Ms. garcia and ms. ming are both sixth-grade english teachers. ms. garcia, a new teacher at the school, has additional certification in gifted education. ms. ming has been a certified english teacher for a number of years. ms. ming has been overheard in the faculty lounge making negative comments about ms. garcia's professional abilities and personal character. mr. daniels, the sixth-grade history teacher, has heard ms. ming making negative comments about ms. garcia on more than one occasion and he knows that these comments are false. he also knows that ms. ming has been angry that ms. garcia was asked to teach the advanced english class. this is a class ms. ming had expressed a desire to teach. he believes this contributes to her negativity toward ms. garcia. what should he do? * a. mr. daniels should do nothing because he is not directly involved in the disagreement. b. mr. daniels should discuss the situation with the principal because ms. ming is in direct violation of the code of ethics. c. mr. daniels should speak ms. ming and ask her to stop talking about ms. garcia. d. mr. daniels should talk to ms. garcia about letting ms. ming teach the class since she has seniority.

Which of the following are ways that people in democracies can take part in politics and gonverments

The laws and policies of a theocratic government are based on a. rule by a constitutional monarch b. the balance between parliament and an executive leader c. equal representation for each member state d. religious principles and beliefs

Aplaintiff filed a civil action based on negligence against a defendant in federal district court, alleging that the defendant negligently ran a red light at an intersection and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle, causing the plaintiff's injuries. a week after the close of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the defendant was negligent. with the motion, the plaintiff filed (i) his own sworn affidavit, which stated that the traffic signal was green as he entered the intersection, (ii) an affidavit of a witness who was driving the car behind him, which stated that the witness saw the entire incident and that the plaintiff's traffic signal was green as he approached and entered the intersection; and (iii) an affidavit of another witness, which stated that she saw the entire incident and that the defendant's signal had been red for several seconds before the defendant entered the intersection and was still red when the defendant entered the intersection. the defendant filed a response to the motion, noting that her answer denied negligence and further denied that her traffic signal was red, and argued that the issue of negligence and the issue of whether her traffic signal was red were in dispute, so those issues should be tried to a jury. how should the court rule on the plaintiff's motion?