| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 |
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
The company was negligent. They were aware of her allergy, hired her & then refused to accomodate the request.
If she would have been fired for refusing to work next to a peanut product, she would have had a suit. I think she was stupid for risking her health, but she certainly bolstered her case with the ICU visit.
If they had a bona fide job requirement where they needed an employee without a peanut allergy to work a cash register, then don't hire her.
I could see why she would have thought she would be safe with employement in a store selling baby stuff. Personally, Babies R Us is stupid, stupid, stupid for having a peanut product in its stores with the number of children with severe allergies these days.
So if I'm on the jury - no she's not getting 3 million. But she'd getting a few years of salary out of them from my point of view.
|
Posted 2/18/10 12:29 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
springchick
make a wish
Member since 5/08 3566 total posts
Name:
justask
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by nrthshgrl
The company was negligent. They were aware of her allergy, hired her & then refused to accomodate the request.
If she would have been fired for refusing to work next to a peanut product, she would have had a suit. I think she was stupid for risking her health, but she certainly bolstered her case with the ICU visit.
If they had a bona fide job requirement where they needed an employee without a peanut allergy to work a cash register, then don't hire her.
I could see why she would have thought she would be safe with employement in a store selling baby stuff. Personally, Babies R Us is stupid, stupid, stupid for having a peanut product in its stores with the number of children with severe allergies these days.
So if I'm on the jury - no she's not getting 3 million. But she'd getting a few years of salary out of them from my point of view.
Ditto and you have a good point on BRU selling peanut products with the number of kids that have peanut allergies.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 12:34 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by nrthshgrl
The company was negligent. They were aware of her allergy, hired her & then refused to accomodate the request.
If she would have been fired for refusing to work next to a peanut product, she would have had a suit. I think she was stupid for risking her health, but she certainly bolstered her case with the ICU visit.
If they had a bona fide job requirement where they needed an employee without a peanut allergy to work a cash register, then don't hire her.
I could see why she would have thought she would be safe with employement in a store selling baby stuff. Personally, Babies R Us is stupid, stupid, stupid for having a peanut product in its stores with the number of children with severe allergies these days.
So if I'm on the jury - no she's not getting 3 million. But she'd getting a few years of salary out of them from my point of view.
My cousin won't even take her daughter in there. She touched the handle of a cart when she was a baby and nearly died. Because someone had eaten something with peanuts in it and the poor kid was just sitting there and when into shock.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 12:52 PM |
| |
|
DiamondGirl
You are my I love you
Member since 7/09 18802 total posts
Name:
DiamondMama
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Reading some of this information about peanut allergies is making me really scared for people with a peanut allergy--how terrifying 
|
| Posted 2/18/10 12:54 PM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by teddysmama1021
Posted by nrthshgrl
The company was negligent. They were aware of her allergy, hired her & then refused to accomodate the request.
If she would have been fired for refusing to work next to a peanut product, she would have had a suit. I think she was stupid for risking her health, but she certainly bolstered her case with the ICU visit.
If they had a bona fide job requirement where they needed an employee without a peanut allergy to work a cash register, then don't hire her.
I could see why she would have thought she would be safe with employement in a store selling baby stuff. Personally, Babies R Us is stupid, stupid, stupid for having a peanut product in its stores with the number of children with severe allergies these days.
So if I'm on the jury - no she's not getting 3 million. But she'd getting a few years of salary out of them from my point of view.
My cousin won't even take her daughter in there. She touched the handle of a cart when she was a baby and nearly died. Because someone had eaten something with peanuts in it and the poor kid was just sitting there and when into shock.
That is scary! But I'd be concerned about carts in supermarkets too then.
What a horrible way to have to live!
|
| Posted 2/18/10 12:55 PM |
| |
|
J9-13
We're gonna be big sisters!
Member since 6/06 14887 total posts
Name:
J9
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by teddysmama1021
Posted by nrthshgrl
The company was negligent. They were aware of her allergy, hired her & then refused to accomodate the request.
If she would have been fired for refusing to work next to a peanut product, she would have had a suit. I think she was stupid for risking her health, but she certainly bolstered her case with the ICU visit.
If they had a bona fide job requirement where they needed an employee without a peanut allergy to work a cash register, then don't hire her.
I could see why she would have thought she would be safe with employement in a store selling baby stuff. Personally, Babies R Us is stupid, stupid, stupid for having a peanut product in its stores with the number of children with severe allergies these days.
So if I'm on the jury - no she's not getting 3 million. But she'd getting a few years of salary out of them from my point of view.
My cousin won't even take her daughter in there. She touched the handle of a cart when she was a baby and nearly died. Because someone had eaten something with peanuts in it and the poor kid was just sitting there and when into shock.
That is scary! But I'd be concerned about carts in supermarkets too then.
What a horrible way to have to live!
Yeah....THAT is friggin scary!!
|
| Posted 2/18/10 1:38 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
She is entitled to a job. She has an obligation to inform her employer of her allergies / special needs...she DID that.
Employer KNEW about allergy, agreed to making accomodations for her, then INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY put her in harm's way.
Case closed. (IMO anyway)
I think hospital bills, loss of wages, estimated follow up care, are all legitimate compensation...$3million, probably not, but as people have said, you put in a high number and let the court figure out the real number.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 1:41 PM |
| |
|
jgl
Love my little boys!!!
Member since 8/07 7060 total posts
Name:
g
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by KateDevine
Posted by Tilde
Posted by JennZ
Well maybe she shouldn't work in a public place where there is chance she could be around peanuts. Maybe an office setting, or a work from home job.
I think its silly.
Even in an office, I eat PB sandwiches all the time. We have parties with store bought food that could contain peanuts. . . I don't know what the solution is in this situation.
They would tell you that you can't bring it in if they decided to hire her. They do it in preschools and daycares already.
in the school my husband works in they have peanut free tables.
I think that if your allergy is that severe tat for her own safety she needs a job that doesnt have food in it or that allows food.
I think they could have def been more compasionate and not put her on the register ever
|
| Posted 2/18/10 4:24 PM |
| |
|
stickydust
Now a mommy of 2!!!
Member since 4/06 3164 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
I really do not have an opinion on the woman's lawsuit and am sympathetic to those who have peanut allergies - I cannot imagine hpw scary it must be.
I did read an intersting fact lately...
It seems that the majority of peanut allergies are in upper middle class white populations and that they are less prevalent in minorities or those in lower socioeconomic rungs. This may correlate with the hypothesis of sterile environments or something else...
|
| Posted 2/18/10 5:28 PM |
| |
|
ChilisWife
God Bless America
Member since 5/05 3572 total posts
Name:
A.K.
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
So if someone with allergy to cat hair went to work in a pet store, could they sue if they got sick? Even if they told their boss there were allergic?
If my job is to teach swimming and I develop a chlorine allergy, and I tell my employer and they fire me for not being able to do my job, can I sue them?
A few years ago I lost some of my eyesight and told my employer. They didn't hire anyone to read my work to me though. So should I sue them?
If my child has a peanut allergy and someone at her camp was eating peanuts around her, should the camp pay me millions?
I don't know, I feel like once you start calling a peanut allergy a disability, where do you draw the line? If there is no law that the employer has to provide her accommodations, then why should the employer pay her millions if they don't? At some point a person must take responsibility for their life. Maybe BRU wasn't the right job for her.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 6:58 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
I think she might have a case-she has a disability-the severe peanut allergy-and she put the store on notice of this. They should have made reasonable accommodations for her, such as keeping her in furniture. They put her where she was in danger and for that, I think her suit is valid. The employee eating a peanut butter cup though? He is not liable to her and neither is the store for that IMO. But the fact that there was a place she could be or a duty she could perform that would not put her in harm's way and the store intentionally disregarded her disability and had her do something that put her in harms way should make them liable. Not 3 million dollars liable, but liable. Anyway, she won't get anything close to that.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 7:06 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by ave1024
Posted by prncsslehcar
I'm really shocked over the statements that she should find a job where she's not going to be exposed to peanuts. I mean, really? That's discrimination, isn't it?
No because she is an at-will employee and she chose to work there.
I believe you need to be in a protected class to have a discrimination case.
Do you think the same rules apply to somebody who wants to work at NSAL that happens to be allergic to dogs? You simply don't work there.
It has nothing to do with being at-will. The severity of her allergy would protect her as far as I know under the ADAA. It is not like she worked at a peanut plant, a restaurant, or a supermarket, places where you would commonly find peanuts. They hired her and they should have made reasonable accommodations, which they could have at no cost to them.
She is in a protected class as a disabled employee.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 7:12 PM |
| |
|
butterfly20
Party of 5 - 2015
Member since 4/06 7390 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by prncsslehcar
I'm really shocked over the statements that she should find a job where she's not going to be exposed to peanuts. I mean, really? That's discrimination, isn't it?
By working in a retail location she put herself at risk. BRU is not going to have a security guard at the front door inspecting every customers bag to make sure they are not bringing in peanuts.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 7:23 PM |
| |
|
ave1024
I Took The Wrong Road
Member since 12/07 6153 total posts
Name:
That Led To The Wrong Tendencies
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by munchkinfacemama
She is in a protected class as a disabled employee.
Lets not jump the gun calling all peanut allergies a disability.
Land vs. Baptist Medical Center
This case the plantiff tried to sue a daycare center saying the daycare center refused to accomodate the plaintiff's peanut allergy and was discriminating against the laws of the ADA.
The court disagreed and it ended up in appeals.
Finally, Land asserts Megan is disabled under the ADA because Baptist regarded Megan as substantially limited in her ability to attend day care. Again, we disagree. In our view, major life activities do not include those activities like day care attendance that, although important to a particular plaintiff, are not significant within the contemplation of the ADA.
So you can't just assume that all peanut allergies fall under the ADA. It's up to a court to decide on a case by case basis.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 7:25 PM |
| |
|
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by ChilisWife
edited
To answer your questions:
So if someone with allergy to cat hair went to work in a pet store, could they sue if they got sick? Even if they told their boss there were allergic?
Not being allergic to cats/animals is a bona fide job qualification, so the employer would be in his rights not to hire you. If he hired you & agreed to accomodate your allergy, he could tell you that you need to be on allergy medication to work.
If my job is to teach swimming and I develop a chlorine allergy, and I tell my employer and they fire me for not being able to do my job, can I sue them?
They would put you out on Long Term Disability because you would be unable to do the job you were hired.
A few years ago I lost some of my eyesight and told my employer. They didn't hire anyone to read my work to me though. So should I sue them?
No because you lost some of your eyesight. If your doctor put you out on disability because of your eyesight & you were unable to work & they could not reasonably accomodate your dsability, you'd go out on LTD.
If my child has a peanut allergy and someone at her camp was eating peanuts around her, should the camp pay me millions?
If it was a peanut free camp, sue away. Otherwise, if your child has a peanut allergy, the burden is on you to notify the camp, counselors & medical staff.
I don't know, I feel like once you start calling a peanut allergy a disability, where do you draw the line? If there is no law that the employer has to provide her accommodations, then why should the employer pay her millions if they don't? At some point a person must take responsibility for their life. Maybe BRU wasn't the right job for her.
A peanut allergy is a disablity if it is that life-threatening. I also think it is reasonable to think that BRU would be a good place to work because it isn't food oriented and sells baby items. As someone pointed out, a peanut factory or food store would not be a good place.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 7:34 PM |
| |
|
itkocak
Member since 7/07 7639 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Message edited 11/28/2011 5:58:56 PM.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 7:45 PM |
| |
|
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by ave1024
Posted by munchkinfacemama
She is in a protected class as a disabled employee.
Lets not jump the gun calling all peanut allergies a disability.
Land vs. Baptist Medical Center
This case the plantiff tried to sue a daycare center saying the daycare center refused to accomodate the plaintiff's peanut allergy and was discriminating against the laws of the ADA.
The court disagreed and it ended up in appeals.
Finally, Land asserts Megan is disabled under the ADA because Baptist regarded Megan as substantially limited in her ability to attend day care. Again, we disagree. In our view, major life activities do not include those activities like day care attendance that, although important to a particular plaintiff, are not significant within the contemplation of the ADA.
So you can't just assume that all peanut allergies fall under the ADA. It's up to a court to decide on a case by case basis.
It is on a case by case basis but EMPLOYMENT is a major life activity.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 7:52 PM |
| |
|
ave1024
I Took The Wrong Road
Member since 12/07 6153 total posts
Name:
That Led To The Wrong Tendencies
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by nrthshgrl
It is on a case by case basis but EMPLOYMENT is a major life activity.
Yes. But the peanut allergy still has to be considered life threatening for it to be considered a disability.
I am saying not all peanut allergies are life threatening. That is what I meant regarding it being a case by case basis. According my my allergist, I actually have a peanut allergy. Am I going to die if I smell some peanuts at the carnival? No. Every case is different.
In the case I cited... they also came to a conclusion that the daughter's peanut allergy was not life threatening so the rules of the ADA did not apply to her.
Next, Land contends Megan is disabled under the ADA because her two allergic reactions at day care created a record of a substantially limiting physical impairment. We disagree. While Megan's allergic reactions "are evidence of a history of an impairment, they are not evidence of a history of a disability." Robinson , 101 F.3d at 37 (emphasis omitted); see Colwell , 158 F.3d at 645. As we have already stated, Megan's peanut-related allergy does not substantially limit her abilities to eat and breathe.
In the case regarding the woman at BRU, it will go to court. Lawyers of the plaintiff will argue it is life threatening. Lawyers of the defense will argue otherwise. A decision will be made.
It's not guaranteed a disability by any means.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 8:01 PM |
| |
|
BaroqueMama
Chase is one!
Member since 5/05 27530 total posts
Name:
me
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by butterfly20
Posted by prncsslehcar
I'm really shocked over the statements that she should find a job where she's not going to be exposed to peanuts. I mean, really? That's discrimination, isn't it?
By working in a retail location she put herself at risk. BRU is not going to have a security guard at the front door inspecting every customers bag to make sure they are not bringing in peanuts.
But you could say that about ANY job. I work in a school, if I had a life-threatening peanut allergy, should I not be a teacher because someone might eat a pb sandwich? Should I not work in an office because someone might bring in pb? Should I not work at a car rental place because someone who ate something before they came in and handed me their credit card to put a deposit down on the car had pb and the oil was still on their hands?
Should I shut myself in my house because someone, somewhere, somehow might have had pb and breathes on me and I go into anaphylactic shock?
Do you see my point? Not all retail stores should have peanut products, and even so, it's a reasonable enough request of her to not have to work the register for that reason.
If you know about life-threatening peanut allergies, you know that you can have a reaction from touching something that has peanut oil on it, which could cause you to want to stay home forever, but since she has to work and she took reasonable precautions and gave notice, I don't see how she shouldn't be entitled to monetary damages.
She was responsible and the store was negligent.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 8:03 PM |
| |
|
avamamma
My Girl
Member since 7/06 3395 total posts
Name:
Tara
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by ave1024
I am sure there are some people with peanut allergies and perhaps this person in question has a severe case.
But in terms of peanut allergies in general... how come this was never a real public issue 20 years ago? Even 10 years ago? I'm talking medically. Did we just get weak as a society?
As a kid, I used to love taking in my peanut butter and jelly sandwich to school every day. It's not like kids were dropping like flies left and right when I opened my lunch bag. Now I hear you can't even bring these sandwiches to school... PERIOD.
You also very RARELY (say 10-15 years ago) heard of an airplane refusing to serve peanuts on the flight because of a food allergy. It just wasn't commonplace (at least with the media).
Why the sudden change in society? It's like every month now I hear about someone's peanut allergy. Never heard a peep from anyone 10-20 years ago.
I am the parent of a child with a peanut allergy. This is LIFE THREATENING!!!
There are a lot of different theories as to why there is such an increase in this particular allergy. Doesn't really matter what the cause, but I have to fight to make sure that my child is safe at all times.
I have never thought of what will happen when she is grown and in the work force.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 8:17 PM |
| |
|
avamamma
My Girl
Member since 7/06 3395 total posts
Name:
Tara
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by ave1024
Posted by nrthshgrl
It is on a case by case basis but EMPLOYMENT is a major life activity.
Yes. But the peanut allergy still has to be considered life threatening for it to be considered a disability.
I am saying not all peanut allergies are life threatening. That is what I meant regarding it being a case by case basis. According my my allergist, I actually have a peanut allergy. Am I going to die if I smell some peanuts at the carnival? No. Every case is different.
In the case I cited... they also came to a conclusion that the daughter's peanut allergy was not life threatening so the rules of the ADA did not apply to her.
Next, Land contends Megan is disabled under the ADA because her two allergic reactions at day care created a record of a substantially limiting physical impairment. We disagree. While Megan's allergic reactions "are evidence of a history of an impairment, they are not evidence of a history of a disability." Robinson , 101 F.3d at 37 (emphasis omitted); see Colwell , 158 F.3d at 645. As we have already stated, Megan's peanut-related allergy does not substantially limit her abilities to eat and breathe.
In the case regarding the woman at BRU, it will go to court. Lawyers of the plaintiff will argue it is life threatening. Lawyers of the defense will argue otherwise. A decision will be made.
It's not guaranteed a disability by any means.
You can absolutely NOT say that "not all peanut allergies are life threatening".
My DD's Allergist has told us that a Peanut Allergy is an Anaphlylactic allergy and just because a person gets hives or vomits one time, doesn't mean that the same symptoms will happen again. The next attack may not be so mild, it could be Anaphylactic Shock and then death. There is absolutely no way to tell.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 8:26 PM |
| |
|
pinkandblue
Our family is complete, maybe
Member since 9/05 32436 total posts
Name:
Stephanie
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by ChilisWife
So if someone with allergy to cat hair went to work in a pet store, could they sue if they got sick? Even if they told their boss there were allergic?
.
as another poster said, she was not working in a peanut factory, it is a baby store
|
| Posted 2/18/10 8:41 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by ave1024
Posted by munchkinfacemama
She is in a protected class as a disabled employee.
Lets not jump the gun calling all peanut allergies a disability.
Land vs. Baptist Medical Center
This case the plantiff tried to sue a daycare center saying the daycare center refused to accomodate the plaintiff's peanut allergy and was discriminating against the laws of the ADA.
The court disagreed and it ended up in appeals.
Finally, Land asserts Megan is disabled under the ADA because Baptist regarded Megan as substantially limited in her ability to attend day care. Again, we disagree. In our view, major life activities do not include those activities like day care attendance that, although important to a particular plaintiff, are not significant within the contemplation of the ADA.
So you can't just assume that all peanut allergies fall under the ADA. It's up to a court to decide on a case by case basis.
If you read my comment, you would see that I never said that. This particular peanut allergy is a disability. Just like you can't say all people with vision loss, for example are disabled.
Second, I am discussing this particular woman as a protected employee under the ADA. The case you cited is not relevant here and can easily be distinguished because the plaintiff was a child in daycare. There is no duty for a daycare to accept that child, whereas the employer, knowing the employee had a peanut allergy, certainly does have a duty to accomodate her disability in a reasonable way. There were other duties that she was able to perform that were reasonable, and there was no reason for the manager to put her in the zone of danger when fully aware of the disability and other duties this employee could have performed safely. It was foreseeable that she would be exposed to peanut dust as a cashier with a peanut candy display not even feet away. If the employer took reasonable care to accommodate her, even if she fell ill, they would not be liable. However, they recklessly, knowing that she was this ill, put her in danger. THAT is what would make them liable for her reasonable medical expenses.
And the case you cited is off base because attending daycare was not a consideration of the ADA, but employment was clearly an important consideration of the ADA.
Last, you incorrectly interpret the case law to say that not all peanut allergies fall under the ADA. That is not what the case says. It said that daycare was not a protected right under the ADA. The peanut allergy is tangential to that case. To clarify-it was a consideration, but from my reading, the emphasis was placed on the so-called "right" being denied to the plaintiff due to the peanut allergy.
Message edited 2/18/2010 8:53:22 PM.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 8:46 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by pinkandblue
Posted by ChilisWife
So if someone with allergy to cat hair went to work in a pet store, could they sue if they got sick? Even if they told their boss there were allergic?
.
as another poster said, she was not working in a peanut factory, it is a baby store
Exactly. If you work in a pet store, it is understood what a pet store involves, so you would not be hired.
Just as if you are paralyzed, you would not be employed as a manual laborer.
The Court could easily assume that a baby store is not a place that you would find rampant peanut dust. If this was Stop and Shop, she would have no case whatsoever.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 8:55 PM |
| |
|
neenie
Member since 5/05 22351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
awesome- just another reason to make them raise their prices 
The thing is :
a customer began eating a candy containing peanuts that is sold near her register
That customer could have very well eaten that in her furniture section, too. Are they supposed to put a disclaimer "Do not eat anything in store- food allergies present?"
She didn't have a reaction just b/c she was near it, but b/c a customer was eating it. It was the customer that (unknowingly) put her in danger, not necessarily her job duties.
When i was PG, i would always snack b/c my blood sugar would bottom out... even when i was walking around the stores (and went to BRU quite often). I usually had mini reeses cups in my bag. If they happened to sell them there and i was near her while eating them, would that coincidence make the store liable? I feel horrible for her and her allergy- i can certainly appreciate how scary it must be- but i think this case is silly.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 9:23 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 |
