Hogan Knows Best

We're continuously trying to improve TheTVDB, and the best way we can do that is to get feedback from you. Please consider taking this quick survey to let us know how we're doing and what we can do better.

Hogan Knows Best

Shortly after her divorce from Hulk Hogan, Linda started dating a 19-year-old named Charlie Hill. I know it's kind of a double standard because rich old guys do it all the time, but there's something about a rich older woman dating a 19-year-old guy that's kind of lame. It's like she's flaunting the fact that the guy she's with only wants her because she's loaded -- not that Linda is all that bad-looking. If you like a certain type, then she's totally fine. But 19 is just beyond a place where anyone can pretend that it isn't just some guy dating you because you buy him stuff. I mean, come on... what could she possibly have in common with a dumb teenager? Although she did marry Hulk Hogan, so who knows?

One of the best examples of how the show wasn't all that real was the relationship between Hulk and Linda. The way it appeared on the show was nothing like it was in real life. In fact, shortly after the show ended, the two ended up getting divorced. Linda says that things were pretty awful and that at one point, they were fighting, and Hulk grabbed her throat and didn't stop until she told him that she couldn't breathe. Now, that is probably not something that the writers of the show would have scripted. For his part, Hulk said that Linda had an alcohol problem when they were married and that she also was abusive to the children. Now, all of this would've been a way better reality show than what they actually came up with.

I mean, I know that goes without saying, but still, don't expect to see these four together in public ever again. It makes one wonder, really, what the effect of the show had on all of their relationships. Everything was going kind of okay; then, the show happens, and everything falls apart? It happens more often than one would think. If the Hogans had just kept things mellow and had never had their show, there's no doubt that none of them ever would've had the sort of problems that they've had since. Well, Hulk might have; it's hard to tell what kind of trouble he would've gotten into. Or who knows? Maybe he just would've gone off to Europe to tour with Metallica.

"I actually went and I waited tables at the JW Marriott and I was a cocktail server," she confessed on the podcast. "And I will tell you and I tell everybody this, I had the best time of my life doing that.

Hogan is a 6-1, 220-pounder out of Monmouth who's played in all 16 games in each of the last three seasons in Buffalo. He has 87 career catches for 959 yards with six scores. He had a career-best 450 yards last season when he started a career-high four games. His best season in terms of receptions (41) and touchdowns (4) came in two starts in 2014.

Kevin has heard stories about districts having the best school board meetings they have ever had now that they are meeting in a virtual setting. He also touches on the expanded ability for counselors to meet virtually with even more students throughout their day.

This is a great episode to think about the possibilities for the future and a good reminder to stay focused on the positive - now more than ever. Check out the full episode: -into-the-future-of-education-technology-a-chat-with-kevin-hogan/.

*1183 On May 27, 1994, when the Veterans Readjustment Appointment ("VRA") program posting for career city letter carriers was released, Hogan alleges that he was the best qualified candidate to become a regular postal employee. See Second Am. Compl. 27. Unlike his coworkers, Hogan passed the postal exam, was a four-year (1964-1968) veteran of the Air Force, and met all the qualifications specified for the position. See id. Molina directed Hogan to apply for the position and submit Molina's favorable recommendation, which was dated January 11, 1994. See id. 28. In May 1994, Hogan applied for the permanent city letter carrier position. See id. 29. On June 29, 1994, Hogan's temporary casual employment term expired and his term was not renewed. See id. 30. On July 22, 1994, Hogan inadvertently learned that Molina had made a subsequent negative recommendation, which described Hogan's performance as marginal and explained that Hogan frequently left his work station without authorization and required constant supervision. See Second Am.Compl. 31, 32. Hogan alleges that his requests to be renewed as a casual employee or to be hired as a career city letter carrier were rejected because of Molina's intentionally false recommendation. See id. 30, 31, 32. Hogan specifically alleges that the reasons provided by Molina for the failure to rehire Hogan "were a pretext to unlawful racial discrimination." Id. 34.

Hogan complains of two types of conduct that occurred during his service in the Rio Salado facility. First, he alleges that Molina often chatted in Spanish with the Hispanic workers, whereas Molina never chatted with him, nor made him feel welcome in any other manner. Additionally, Hogan alleges that he was often asked to perform the menial tasks while the Hispanic workers were rarely asked to do such tasks. Liability based on a hostile work environment exists where "the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult...." Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S. Ct. 367. In order to establish this claim, the plaintiff "must prove more than a few isolated incidents of enmity" and "[c]asual comments, or accidental or sporadic conversation" will not entitle the plaintiff to relief. Snell v. Suffolk County, 782 F.2d 1094, 1103 (2d Cir.1986). Here, Hogan is unable to point to even one offensive "casual comment," which in any case would not amount to a hostile work environment. See id. Hogan in fact admitted that he never heard any offensive language either directly from Molina or from others claiming to have heard Molina disparage Hogan's race.[8]See Smith v. Planas, 975 F. Supp. 303, 309 (S.D.N.Y.1997). Although such evidence is often a touchstone for an actionable hostile work environment, one need not, of course, hear offensive language or feel offensive touching in order to have suffered such an environment, provided that the conduct complained of satisfies the severe and pervasive requirement. Here, the fact that his supervisor did not speak to him as often as he spoke to Hogan's Hispanic colleagues fails to add materially to Hogan's *1190 claim that he suffered a severely abusive workplace. Language can no doubt create barriers to unity within a mixed-language employment environment and it is thus understandable that Hogan felt alienated when his knowledge of English alone, at times, left him outside the social loop. But Title VII does not empower courts to apply a rule of law that would require employers to enforce language restrictions while on the job. There is nothing racist about Hogan's Hispanic supervisor and his coworkers speaking to each other in the language with which each is most comfortable. In addition, nothing in Title VII compels a supervisor to be amiable with any particular employee even when that supervisor pals around with other employees. Friendship relationships are truly a mystifying phenomena for one knows not why any particular pair connects or rubs each other the wrong way. Thus, Title VII permits people to have their differences; what it prohibits is abusive treatment generated from racial animosity. Ultimately, all Hogan can point to is a feeling he has that Molina doesn't speak to him because of this prohibited animosity. But no matter how strongly Hogan is convinced that Molina harbors this prohibited animosity and the Court does not doubt that Hogan truly believes it and while this feeling may have made his experience at Rio Salado less comfortable, not being spoken to by one's supervisor is, as matter of law, not severe and abusive treatment.

There is no dispute that, as an African-American, Hogan is a member of a protected class. Furthermore, there is no dispute that Hogan applied for the city letter carrier position. The parties also do not dispute that he was denied the position, which was subsequently filled by other candidates. His proof founders, however, on the "qualified for the position" requirement. See Fernandez v. Wynn Oil Co., 653 F.2d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir.1981) ("If an applicant is not qualified for the job in question, she has failed to establish a prima facie case."); Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 92-16125, 1994 WL 5756, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 1994) (unpublished opinion). With respect to this issue, Hogan provides his EEO affidavit in which he asserts that "it became increasingly clear that I, among our crew, had the best possibility to become a regular postal employee. Some of our crew members had driving problems or didn't pass the postal exam or were not veterans or had other problems that excluded them. I, alone ... met all of the qualifications." Def.'s Reply to Mot. In Limine Ex. A at 4. Hogan also provides his postal exam score and documentation regarding his service in the Air Force as well as a number of highly favorable reviews from his other supervisors regarding his work as a casual employee. See Hogan Aff. Exs. M11, M12, M29. Yet, this evidence simply does not prove that he was qualified for the city letter carrier position.

Nowhere does Hogan describe the duties of a city letter carrier, let alone the qualities a candidate should have in order to carry out those duties. The best the Court can infer from Hogan's contentions is that it is necessary to be a good driver and pass the postal exam. Perhaps veterans are given a preference. But Hogan points to no evidence in the record by affidavit, deposition testimony, or any other source regarding the extent to which these qualifications are relevant, if at all. Even assuming that the United States Postal Service is concerned about driving ability, examination scores, and military service, surely there is more to the position of city letter carrier. Yet, the Court is unable to evaluate Hogan's qualifications for the position without knowing what the position entails and the qualifications necessary to perform the position's responsibilities. Furthermore, Hogan's claim that he alone met the qualifications of the position is nothing more than a conclusory statement and simply does not constitute evidence, as is required by Rule 56. See Forsberg v. Pacific Northwest Bell Tel. Co., 840 F.2d 1409, 1418-19 (9th Cir.1988) (holding that conclusory allegations of discrimination insufficient to avoid summary judgment). Rather than provide important details about the position for which he applied and the qualifications he possesses that are relevant to the position, Hogan claims but fails to provide any objective evidence to suggest that his coworkers were inferior to him. While a Title VII plaintiff normally need not prove his or her superiority over the chosen candidate in order to establish a prima facie case, this evidence would nonetheless suffice to prove one's qualifications for the position. See Foster v. Arcata Assocs., Inc., 772 F.2d 1453, 1460 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied 475 U.S. 1048, 106 S. Ct. 1267, 89 L.Ed.2d *1193 576 (1986) ("Foster was required only to produce evidence ... about whether she possessed the minimum qualifications for the job, not whether she was as qualified or more so than the person whom Arcata selected."), superceded on other grounds by Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262 (9th Cir.1991). Evidence that might bolster Hogan's conclusory allegation would be his coworkers' inferior postal exam scores or documents relating to their poor driving records (again assuming that these factors are even relevant to the position). Instead, the only evidence in the record with respect to his coworkers, including another African-American employee named Kyle Johnson, are a series of evaluations that favorably comment on their performances. See Hogan Aff. Exs. M46-M49. Even had he provided objective data proving that, among his coworkers, he was the most qualified, he provides no evidence to suggest that only individuals from his crew were eligible for the position. The Postal Service, presumably, was free to look beyond the group of individuals with whom Hogan worked in order to locate the proper candidates to fill the city letter carrier position. If this were not the case, Hogan needed to provide evidence indicating that the pool of candidates with whom he was competing was limited to his crew. 041b061a72