John C. Calhoun Community College et al. v. Michael Shane King

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 11/10/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100302 John C. Calhoun Community C o l l e g e e t a l . v. M i c h a e l Shane King Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-09-900547) PITTMAN, Judge. J o h n C. C a l h o u n Community C o l l e g e Marilyn Beck (the president Freida Hill ("the c o l l e g e " ) , D r . o f t h e c o l l e g e ) , t h e Alabama Department o f P o s t s e c o n d a r y E d u c a t i o n Dr. Court (the chancellor ("the d e p a r t m e n t " ) , a n d of the department), 2100302 (hereinafter sometimes defendants"), Michael appeal Shane K i n g dismissed referred from on a to summary King's claim for a hearing. We F a c t u a l and The college hired judgment that f r o m h i s employment w i t h o u t opportunity collectively he as in was c a u s e and "the favor of wrongfully without the reverse. Procedural King as a History systems analyst/computer programmer i n A u g u s t 2005, p u r s u a n t t o a l e t t e r o f a p p o i n t m e n t s i g n e d by P r e s i d e n t Beck. The letter of appointment s t a t e d , in pertinent part: " I am p l e a s e d t o o f f e r you t h e p o s i t i o n o f S y s t e m s A n a l y s t / P r o g r a m m e r a t C a l h o u n Community C o l l e g e . Y o u r s a l a r y p l a c e m e n t w i l l be S a l a r y S c h e d u l e C3, S t e p 6, w i t h a s a l a r y o f $57,475 (12 m o n t h s ) . Your e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f employment w i l l be A u g u s t 15, 2005." King years accepted and notified effective 11 King the p o s i t i o n and months. that J u l y 8, On his worked at June 20, the 2008, employment w o u l d be 2008. King sued the of certiorari or cross-motions f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . 2 seeking the issuance mandamus r e q u i r i n g t h e Beck "discontinued," of a defendants r e i n s t a t e him t o h i s employment w i t h t h e c o l l e g e . filed for 2 President defendants, d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , writ college to The p a r t i e s 2100302 King acknowledged that, having been c o l l e g e f o r l e s s t h a n 3 y e a r s , he was whose employment without Act. he be c a u s e and w i t h o u t See that could entitled terminated § 36-26-101. to contest employment p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 2.4 of the Revised Hearing Education. 1 a probationary upon 15 the He the employee notice Dismissal argued, termination o f P o l i c y No. at days' a h e a r i n g under the F a i r A l a . Code 1975, was employed however, of his 619.01, p a r t P r o c e d u r e a d o p t e d by t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f S e c t i o n 2.4 states: "If a probationary employee under c o n t r a c t is terminated w i t h i n the p e r i o d of a c o n t r a c t , the e m p l o y e e i s e n t i t l e d t o be g i v e n c a u s e and the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a h e a r i n g under these procedures a d o p t e d by t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n . Employment a g r e e m e n t s s h a l l be o f f e r e d f o r e i t h e r t h r e e ( 3 ) , nine (9), or twelve (12) months. I f f i f t e e n (15) c a l e n d a r d a y s p r i o r t o t h e end o f t h e contract p e r i o d , the p e r s o n i s not n o t i f i e d i n w r i t i n g t h a t h i s o r h e r s e r v i c e s w i l l no l o n g e r be r e q u i r e d , h e / s h e s h a l l be o f f e r e d a n o t h e r employment a g r e e m e n t f o r t h e same l e n g t h as t h e p r i o r c o n t r a c t u n l e s s otherwise a g r e e d t o by the President and the employee." The v e r s i o n o f P o l i c y No. 619.01 t h a t i s i n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e us s t a t e s t h a t i t s e f f e c t i v e d a t e i s "3/24/05" and t h a t i t s u p e r s e d e s f o r m e r v e r s i o n s o f t h e p o l i c y " i s s u e d 10-28-04 [ a n d ] 12-08-94." The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t c u r r e n t s e c t i o n 2.4 o f P o l i c y No. 619.01 c o r r e s p o n d s t o f o r m e r s e c t i o n 3.14. 1 3 2100302 King argued t h a t P r e s i d e n t Beck's appointment l e t t e r of August 2005, c o n s t i t u t e d a 12-month c o n t r a c t last sentence of s e c t i o n 2.4 of renewed each s u c c e e d i n g y e a r . received a appointment that his "renewal" alleged his he alleged contract initial one, he contract was a had not been but a notice of "within was a the hearing period "probationary before of never other contended renewed" nonrenewal. he was terminate [ h i s ] contract," employee o f P o l i c y No. been had "automatically given the any or p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 2.4 to c o n c e d e d t h a t he he a r g u e d , t h e c o l l e g e had a t t e m p t e d t o employment because He to 619.01, had the e a c h y e a r b e c a u s e he Accordingly, P o l i c y No. a f t e r the letter of that, according under contract," 619.01, he was dismissed from and, entitled employment. K i n g s u b m i t t e d a b r i e f i n s u p p o r t o f h i s summary-judgment motion, College, claim arguing 907 that So. t h a t he 2d was a House 424 2000, an offer "probationary Community C o l l e g e b e g i n on M a r c h 2, of On State Community d i s p o s i t i v e of employee under State"). M a r c h 2, 4 from his contract." i n s t r u c t o r a c c e p t e d on employment ("Jefferson 2001. Jefferson ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , was I n House, a c o m p u t e r - s c i e n c e 19, v. October Jefferson State H i s employment was 2001, Jefferson to State 2100302 n o t i f i e d t h e i n s t r u c t o r t h a t h i s employment w o u l d t e r m i n a t e days l a t e r . he was The entitled i n s t r u c t o r sued J e f f e r s o n S t a t e , arguing to a hearing before employment. The argued, King as instructor relied does here, employee under c o n t r a c t . " i n s t r u c t o r had on that The So. he was and i t e n t e r e d State. The i n s t r u c t o r was court a 2d a t 426, 619.01 court "'open-ended t h a t d i d not reversed, and "probationary letter ending Jefferson that the employee under c o n t r a c t . " a "probationary concluding the constitute s p e c i f y an a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f supreme that from h i s t r i a l court concluded that employment c o n t r a c t b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t date, dismissed P o l i c y No. b e e n h i r e d p u r s u a n t t o an o f a p p o i n t m e n t , ' " 907 an he was 15 The stated: " S e c t i o n 3.14 [now s e c t i o n 2.4] o f p o l i c y number 619.01, t h e R e v i s e d H e a r i n g P r o c e d u r e , w h i c h was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o House's c o n t r a c t o f employment, provides that ' [e]mployment agreements s h a l l be o f f e r e d f o r e i t h e r 3, 9, o r 12 m o n t h s ' ( e m p h a s i s added). House's c o n t r a c t o f employment i n d i c a t e d t h a t h i s s a l a r y was t o be d e r i v e d from s a l a r y s c h e d u l e D. The s a l a r y s t a t e d i n House's c o n t r a c t o f employment was t h e amount shown as r a n k I I , s t e p 10 of schedule D for '9-month' employment. While House's c o n t r a c t s t a t e d a b e g i n n i n g d a t e f o r h i s c o n t r a c t u a l p e r i o d , i t d i d n o t s t a t e an e n d i n g d a t e . However, c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c o n t r a c t as a w h o l e , t h e only reasonable conclusion i s that House was e m p l o y e d on a 9-month b a s i s . Ryan W a r r a n t y S e r v s . , I n c . v. W e l c h , 694 So. 2d 1271, 1273 (Ala. 1997) 5 2100302 ('[A] c o n t r a c t i s t o be c o n s t r u e d i n i t s e n t i r e t y and n o t s o l e l y on a s i n g l e p r o v i s i o n . ' ) . " 907 So. 2d a t 427 In support (footnote of their defendants i n the present Chapter I I I of "Personnel chapter, the Policies entitled "VIII. omitted). summary-judgment case submitted, College Personnel and P r o c e d u r e s . " motion, among o t h e r Handbook, Section "Contracts," provides, VIII Contracts "The P r e s i d e n t o f C a l h o u n Community College may offer contracts f o r one s e m e s t e r , two s e m e s t e r s , o r t w e l v e months, as a p p r o p r i a t e , t o l i b r a r i a n s , c o u n s e l o r s , and i n s t r u c t o r s "B. C o n t r a c t s f o r Other Employees "The P r e s i d e n t o f C a l h o u n Community C o l l e g e may o f f e r employment c o n t r a c t s as appropriate, to other c o l l e g e personnel, p r o v i d e d funds a r e a v a i l a b l e ( [ S t a t e Board o f E d u c a t i o n ] P o l i c y 6 0 3 . 0 1 ) . The P r e s i d e n t may also confirm employment for a l l e m p l o y e e s n o t on S a l a r y S c h e d u l e D b y l e t t e r s of appointment, which s h a l l s t a t e t h e b e g i n n i n g d a t e o f employment, s a l a r y , j o b t i t l e , and o t h e r r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . " (Emphasis added.) 6 things, entitled of that i n pertinent part: Contracts "A. S a l a r y S c h e d u l e D the 2100302 The defendants argued t h a t King employee under contract," because was n o t a that "probationary term, as used i n s e c t i o n 2.4 o f P o l i c y No. 619.01, r e f e r s t o e m p l o y e e s who a r e hired pursuant period, t o an whereas employment King, they contract said, was for a specified hired pursuant to a l e t t e r o f a p p o i n t m e n t t h a t was "open-ended" b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t specify an e n d i n g date. defendants submitted President Beck, coordinator and In support the of that affidavits Kimberly Gaines, of Chancellor the f o r l e g a l a n d human Hill, human-resources f o r t h e c o l l e g e , and Joan D a v i s , vice-chancellor argument, t h e general resources counsel f o r the d e p a r t m e n t , a l l o f whom s t a t e d t h a t t h e o n l y e m p l o y e e s who a r e r e q u i r e d b y c o l l e g e p o l i c y t o be h i r e d u n d e r a c o n t r a c t specified period and averred, counselors, a r e employees p a i d Salary Schedule under S a l a r y D applies to librarians, have t h e d i s c r e t i o n , the a f f i a n t s a t t e s t e d , t o appoint other employees means beginning of a "letter of College Schedule D presidents by and i n s t r u c t o r s . only fora appointment" specifies d a t e b u t n e e d n o t s p e c i f y an e n d i n g d a t e . to the a f f i a n t s , i fa letter an the appointment ending that date, a According o f a p p o i n t m e n t does n o t s p e c i f y 7 i s "open-ended" and will 2100302 continue the u n t i l s u c h t i m e as t h e a p p o i n t m e n t i s d i s c o n t i n u e d president of the college. Gaines s t a t e d In her a f f i d a v i t , by Kimberly that " [ i ] t i s t h e g e n e r a l p r a c t i c e o f C a l h o u n Community C o l l e g e t o a p p o i n t n o n - f a c u l t y p e r s o n n e l by way o f an o p e n - e n d e d l e t t e r o f a p p o i n t m e n t r a t h e r t h a n a c o n t r a c t f o r a s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d o f t i m e , and Mr. K i n g ' s a p p o i n t m e n t was c o n d u c t e d i n t h e same manner as o t h e r n o n - f a c u l t y personnel." I n t h e i r b r i e f o p p o s i n g K i n g ' s summary-judgment the defendants argued that House motion, i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i n House, an i n s t r u c t o r who was on Salary contract Schedule was D, required was an employee whose paid employment t o be f o r a s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d , whereas K i n g was n o t an i n s t r u c t o r , was n o t p a i d on S a l a r y S c h e d u l e D, and d i d n o t h a v e any employment document was hired for a specified period. i n d i c a t i n g that In deposition he testimony, P r e s i d e n t Beck s t a t e d t h a t t h e p a r e n t h e t i c a l r e f e r e n c e t o "12 months" salary i n her appointment letter to King ("Your p l a c e m e n t w i l l be S a l a r y S c h e d u l e C3, S t e p 6, w i t h a s a l a r y o f $57,475 (12 compensation, months)") not the designated length explained: 8 of the his rate of appointment. King's She 2100302 "To i l l u s t r a t e how the r a t e of compensation i s a p p l i e d , Mr. K i n g was p a i d a m o n t h l y s a l a r y b a s e d on o n e - t w e l f t h o f t h e a n n u a l r a t e . Had Mr. K i n g b e e n t e r m i n a t e d s i x months a f t e r h i s i n i t i a l a p p o i n t m e n t , he w o u l d have b e e n p a i d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $28,737 d o l l a r s i n c o m p e n s a t i o n , o r h a l f o f $57,475." In her affidavit, compensation had P r e s i d e n t Beck s t a t e d t h a t K i n g ' s been increased e f f e c t i v e S e p t e m b e r 1, 2005; t o 1, 2006; and to accordance w i t h procedures." $70,198, three times: to September 1, of $60,927, $63,973, e f f e c t i v e effective rate September 2007, " i n [the c o l l e g e ' s ] i n s t i t u t i o n a l s a l a r y i n c r e a s e She explained that " K i n g ' s pay i n c r e a s e s e a c h t o o k e f f e c t on S e p t e m b e r 1 of the r e s p e c t i v e year because under S t a t e Board o f E d u c a t i o n p o l i c y and institutional practice, a n n u a l r a i s e s a r e g r a n t e d as o f t h e f i r s t d a t e o f a c o n t r a c t f o r e m p l o y e e s 'under c o n t r a c t ' f o r a g i v e n a c a d e m i c y e a r , b u t g r a n t e d on S e p t e m b e r 1 f o r a l l other employees." The trial court entered a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r K i n g , c o n c l u d i n g t h a t House was King "be pursuant Board cause and c o n t r o l l i n g and r e q u i r e d t h a t the opportunity to the R e v i s e d Hearing Procedure of denied, given Education." the defendants After filed of their a hearing a d o p t e d by t h e S t a t e postjudgment a timely appeal. 9 for motion was 2100302 Standard o f Review "'Our r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de n o v o . ' C r u t c h e r v. Wendy's o f N o r t h A l a b a m a , I n c . , 857 So. 2d 82, 85 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . 'The n a t u r e o f o u r r e v i e w o f t h e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s o f a t r i a l c o u r t i s de novo.' Omega L e a s i n g C o r p . v. M o v i e G a l l e r y , I n c . , 859 So. 2d 4 2 1 , 422 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . 'When [ t h e ] t e r m s [ o f an a g r e e m e n t ] a r e c l e a r a n d c e r t a i n , t h e c o u r t ... h a s the d u t y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e meaning o f t h e agreement.' T e r r y Cove N o r t h , I n c . v. B a l d w i n C o u n t y Sewer A u t h . , I n c . , 480 So. 2d 1171, 1173 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . " House v . J e f f e r s o n S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . , 907 So. 2d a t 427. Discussion The that trial King court erred i n determining be g i v e n t h a t House cause and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y p u r s u a n t t o P o l i c y No. 619.01. requires fora hearing U n l i k e t h e e m p l o y e e i n House, who was an i n s t r u c t o r p a i d on S a l a r y S c h e d u l e D, K i n g n o n f a c u l t y e m p l o y e e p a i d on S a l a r y S c h e d u l e C. supreme c o u r t p l a c e d special Policy that No. instructor employment. 619.01 on Salary The c o u r t was a I n House, t h e e m p h a s i s on t h e r e q u i r e m e n t i n an employment Schedule noted that D contract specify f o r an the period "'[e]mployment s h a l l be o f f e r e d f o r e i t h e r 3, 9, o r 12 m o n t h s . ' " of agreements 907 So. 2d a t 427 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n H o u s e ) , a n d i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t was s a t i s f i e d b y t h e n o t a t i o n i n t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s 10 2100302 appointment letter that "'9-month' employment." the instructor was b e i n g hired for Id. Although King argues t h a t t h e p a r e n t h e t i c a l reference t o "12 m o n t h s " i n h i s a p p o i n t m e n t l e t t e r of h i s employment, employment s o as t o make t h e a p p o i n t m e n t contract presented testimony o f an for a specified evidence to individual reference period, the contrary applying college policies. parenthetical also stated the period charged designated the rate length the defendants the interpreting and P r e s i d e n t Beck e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e of h i s appointment. i n her appointment of King's compensation, Because schools not the and c o l l e g e s , u n l i k e most o t h e r e m p l o y e r s , p a y some o f t h e i r e m p l o y e e s 12-month calendar, describe terms basis, and o t h e r s on the basis of the i t i s n o t u n h e a r d o f among s c h o o l s an e m p l o y e e ' s of the period pay, or " r a t e during an specifically, with t o "12 m o n t h s " letter letter which on a academic and c o l l e g e s t o o f compensation," i n t h e compensation i s paid. C f . Reed v. B o a r d o f T r s . f o r A l a b a m a S t a t e U n i v . , 778 So. 2d 791, 795 ( A l a . 2000) community-college (quoting employee a letter that 11 o f appointment described "'a fora rate of 2100302 compensation equivalent $12,500.00'") From to a full-time (emphasis added; emphasis a l l that appears in annual salary omitted). the House opinion, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of J e f f e r s o n S t a t e or the department evidence as to instructor's evidence, the meaning appointment our supreme a the 9-month n o t a t i o n letter. court contract In the absence reasonably in of period. In the presented w i t h e v i d e n c e f r o m P r e s i d e n t B e c k as t o t h e designating King's case, pay in employment however, terms P r e s i d e n t B e c k s a i d t h e r e a s o n was the of for trial a a department trial court Chancellor usually and was Hill, offered appointment college is also not an p e r i o d b e c a u s e i t has "'An controlling presented employment agency's unless with contracts ending was the period. and employees that contract for a of according The affidavit are of not letter of a specified date. of i t erroneous.'" plainly 12 was reason 12-month interpretation is 9-month open-ended. nonfaculty employment no the u n r e l a t e d to the p e r i o d officials, stating that such court K i n g ' s employment, h o w e v e r , w h i c h employment p e r i o d , to the interpreted to present of no presented notation for state of of its own policy Ex is parte 2100302 A l a b a m a Dep't o f P o s t s e c o n d a r y E d u c . , 50 So. 3d 439, 446 ( A l a . Civ. App. Mobile 2009) County, concluding that (quoting Ex p a r t e 824 2d So. House apparently gave l i t t l e officials charged department's similar 727 So. and circumstances, 2d 55 was 761 ( A l a . 2001)). controlling, the In trial court o r no w e i g h t t o t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e with the 759, B o a r d o f S c h . Comm'rs o f interpreting college's policies. o u r supreme c o u r t ( A l a . 1999), and rejected in the applying the However, under Ex p a r t e Craft, argument of a t e c h n i c a l - c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t o r who h a d b e e n h i r e d p u r s u a n t t o an "'open-ended letter o f a p p o i n t m e n t , ' " 727 t h a t he was a p r o b a t i o n a r y part, So. 2d a t 58, employee under c o n t r a c t b a s e d , i n on an a f f i d a v i t o f t h e f o r m e r i n t e r i m p r e s i d e n t of the technical college, s t a t i n g that " ' [ i ] t was [the t e c h n i c a l c o l l e g e ' s ] p o l i c y t h a t c o n t r a c t s n o t be g i v e n t o any a d m i n i s t r a t o r . Each employee receives an open-ended letter of a p p o i n t m e n t , w h i c h means t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e c o u l d be terminated a t any t i m e d u r i n g the probationary p e r i o d (36 m o n t h s ) . ' " 727 So.2d a t 57-58. I n C r a f t , t h e supreme c o u r t held: "[The administrator's] arguments depend p r i n c i p a l l y upon h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t he was u n d e r c o n t r a c t and, t h u s , t h a t h i s employment c o u l d n o t be t e r m i n a t e d b e f o r e t h e end o f t h e c o n t r a c t p e r i o d w i t h o u t cause and a h e a r i n g . However, he o f f e r s no 13 2100302 evidence of a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t . The defendants presented evidence indicating that [the administrator] was appointed, by a letter of a p p o i n t m e n t , t o the p o s i t i o n of i n t e r i m dean o f i n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t i v e May 1, 1992, and, by a n o t h e r l e t t e r of a p p o i n t m e n t , t o the p o s i t i o n of dean o f i n s t r u c t i o n e f f e c t i v e May 1, 1993. N e i t h e r of these documents c o n s t i t u t e s a c o n t r a c t o f employment f o r a s p e c i f i e d t i m e , and t h e p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d no o t h e r evidence of such a contract. Thus, under § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 1 ( c ) , [ t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r ' s ] employment was s u b j e c t t o t e r m i n a t i o n a f t e r 15 d a y s ' n o t i c e . " 727 So. The House. 2d a t 60 (footnote omitted). supreme c o u r t d i d n o t overrule T h e r e f o r e , we conclude t h a t the d e t e r m i n i n g whether a l e t t e r of King received constitutes specified period i n d i c a t i n g how c o l l e g e has i s as a t e s t t o be applied a p p o i n t m e n t s u c h as contract follows: t h e d e p a r t m e n t has C r a f t when i t d e c i d e d of i n the the employment absence of i n t e r p r e t e d or the a p p l i e d s u c h an employment document, t h e one for i t i s construed meaning of i t s terms. W e l c h , 694 So. So. 427). 2d at i n i t s e n t i r e t y according 2d 1271, See 1273 Ryan ( A l a . 1997) When, h o w e v e r , e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g how e m p l o y i n g c o l l e g e has Warranty a to employing document the plain v. ( q u o t e d i n House, 907 t h e d e p a r t m e n t has i s presented with i n t e r p r e t e d or a p p l i e d t h e employment document, a 14 that Inc. court Servs., a evidence i s p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t e d as any a l l e g e d c o n t r a c t w o u l d be, is, in the court 2100302 may decline to follow that guidance only i f i t i s clearly erroneous. B e c a u s e House i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , of King's claims. The t r i a l i t i s not d i s p o s i t i v e court erred i n holding that King was w r o n g f u l l y d i s m i s s e d f r o m h i s employment w i t h o u t c a u s e a n d without court's the opportunity judgment and f o r a hearing. remand judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e the case We reverse the t r i a l f o r the entry of a defendants. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P.J., and Bryan, concur. 15 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.