SCC has opened dockets for both utilities to determine the correct amount of “universal service fee” (actually a tax) to apply on bills starting in 2021. Once the various stakeholders finish with reports and interrogatories, hearings will be held in October.

Home energy is a major part of every household budget, of course, and represents a higher percentage of income for those with less cash. A Charlottesville-based advocacy group recently issued a report setting 6% of income as the definition of “energy burden,” and went around the city detailing where close to 5,000 such households exist, how many are using electricity or gas, and how many would benefit from efficiency measures to reduce demand.

That spending level – 6% — is also used in the PIPP statute, setting that as the highest percentage of income a household should need to pay to the utility if it does not use electricity as its main heating source. If the residence does use electricity for heat, the bill is capped at 10% of household income.  A family with $2,500 per month in income would thus pay no more than $150-250 per month for power depending on the heat source.

A huge number of administrative details remain to be hashed out, and the General Assembly ducked many key questions. Eligibility is not directly tied to income, but to participation in other well-known assistance programs, such as the existing Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), SNAP food benefits or Medicaid.What counts as “income” for the PIPP cap determination is yet to be determined.

The existing energy assistance program (LIHEAP), which is based on income, subsidized energy bills for almost 140,000 Virginia households last year. It is funded by the federal government, with about $95 million allocated for Virginia this fiscal year. It extends beyond the customers of the two large power companies and applies to rural electric cooperative customers, natural gas users and even assists with firewood.

How will the existing LIHEAP program, managed through the social services departments, coordinate with PIPP? Which should the customer turn to first, and is a customer eligible for assistance from both? So far, that issue is not addressed by either utility proposal. And in describing the challenges in Charlottesville, the advocacy group simply ignores LIHEAP and other assistance. One must look elsewhere to learn LIHEAP provided cash for energy bills to more than 700 Charlottesville families and another 950 in surrounding Albemarle County.

Both Dominion and APCo also have internal charitable arms, using company funds and outside donations to pay customer bills. Dominion Energy Share’s recent report claims almost 68,000 families or individuals received help with their bills, most of those funds of course reducing the company’s own accounts receivable. Some level of write-offs for unpaid bills is also already assumed in existing rates. Will the move to PIPP mean utilities get closer to full payment from all customers with no losses?

In the middle of all the other debates over energy six months ago, PIPP received almost no attention. The General Assembly majority simply decided that Virginians should not have to pay more than 6% or 10% of their “income” for electricity and sent the bill for the balance to other customers. It did this only for the major power company customers, setting a precedent that – in the name of equity – will be followed for rural electric cooperatives, natural gas, and propane providers.

The big question mark, both Dominion and APCo tell the SCC, is whether everybody eligible will actually take advantage of this. APCo assumed one half would, and Dominion provided estimates for different percentages, up to 100% participation. Frankly, until this starts it is largely guesswork.

There is one additional wrinkle, which Dominion did nod to in its filing. Every Dominion customer eligible for PIPP, whether or not they enroll, will be exempt from the coming tidal wave of capital costs for Dominion’s offshore wind development. That will lower their bills significantly, and raise others noticeably, for several decades as billions are collected for those turbines and the related profits.

The utilities also suggested that even the PIPP beneficiaries should pay the PIPP tax on their bills. Since their ultimate bill is capped anyway, it won’t change the amount they owe. (Except, of course, for any lower income customer who just missed the cut off or chooses not to use PIPP.)

A version of this commentary originally appeared August 3, 2020 in the online Bacon’s Rebellion.

Share this article on:
Posted in Energy | Tagged | 1 Comment

Can We Talk Common Sense Yet?

We are now a little over 4 months into dealing with covid-19 in Virginia and it’s time to take stock of where we are. Let me start by saying that, while I did not like the shutdown of businesses, I understood why it was happening. We had little to no knowledge of the disease. We didn’t know how contagious it was. We didn’t know how deadly it was. We didn’t know how easily it could spread. We still don’t have a vaccine and we still have a lot of questions that need to be answered. Also, lest we forget, businesses and churches were closing BEFORE the Governor issued his Emergency Order to close non-essential businesses. Nearly all professional and college sports were closed down before any governmental orders. My church shut its doors before Gov. Northam’s EO was issued as well.

The shutdown has been painful for businesses all over Virginia, just as the virus has been painful for all of the people who have contracted the disease or lost a loved one to it. There has been quite a lot of controversy surrounding the measures taken to combat this virus, just as there has been conflicting information about the virus itself.

Over four months have gone by since we started dealing with this virus, and we have a lot more knowledge than we used to, and a lot more data. Consider the following:

In just over four months the number of confirmed covid-19 cases in Virginia has reached nearly 89,000. Of those confirmed cases, a little over 2,100 people have died. We can argue about inflated death numbers or under-counted people who have the virus but have never been tested all we want, but all of that is pure speculation, and cannot be quantified or counted. People who feel sick are getting tested. If you don’t feel sick and you test positive for the antibodies, do you really qualify as a victim of a disease you never knew you had? For now, let’s just deal with confirmed numbers.

Virginia has a population of about 8.536 million people. Based on the confirmed numbers listed above, only about 1% of the population of Virginia has contracted this virus, and 0.024% of the population of Virginia has died from it.

Virginia hit its highest number of daily reported cases on May 25th of this year at 1,439. When we once again compare that to our population of 8.536 million people, that means the greatest chance anyone had of contracting this disease on any given day is about 0.01%.

Let me assure you that I am not trying to discount anyone who has gotten sick, died, or lost a loved one. This disease is not a hoax and it is worse than the flu, but we are also not talking about the bubonic plague here. The mortality rate of the seasonal flu is about 0.1%. When all is said and done, scientists are predicting the mortality rate of covid-19 will be somewhere between 0.2 and 0.4%. That is anywhere from 2 to 4 times worse than the flu. But through this entire time of chaos and confusion, only 1% of the population of Virginia has been affected, and that is not just the results for VA.

The confirmed infection rate in the United States is just a little over 1% of the population.

According to Worldometers, the total cases per 1 million population in the United States as of July 31st, 2020 is 14,006. That is a 1.4% infection rate. The 5 states with the highest rates of infection are (in order) Louisiana (2.4%), Arizona (2.3%), New York (2.27%), Florida (2.1%), and New Jersey (2.1%).

The worst hit states in America have an infection rate at only a little over 2%.

Do these numbers justify the level of disruption that is continuing to occur in people’s lives?

So what do we do now?

When Governor Northam issues orders to close businesses and mandate masks he is exercising powers delegated for an emergency situation. The law defines an emergency as:

any occurrence, or threat thereof, whether natural or man-made, which results or may result in substantial injury or harm to the population or substantial damage to or loss of property or natural resources and may involve governmental action beyond that authorized or contemplated by existing law because governmental inaction for the period required to amend the law to meet the exigency would work immediate and irrevocable harm upon the citizens or the environment of the Commonwealth or some clearly defined portion or portions thereof.

These powers have typically been interpreted to be quite broad at the beginning of a crisis, but those powers fade as time goes by and the immediacy of any threat fades.

While forced shutdowns may have seemed prudent at the outset of this outbreak, there doesn’t seem to be much justification for them now. The trend chart of daily infections in Virginia during the lock down is strikingly similar to the daily infection rate as we have moved through the different phases of opening. It means that we are seeing on average the same number of daily infections while we were locked down and while we are opening up, so the idea of more lock-downs doesn’t seem to make much sense.

We also need to consider the fact that this disease is not just going away. Many people are saying the earliest we can realistically expect a vaccine is sometime in mid to late 2021. Furthermore, there is some discussion that the antibodies gained by fighting off covid-19 may fade away after a couple of months. If true, that means we are most likely looking at a new, seasonal virus that will be with us for years.

In the face of this kind of news, doesn’t the idea of an “emergency” seem to disappear? Does it sound like our Governor should continue to wield the kind of authority he has been using up until now? If Virginia is going to be facing this virus for years, then there is plenty of time for our elected legislature to take action and allow the people to judge those actions at the ballot box in 2021. After all, we don’t shut down the economy for the seasonal flu, and we didn’t shut down the economy for SARS or H1N1 either.

The emergency powers of the Governor were designed to allow immediate action when current law was insufficient and a legislative remedy was not available. That is not the world we are living in anymore, and those powers should no longer reside in the hands of one man. The Governor either needs to relinquish his grip on total power or the courts need to take it away from him.

In my opinion the best way forward is to use our common sense. Virginians need to see our lives get back to normal again, but we need to do it with a mixture of personal responsibility and grace. People can take this virus seriously while still going to work, going to school, shopping, and gathering for entertainment and sporting events. Most people I know don’t invade the personal space of strangers when they are out and about. Following common sense guidelines should continue to protect the 98.9% percent of Virginians that have not caught this virus. If you simply follow the same steps you would to avoid getting a cold or the flu, you will be just fine avoiding covid-19. After all, the advice being given to us by all the experts is the exact same advice they would give you to avoid the flu or the common cold.

We should also understand that we don’t know the personal situation of everyone we see on the street. We should not assume that everyone we see wearing a mask is as afraid of the virus as the guy modeling the latest in post-apocalyptic active gear in the picture above. They may have a family member that is particularly susceptible to the virus, or they may be trying to take an abundance of caution. Likewise, we should not assume that people who are not wearing a mask are psychotic ogres that hate everyone and want to spread the disease. There are enough loopholes for who doesn’t have to wear a mask in the Governor’s EO (and when you don’t need to wear one) that should legally nullify the order as arbitrary and capricious. A little more concern for our fellow man and a lot less nagging will help everyone get through this time in much better shape.

Our knowledge of the virus also means that our hospitals are much better equipped to deal with the new cases to come, and there will be new cases no matter what we do. More importantly, the knowledge we have gained and continue to gain should help dispel some of the fear that has gripped so many people since this all started, and that fear is really the biggest enemy we face in this ordeal. We all want life to get back to normal, and that is only going to happen when a majority of people feel safe enough to do so. That means everyone needs to work a lot harder to turn down the heat and use some common sense. Take the virus seriously, but don’t let fear control your life.

A version of this commentary originally appeared on July 31, 2020 in the online The Bull Elephant.

Share this article on:
Posted in Economy, Health Care | 3 Comments