Teresa Giudice, Danielle Staub Revisit Real Housewives of New Jersey Table Flip: Is Everything Really Forgiven?
by Chris Harnick | Wed., Nov. 29, 2017 1:00 PM
"You were stripping! Prostitution whore! You were f—king engaged 19 times?! You f—king stupid bitch!" With those words (and a table) that Teresa Giudice hurled at Danielle Staub, reality TV and The Real Housewives of New Jersey history was made.
The pair, who reunited over yoga and are now friends on RHONJ, revisit that moment in the Wednesday, Nov. 29 episode of the Bravo reality series.
"Calling me a ‘prostitution whore' in front of them," a teary Danielle says to Teresa about her kids and that infamous moment in the exclusive clip above, "rocked my world."
The two are participating in Siggy Flicker's retreat where they are asked to revisit a moment they felt wrong by another of the RHONJ ladies.
"My kids got bullied for that too," Danielle says about "prostitution whore." Christine was 13 at the time, Jillian was 11. In the clip, you can see their reactions to Teresa's outburst.
Danielle just needs to hear Teresa say she didn't intend to hurt her kids back in 2009 when she flipped the table.
"I didn't mean to call you those names, that just came out of anger…If I had to take it back, I would take it back," Teresa says.
But will Teresa make amends with Danielle's daughters?
The Real Housewives of New Jersey airs Wednesdays, 9 p.m. on Bravo.
(E! and Bravo are both part of the NBCUniversal family.)
celebrity gossip. Check out the hottest fashion, photos, movies and TV shows!
Thank you for subscribing.
we're sorry. an error has occurred
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our US edition?
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Canadian edition?
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our UK edition?
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Australian edition?
E! ist überall
Dieser Inhalt ist für internationale Besucher verfügbar. Möchtest du ihn in der deutschen Version anschauen?
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our German edition?
E! est partout
Une version adaptée de ce contenu est disponible pour notre public international. Souhaitez-vous voir ça dans notre édition française ?
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our French edition?
This content is available customized for our international audience. Switch to US edition?
This content is available customized for our international audience. Switch to Canadian edition?
This content is available customized for our international audience. Switch to UK edition?
This content is available customized for our international audience. Switch to Australian edition?
Möchtest du zur deutschen Version wechseln?
Do you want to go to the German edition?
Souhaitez-vous vous rendre sur l'édition française ?
Do you want to go to the French edition?
Nós especializamos nosso site para sua região! Você gostaria de ir para E! Online Brasil?
We have specialized our website for your region. Would you like to switch to our Brazilian edition?
¡Hemos especializado nuestro sitio para tu región! ¿Quieres ir a E! Online Latino?
We have specialized our website for your region. Would you like to switch to our Latino edition?
Sign in to Your Account
My Account Online Portal
Through this portal you will be able to view open invoices, review payment history, pay your bill online and retrieve copies of statements etc.
New portal users please click on the link that says "Create a Login". From there the system will walk you through accessing your account for the first time.
Forgot your password? No worries! Simply click the link that says "Forgot your username or password" and the system will help you get logged in again.
Please contact us directly if you have any problems: customerservice@edstaub.com or 800-435-3835
Our Mission: Ed Staub & Sons exists to deliver products and services in a manner that develops relationships and contributes to the safety and success of our customers and communities.
Ed Staub & Sons
Propane, Gas, Diesel, Lubricants, Installation & servicing – Ed Staub & Sons exists to deliver products and services in a manner that develops relationships and contributes to the safety and success of our customers and communities.
Click to learn more
NOW AVAILABLE! Click here to learn more.
It's time to give Ed Staub & Sons a try!
QUICK QUOTE!
Speak to an Ed’s Expert in your area.
Enter your preferred contact information and we will be in touch right away! For immediate assistance with your residential, commercial or agricultural needs call us at 1-844-200-FUEL.
QUICK QUOTE!
Thank you for your inquiry.
An Ed’s expert will be in touch soon.
For immediate pricing, please call
Wholesale, Retail, Mobile Fueling
Commercial, Residential
Fuel Commander, CFN, & Pacific Pride
For equipment and Automobiles
Installation, Repair & Maintenance
Track every gallon from your phone
Branding, Bulk Fuel, Convenience Stores
Commercial, Home, Ag
Heating, Generators, Kitchen and more
Offices, Cardlock, Gas Stations, Convenience Stores
Do you DELO?
Our Mission:
relationships and contributes to the safety and success of our customers and communities.
Ed Staub & Sons
Propane, Gas, Diesel, Lubricants, Installation & servicing – Ed Staub & Sons exists to deliver products and services in a manner that develops relationships and contributes to the safety and success of our customers and communities.
Serving the energy needs of our local communities for over 55 years!
Founded in Alturas, California by Ed Staub, the company has expanded to serve communities in California, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Washington. Ed’s founding principles of integrity , a strong work ethic , and customer service remain the most vital components of our daily operations.
We are continually honored and humbled by the substantial growth of the company, and our commitment to serve our customers–and the communities in which we live–continues to be our central focus.
Wholesale, Retail, Mobile Fueling, Cardlock
Commercial, Residential, Agriculture
Value-added Services
- Energy Servicing
Installation, Repair, Maintenance
Construction, Maintenance, Development
Transport, Tankwagon
Strategic Product Partnerships
Ed Staub & Sons has valued relationships with industry leading providers of heating and power systems, appliances, propane components, fuel, lubricants, and more. These partnerships are designed to keep your home comfortable, and your vehicles and businesses steadily moving forward.
Learn more about each featured product line by visiting our products page:
About Our Founder
He Loved His Trucks!
Edward A. Staub was born in Ironton, Minnesota and moved to Northern California with his parents Walter and Helen Staub, where they started their family fuel business with the purchase of the Bieber Chevron Bulk Plant in 1952.
At age 17, Ed began driving trucks, hauling lumber to a mill and driving for his father during the summers. The first truck he ever drove was “a Ford F800 with a 5 & 3 Brownie transmission.”
Having grown up in the family fuel business, Ed understood the complex energy needs of the rapidly growing American Northwest. In 1959, he purchased the Chevron bulk plant in Alturas, California and founded Ed Staub & Sons. At that time, there were six bulk plants in Alturas-ARCO, Mobil, Shell, Texaco, Union 76 and Chevron.
Through hard work and an unwavering commitment to customer service, Ed Staub & Sons quickly became the biggest fuel and lubricant distributor of them all! The company continued to grow, adding the Cedarville Bulk Plant in 1965 and a Lakeview, Oregon facility in 1977.
Just as Ed started out with his father, Ed’s two sons, Dave and Brad, went to work driving for the family business. When Ed Staub & Sons purchased their first tanker transport, the three kept up with demand by driving that truck around the clock!
In the 1980’s, Ed Staub & Sons expanded into the cardlock and propane business by acquiring CalGas. With a Chevron dealership in Silverlake, Oregon, as well as Mobil and Texaco plants in Alturas, Ed Staub & Sons moved into Tulelake, California to extend the Chevron and Texaco brands.
During the 1990’s, Ed Staub broadened its range of services adding 9 convenience stores and a clean burning oil stove line.
Ed cites for keeping the company growing for 50 years.
“That’s what I’ve always tried to provide,” he continues,
“and I expect it from each and every employee. I trust
the judgment of my family and know they will carry on that tradition.
That’s what my dad taught me and that’s what I taught my children.”
Though the company continues to grow, the original transport division, now named “Ed’s Trucking,” will keep Ed’s trucks out on the road for years to come.
Ed always considered everyone who works for Ed Staub & Sons to be family. Like his family, we follow his example of hard work, pure and simple. It’s why we’ve been in business over 55 years, and it’s why we’re here today—to serve our customers.
Ed’s Trucking
Ed Staub grew up in the booming American Northwest and created a business to fuel it. At age 17 he began driving trucks, hauling lumber to a mill and driving for his father’s fuel distribution company during the summer months.
Ed’s Trucking offers the following benefits to our customers:
- Access to multiple fuel terminals
- 33 owned and operated transport trucks
- An in-house truck dispatch center
- Safe hauling and delivery as our first priority
Our trucks and drivers maintain an exemplary record of compliance with registration, tax, and safety requirements, and in doing so, have earned the Department of Transportation designation as an Oregon Trusted Carrier Partner!
In Oregon, there are only 641 Trusted Carrier Partners, and we are honored and committed to maintaining this designation. What does that mean for you? It means on-time, safe, reliable deliveries that keep you moving forward.
If you’re curious about what Ed’s Trucking can do for you, feel free to contact us using the quick contact form at the top of the page.
Employment
Looking for a long term career with a stable and growing company?
Ed Staub & Sons, exists to deliver products and services in a manner that develops relationships and contributes to the safety and success of our customers and communities.
For questions about employment at Ed Staub, or to apply for open positions, please contact Ginger Rayl in Human Resources at 541-887-8928 or send an email to employment@edstaub.com
Applications
Ed Staub Privacy Policy
At Ed Staub and Sons we respect the privacy of our customers. We do not collect personal information about visitors to this website unless it is provided voluntarily. If you send email inquiries to Ed Staub and Sons, your personal information, including your email address, will be used only for the purpose of responding to your inquiry, and will not be shared with third parties.
If you no longer wish to receive email messages from Ed Staub and Sons please email customerservice@edstaub.com and include the word “Unsubscribe” in the subject line. Your email address will be removed from our system immediately.
You may also send a request in writing to Ed Staub and Sons at:
Ed Staub & Sons collects statistics about the use of this website, which help us track the number of visitors to the site. These statistics are used to better serve our customers, and do not include personal information about individual visitors.
Our site contains links to other websites, including some administered by other companies, as well as to sites unrelated to Ed Staub & Sons. This Privacy Statement does not apply to these linked websites. Each website should be checked for its own privacy statement.
Ed Staub & Sons may store some information (commonly known as a “cookie”) on your computer when you look at or use the website. The cookie allows us to manage site surveys that we conduct. The surveys will not involve sensitive personal data and the cookies will not be used for any other purposes. You may configure your internet browser to prevent cookies from being used and to delete existing cookies. Please refer to the help section of your browser for help.
This site is a general audience site.
If you have any questions about this Privacy Statement or the personal information Ed Staub & Sons may hold about you, please complete the contact form at the top of this page.
CONTACT US!
Speak to an Ed’s Expert.
Enter your preferred contact information and we will be in touch soon!
please call 1-844-200-FUEL. Submit
Thank you for your inquiry.
An Ed’s expert will be in touch soon.
For immediate assistance, please call
The Department of English
Michael E. Staub
Michael E. Staub is Professor of English. His teaching and scholarly interests include modern and contemporary literature, American cultural and intellectual history, documentary and nonfiction writing, American ethnic and minority literature, and Jewish and Holocaust studies. He holds a doctorate in American Civilization from Brown University, and has taught at several universities and colleges (including Rhode Island College, Michigan State University, and Bowling Green State University) before arriving at Baruch in the fall of 2005. He is the author of Voices of Persuasion: Politics of Representation in 1930s America (Cambridge), Torn at the Roots: The Crisis of Jewish Liberalism in Postwar America (Columbia), The Jewish 1960s: An American Sourcebook (New England), and Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the U.S. Army (W.W. Norton), which recounted the first-person experiences of Sergeant Kayla Williams, who served as an Arabic linguist in Iraq during the Second Gulf War. It has been translated into Spanish, Dutch, and German.
During the 2008-2009 academic year, Staub was a member in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey to research his most recent book, Madness Is Civilization: When the Diagnosis was Social, 1948-1980 (University of Chicago Press, 2011). This study shows how the cultural obsession with madness and the antipsychiatry movement's critique of “normalcy” informed anti-war, black liberation, and sexual rights struggles while also reshaping the disciplines of sociology, psychology, anthropology, and the law. At present, Staub has begun research for his next book project in which he plans to examine the shifting politics of neuroscience from the 1970s to the present.
Staub is currently the Director of the Feit Interdisciplinary Seminar Program. He is also a recepient of the 2011-2012 Outstanding Honors Teaching Award, as selected by the Honors Student Council.
Edgar A. Staub, 91
Posted: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:00 am
Edgar A. Staub, 91, of Titusville, passed away Monday morning, July 10, 2017, at Country Acres Personal Care Home, in Titusville.
Edgar was born on July 19, 1925, at Breedtown, a son of the late Reinhold and Adda Strawbridge Staub. He was married to Lydia Annabell Welton on Jan. 24, 1948, in Franklin. She preceded him in death on July 8, 2005.
Edgar was a graduate of Colestock High School, Class of 1943.
He had been employed at the former Universal Cyclops Specialty Steel Corp. and also self-employed for many years as a farmer.
He was a member of Breedtown Baptist Church. He was president of the Breedtown Cemetery Association for 46 years. He enjoyed the outdoors and hunting.
Edgar is survived by the following children: Mary Steinke and husband, Charles, of Mars, Harold Staub, of Erie, Betty Fedei and husband, Todd, of Titusville, Rebecca Miller and husband, Donald, of Lititz, and Lewis Staub and wife, Melody, of Titusville; 29 grandchildren; 31 great-grandchildren; a brother, Gerald Staub, and wife, Reva, of Jacksonville, Fla.; and several nieces and nephews.
In addition to his parents and wife, he was preceded in death by an infant son, David Staub; and three brothers, Richard, Clarence, and Homer Staub.
Friends and family may call at Breedtown Baptist Church, 2037 Cherrytree Road, Titusville, on Wednesday, from noon to 2 p.m., at which time the funeral service will be conducted, with Pastor Gary Kinnear and Ward Beers officiating.
Interment will be in Breedtown Cemetery.
Memorial contributions can be made to Breedtown Baptist Church, 2037 Cherrytree Road, Titusville, Pa., 16354.
If you wish to leave a condolence for the family, visit garrettfuneralhomeinc.com.
Posted in Obituaries on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:00 am.
Titusville, PA
Current Conditions
Winds: WNW at 14mph
Your Extended Forecast
Chance of a few snow showers
Snow showers possible
More clouds than sun
A few afternoon snow showers
Advertisements From Today's Herald
Donovan Bauer 6x8 111017 v2
National Fuel FINAL 4x10 120617
Union City CC 2x4 120717
Follow us on Facebook
Display Ads
Donovan Bauer 6x8 111017 v2
- posted: December 07
National Fuel FINAL 4x10 120617
- posted: December 07
Union City CC 2x4 120717
- posted: December 07
Carrie (Sawatsky) Womer, 56
Police pursuit ends in crash
Jean L. Thompson, 82
Mildred Drake, 102
Diane L. Snyder, 58
Videos
Police pursuit ends in crash (1)
5 vying for 4 school board seats (2)
Third statue in series unveiled in ceremony at middle school (2)
Racist job ‘application’ causes a stir on local social media (1)
E-Edition Information
E-edition subscription rates
The Titusville Herald’s complete on-line newspaper version (E-edition) requires a subscription.
Ed Staub & Sons
Propane, Gas, Diesel, Lubricants, Installation & servicing – Ed Staub & Sons exists to deliver products and services in a manner that develops relationships and contributes to the safety and success of our customers and communities.
Serving the energy needs of our local communities for over 55 years!
Founded in Alturas, California by Ed Staub, the company has expanded to serve communities in California, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Washington. Ed’s founding principles of integrity , a strong work ethic , and customer service remain the most vital components of our daily operations.
We are continually honored and humbled by the substantial growth of the company, and our commitment to serve our customers–and the communities in which we live–continues to be our central focus.
Wholesale, Retail, Mobile Fueling, Cardlock
Commercial, Residential, Agriculture
Value-added Services
- Energy Servicing
Installation, Repair, Maintenance
Construction, Maintenance, Development
Transport, Tankwagon
Strategic Product Partnerships
Ed Staub & Sons has valued relationships with industry leading providers of heating and power systems, appliances, propane components, fuel, lubricants, and more. These partnerships are designed to keep your home comfortable, and your vehicles and businesses steadily moving forward.
Learn more about each featured product line by visiting our products page:
About Our Founder
He Loved His Trucks!
Edward A. Staub was born in Ironton, Minnesota and moved to Northern California with his parents Walter and Helen Staub, where they started their family fuel business with the purchase of the Bieber Chevron Bulk Plant in 1952.
At age 17, Ed began driving trucks, hauling lumber to a mill and driving for his father during the summers. The first truck he ever drove was “a Ford F800 with a 5 & 3 Brownie transmission.”
Having grown up in the family fuel business, Ed understood the complex energy needs of the rapidly growing American Northwest. In 1959, he purchased the Chevron bulk plant in Alturas, California and founded Ed Staub & Sons. At that time, there were six bulk plants in Alturas-ARCO, Mobil, Shell, Texaco, Union 76 and Chevron.
Through hard work and an unwavering commitment to customer service, Ed Staub & Sons quickly became the biggest fuel and lubricant distributor of them all! The company continued to grow, adding the Cedarville Bulk Plant in 1965 and a Lakeview, Oregon facility in 1977.
Just as Ed started out with his father, Ed’s two sons, Dave and Brad, went to work driving for the family business. When Ed Staub & Sons purchased their first tanker transport, the three kept up with demand by driving that truck around the clock!
In the 1980’s, Ed Staub & Sons expanded into the cardlock and propane business by acquiring CalGas. With a Chevron dealership in Silverlake, Oregon, as well as Mobil and Texaco plants in Alturas, Ed Staub & Sons moved into Tulelake, California to extend the Chevron and Texaco brands.
During the 1990’s, Ed Staub broadened its range of services adding 9 convenience stores and a clean burning oil stove line.
Ed cites for keeping the company growing for 50 years.
“That’s what I’ve always tried to provide,” he continues,
“and I expect it from each and every employee. I trust
the judgment of my family and know they will carry on that tradition.
That’s what my dad taught me and that’s what I taught my children.”
Though the company continues to grow, the original transport division, now named “Ed’s Trucking,” will keep Ed’s trucks out on the road for years to come.
Ed always considered everyone who works for Ed Staub & Sons to be family. Like his family, we follow his example of hard work, pure and simple. It’s why we’ve been in business over 55 years, and it’s why we’re here today—to serve our customers.
Ed’s Trucking
Ed Staub grew up in the booming American Northwest and created a business to fuel it. At age 17 he began driving trucks, hauling lumber to a mill and driving for his father’s fuel distribution company during the summer months.
Ed’s Trucking offers the following benefits to our customers:
- Access to multiple fuel terminals
- 33 owned and operated transport trucks
- An in-house truck dispatch center
- Safe hauling and delivery as our first priority
Our trucks and drivers maintain an exemplary record of compliance with registration, tax, and safety requirements, and in doing so, have earned the Department of Transportation designation as an Oregon Trusted Carrier Partner!
In Oregon, there are only 641 Trusted Carrier Partners, and we are honored and committed to maintaining this designation. What does that mean for you? It means on-time, safe, reliable deliveries that keep you moving forward.
If you’re curious about what Ed’s Trucking can do for you, feel free to contact us using the quick contact form at the top of the page.
Employment
Looking for a long term career with a stable and growing company?
Ed Staub & Sons, exists to deliver products and services in a manner that develops relationships and contributes to the safety and success of our customers and communities.
For questions about employment at Ed Staub, or to apply for open positions, please contact Ginger Rayl in Human Resources at 541-887-8928 or send an email to employment@edstaub.com
Applications
Ed Staub Privacy Policy
At Ed Staub and Sons we respect the privacy of our customers. We do not collect personal information about visitors to this website unless it is provided voluntarily. If you send email inquiries to Ed Staub and Sons, your personal information, including your email address, will be used only for the purpose of responding to your inquiry, and will not be shared with third parties.
If you no longer wish to receive email messages from Ed Staub and Sons please email customerservice@edstaub.com and include the word “Unsubscribe” in the subject line. Your email address will be removed from our system immediately.
You may also send a request in writing to Ed Staub and Sons at:
Ed Staub & Sons collects statistics about the use of this website, which help us track the number of visitors to the site. These statistics are used to better serve our customers, and do not include personal information about individual visitors.
Our site contains links to other websites, including some administered by other companies, as well as to sites unrelated to Ed Staub & Sons. This Privacy Statement does not apply to these linked websites. Each website should be checked for its own privacy statement.
Ed Staub & Sons may store some information (commonly known as a “cookie”) on your computer when you look at or use the website. The cookie allows us to manage site surveys that we conduct. The surveys will not involve sensitive personal data and the cookies will not be used for any other purposes. You may configure your internet browser to prevent cookies from being used and to delete existing cookies. Please refer to the help section of your browser for help.
This site is a general audience site.
If you have any questions about this Privacy Statement or the personal information Ed Staub & Sons may hold about you, please complete the contact form at the top of this page.
CONTACT US!
Speak to an Ed’s Expert.
Enter your preferred contact information and we will be in touch soon!
please call 1-844-200-FUEL. Submit
Thank you for your inquiry.
An Ed’s expert will be in touch soon.
For immediate assistance, please call
E staub
560 F. 3d 647, reversed and remanded.
Justice Scalia , Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
VINCENT E. STAUB, PETITIONER v. PROCTOR
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider the circumstances under which an employer may be held liable for employment discrimination based on the discriminatory animus of an employee who influenced, but did not make, the ultimate employment decision.
Petitioner Vincent Staub worked as an angiography technician for respondent Proctor Hospital until 2004, when he was fired. Staub and Proctor hotly dispute the facts surrounding the firing, but because a jury found for Staub in his claim of employment discrimination against Proctor, we describe the facts viewed in the light most favorable to him.
While employed by Proctor, Staub was a member of the United States Army Reserve, which required him to attend drill one weekend per month and to train full time for two to three weeks a year. Both Janice Mulally, Staub’s immediate supervisor, and Michael Korenchuk, Mulally’s supervisor, were hostile to Staub’s military obligations. Mulally scheduled Staub for additional shifts without notice so that he would “ ‘pa[y] back the department for everyone else having to bend over backwards to cover [his] schedule for the Reserves.’ ” 560 F. 3d 647, 652 (CA7 2009). She also informed Staub’s co-worker, Leslie Sweborg, that Staub’s “ ‘military duty had been a strain on th[e] department,’ ” and asked Sweborg to help her “ ‘get rid of him.’ ” Ibid. Korenchuk referred to Staub’s military obligations as “ ‘a b[u]nch of smoking and joking and [a] waste of taxpayers[’] money.’ ” Ibid. He was also aware that Mulally was “ ‘out to get’ ” Staub. Ibid.
In January 2004, Mulally issued Staub a “Corrective Action” disciplinary warning for purportedly violating a company rule requiring him to stay in his work area whenever he was not working with a patient. The Corrective Action included a directive requiring Staub to report to Mulally or Korenchuk “ ‘when [he] ha[d] no patients and [the angio] cases [we]re complete[d].’ ” Id., at 653. According to Staub, Mulally’s justification for the Corrective Action was false for two reasons: First, the company rule invoked by Mulally did not exist; and second, even if it did, Staub did not violate it.
On April 2, 2004, Angie Day, Staub’s co-worker, complained to Linda Buck, Proctor’s vice president of human resources, and Garrett McGowan, Proctor’s chief operating officer, about Staub’s frequent unavailability and abruptness. McGowan directed Korenchuk and Buck to create a plan that would solve Staub’s “ ‘availability’ problems.” Id., at 654. But three weeks later, before they had time to do so, Korenchuk informed Buck that Staub had left his desk without informing a supervisor, in violation of the January Corrective Action. Staub now contends this accusation was false: he had left Korenchuk a voice-mail notification that he was leaving his desk. Buck relied on Korenchuk’s accusation, however, and after reviewing Staub’s personnel file, she decided to fire him. The termination notice stated that Staub had ignored the directive issued in the January 2004 Corrective Action.
Staub challenged his firing through Proctor’s grievance process, claiming that Mulally had fabricated the allegation underlying the Corrective Action out of hostility toward his military obligations. Buck did not follow up with Mulally about this claim. After discussing the matter with another personnel officer, Buck adhered to her decision.
Staub sued Proctor under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U. S. C. §4301 et seq., claiming that his discharge was motivated by hostility to his obligations as a military reservist. His contention was not that Buck had any such hostility but that Mulally and Korenchuk did, and that their actions influenced Buck’s ultimate employment decision. A jury found that Staub’s “military status was a motivating factor in [Proctor’s] decision to discharge him,” App. 68a, and awarded $57,640 in damages.
The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Proctor was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 560 F. 3d 647. The court observed that Staub had brought a “ ‘cat’s paw’ case,” meaning that he sought to hold his employer liable for the animus of a supervisor who was not charged with making the ultimate employment decision. Id., at 655–656. 1 It explained that under Seventh Circuit precedent, a “cat’s paw” case could not succeed unless the nondecisionmaker exercised such “ ‘singular influence’ ” over the decisionmaker that the decision to terminate was the product of “blind reliance.” Id., at 659. It then noted that “Buck looked beyond what Mulally and Korenchuk said,” relying in part on her conversation with Day and her review of Staub’s personnel file. Ibid. The court “admit[ted] that Buck’s investigation could have been more robust,” since it “failed to pursue Staub’s theory that Mulally fabricated the write-up.” Ibid. But the court said that the “ ‘singular influence’ ” rule “does not require the decisionmaker to be a paragon of independence”: “It is enough that the decisionmaker is not wholly dependent on a single source of information and conducts her own investigation into the facts relevant to the decision.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the undisputed evidence established that Buck was not wholly dependent on the advice of Korenchuk and Mulally, the court held that Proctor was entitled to judgment. Ibid.
We granted certiorari. 559 U. S. ___ (2010).
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) provides in relevant part as follows:
“A person who is a member of … or has an obligation to perform service in a uniformed service shall not be denied initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment by an employer on the basis of that membership, … or obligation.” 38 U. S. C. §4311(a).
It elaborates further:
“An employer shall be considered to have engaged in actions prohibited … under subsection (a), if the person’s membership … is a motivating factor in the employer’s action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such membership.” §4311(c).
The statute is very similar to Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of … race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” and states that such discrimination is established when one of those factors “was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000e–2(a), (m).
The central difficulty in this case is construing the phrase “motivating factor in the employer’s action.” When the company official who makes the decision to take an adverse employment action is personally acting out of hostility to the employee’s membership in or obligation to a uniformed service, a motivating factor obviously exists. The problem we confront arises when that official has no discriminatory animus but is influenced by previous company action that is the product of a like animus in someone else.
In approaching this question, we start from the premise that when Congress creates a federal tort it adopts the background of general tort law. See Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States , 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 13–14); Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr , 551 U. S. 47, 68–69 (2007) ; Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth , 524 U. S. 742, 764 (1998) . Intentional torts such as this, “as distinguished from negligent or reckless torts, … generally require that the actor intend ‘the consequences ’ of an act,’ not simply ‘the act itself.’ ” Kawaauhau v. Geiger , 523 U. S. 57, 61–62 (1998) .
Staub contends that the fact that an unfavorable entry on the plaintiff’s personnel record was caused to be put there, with discriminatory animus, by Mulally and Korenchuk, suffices to establish the tort, even if Mulally and Korenchuk did not intend to cause his dismissal. But discrimination was no part of Buck’s reason for the dismissal; and while Korenchuk and Mulally acted with discriminatory animus, the act they committed—the mere making of the reports—was not a denial of “initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment,” as liability under USERRA requires. If dismissal was not the object of Mulally’s and Korenchuk’s reports, it may have been their result, or even their foreseeable consequence, but that is not enough to render Mulally or Korenchuk responsible.
Here, however, Staub is seeking to hold liable not Mulally and Korenchuk, but their employer. Perhaps, therefore, the discriminatory motive of one of the employer’s agents (Mulally or Korenchuk) can be aggregated with the act of another agent (Buck) to impose liability on Proctor. Again we consult general principles of law, agency law, which form the background against which federal tort laws are enacted. See Meyer v. Holley , 537 U. S. 280, 285 (2003) ; Burlington , supra , at 754–755. Here, however, the answer is not so clear. The Restatement of Agency suggests that the malicious mental state of one agent cannot generally be combined with the harmful action of another agent to hold the principal liable for a tort that requires both. See Restatement (Second) Agency §275, Illustration 4 (1958). Some of the cases involving federal torts apply that rule. See United States v. Science Applications Int’l Corp. , 626 F. 3d 1257, 1273–1276 (CADC 2010); Chaney v. Dreyfus Service Corp. , 595 F. 3d 219, 241 (CA5 2010); United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc. , 566 F. 3d 1095, 1122 (CADC 2009). But another case involving a federal tort, and one involving a federal crime, hold to the contrary. See United States ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. , 352 F. 3d 908, 918–919 (CA4 2003); United States v. Bank of New England, N. A. , 821 F. 2d 844, 856 (CA1 1987). Ultimately, we think it unnecessary in this case to decide what the background rule of agency law may be, since the former line of authority is suggested by the governing text, which requires that discrimination be “a motivating factor” in the adverse action . When a decision to fire is made with no unlawful animus on the part of the firing agent, but partly on the basis of a report prompted (unbeknownst to that agent) by discrimination, discrimination might perhaps be called a “factor” or a “causal factor” in the decision; but it seems to us a considerable stretch to call it “a motivating factor.”
Proctor, on the other hand, contends that the employer is not liable unless the de facto decisionmaker (the technical decisionmaker or the agent for whom he is the “cat’s paw”) is motivated by discriminatory animus. This avoids the aggregation of animus and adverse action, but it seems to us not the only application of general tort law that can do so. Animus and responsibility for the adverse action can both be attributed to the earlier agent (here, Staub’s supervisors) if the adverse action is the intended consequence of that agent’s discriminatory conduct. So long as the agent intends, for discriminatory reasons, that the adverse action occur, he has the scienter required to be liable under USERRA. And it is axiomatic under tort law that the exercise of judgment by the decisionmaker does not prevent the earlier agent’s action (and hence the earlier agent’s discriminatory animus) from being the proximate cause of the harm. Proximate cause requires only “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged,” and excludes only those “link[s] that are too remote, purely contingent, or indirect.” Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York , 559 U. S. 1 , ___ (2010) (slip op., at 9) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 We do not think that the ultimate decisionmaker’s exercise of judgment automatically renders the link to the supervisor’s bias “remote” or “purely contingent.” The decisionmaker’s exercise of judgment is also a proximate cause of the employment decision, but it is common for injuries to have multiple proximate causes. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain , 542 U. S. 692, 704 (2004) . Nor can the ultimate decisionmaker’s judgment be deemed a superseding cause of the harm. A cause can be thought “superseding” only if it is a “cause of independent origin that was not foreseeable.” Exxon Co., U. S. A. v. Sofec, Inc. , 517 U. S. 830, 837 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Moreover, the approach urged upon us by Proctor gives an unlikely meaning to a provision designed to prevent employer discrimination. An employer’s authority to reward, punish, or dismiss is often allocated among multiple agents. The one who makes the ultimate decision does so on the basis of performance assessments by other supervisors. Proctor’s view would have the improbable consequence that if an employer isolates a personnel official from an employee’s supervisors, vests the decision to take adverse employment actions in that official, and asks that official to review the employee’s personnel file before taking the adverse action, then the employer will be effectively shielded from discriminatory acts and recommendations of supervisors that were designed and intended to produce the adverse action. That seems to us an implausible meaning of the text, and one that is not compelled by its words.
<tab> Proctor suggests that even if the decisionmaker’s mere exercise of independent judgment does not suffice to negate the effect of the prior discrimination, at least the decisionmaker’s independent investigation (and rejection) of the employee’s allegations of discriminatory animus ought to do so. We decline to adopt such a hard-and-fast rule. As we have already acknowledged, the requirement that the biased supervisor’s action be a causal factor of the ultimate employment action incorporates the traditional tort-law concept of proximate cause. See, e.g., Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. , 547 U. S. 451, 457–458 (2006) ; Sosa , supra, at 703. Thus, if the employer’s investigation results in an adverse action for reasons unrelated to the supervisor’s original biased action (by the terms of USERRA it is the employer’s burden to establish that), then the employer will not be liable. But the supervisor’s biased report may remain a causal factor if the independent investigation takes it into account without determining that the adverse action was, apart from the supervisor’s recommendation, entirely justified. We are aware of no principle in tort or agency law under which an employer’s mere conduct of an independent investigation has a claim-preclusive effect. Nor do we think the independent investigation somehow relieves the employer of “fault.” The employer is at fault because one of its agents committed an action based on discriminatory animus that was intended to cause, and did in fact cause, an adverse employment decision.
Justice Alito claims that our failure to adopt a rule immunizing an employer who performs an independent investigation reflects a “stray[ing] from the statutory text.” Post , at 2 (opinion concurring in judgment). We do not understand this accusation. Since a supervisor is an agent of the employer, when he causes an adverse employment action the employer causes it; and when discrimination is a motivating factor in his doing so, it is a “motivating factor in the employer’s action,” precisely as the text requires. Justice Alito suggests that the employer should be held liable only when it “should be regarded as having delegated part of the decisionmaking power” to the biased supervisor. Ibid. But if the independent investigation relies on facts provided by the biased supervisor—as is necessary in any case of cat’s-paw liability—then the employer (either directly or through the ultimate decisionmaker) will have effectively delegated the factfinding portion of the investigation to the biased supervisor. Contrary to Justice Alito’ s suggestion, the biased supervisor is not analogous to a witness at a bench trial. The mere witness is not an actor in the events that are the subject of the trial. The biased supervisor and the ultimate decisionmaker, however, acted as agents of the entity that the plaintiff seeks to hold liable; each of them possessed supervisory authority delegated by their employer and exercised it in the interest of their employer. In sum, we do not see how “fidelity to the statutory text,” ibid. , requires the adoption of an independent-investigation defense that appears nowhere in the text. And we find both speculative and implausible Justice Alito’ s prediction that our Nation’s employers will systematically disfavor members of the armed services in their hiring decisions to avoid the possibility of cat’s-paw liability, a policy that would violate USERRA in any event.
We therefore hold that if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, 3 and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA. 4
Applying our analysis to the facts of this case, it is clear that the Seventh Circuit’s judgment must be reversed. Both Mulally and Korenchuk were acting within the scope of their employment when they took the actions that allegedly caused Buck to fire Staub. A “reprimand … for workplace failings” constitutes conduct within the scope of an agent’s employment. Faragher v. Boca Raton , 524 U. S. 775, 798–799 (1998) . As the Seventh Circuit recognized, there was evidence that Mulally’s and Korenchuk’s actions were motivated by hostility toward Staub’s military obligations. There was also evidence that Mulally’s and Korenchuk’s actions were causal factors underlying Buck’s decision to fire Staub. Buck’s termination notice expressly stated that Staub was terminated because he had “ignored” the directive in the Corrective Action. Finally, there was evidence that both Mulally and Korenchuk had the specific intent to cause Staub to be terminated. Mulally stated she was trying to “ ‘get rid of ’ ” Staub, and Korenchuk was aware that Mulally was “ ‘out to get’ ” Staub. Moreover, Korenchuk informed Buck, Proctor’s personnel officer responsible for terminating employees, of Staub’s alleged noncompliance with Mulally’s Corrective Action, and Buck fired Staub immediately thereafter; a reasonable jury could infer that Korenchuk intended that Staub be fired. The Seventh Circuit therefore erred in holding that Proctor was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
It is less clear whether the jury’s verdict should be reinstated or whether Proctor is entitled to a new trial. The jury instruction did not hew precisely to the rule we adopt today; it required only that the jury find that “military status was a motivating factor in [Proctor’s] decision to discharge him.” App. 68a. Whether the variance between the instruction and our rule was harmless error or should mandate a new trial is a matter the Seventh Circuit may consider in the first instance.
The judgment of the Seventh Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
1 The term “cat’s paw” derives from a fable conceived by Aesop, put into verse by La Fontaine in 1679, and injected into United States employment discrimination law by Posner in 1990. See Shager v. Upjohn Co., 913 F. 2d 398, 405 (CA7). In the fable, a monkey induces a cat by flattery to extract roasting chestnuts from the fire. After the cat has done so, burning its paws in the process, the monkey makes off with the chestnuts and leaves the cat with nothing. A coda to the fable (relevant only marginally, if at all, to employment law) observes that the cat is similar to princes who, flattered by the king, perform services on the king’s behalf and receive no reward.
2 Under the traditional doctrine of proximate cause, a tortfeasor is sometimes, but not always, liable when he intends to cause an adverse action and a different adverse action results. See Restatement (Second) Torts §§435, 435B and Comment a (1963 and 1964). That issue is not presented in this case since the record contains no evidence that Mulally or Korenchuk intended any particular adverse action other than Staub’s termination.
3 Under traditional tort law, “ ‘intent’ … denote[s] that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.” Id., §8A.
4 Needless to say, the employer would be liable only when the supervisor acts within the scope of his employment, or when the supervisor acts outside the scope of his employment and liability would be imputed to the employer under traditional agency principles. See Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742, 758 (1998) . We express no view as to whether the employer would be liable if a co-worker, rather than a supervisor, committed a discriminatory act that influenced the ultimate employment decision. We also observe that Staub took advantage of Proctor’s grievance process, and we express no view as to whether Proctor would have an affirmative defense if he did not. Cf. Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U. S. 129, 148–149 (2004) .
Where Does Danielle Staub's Triumphant Real Housewives of New Jersey Return Rank Among All the Rest?
by Billy Nilles | Thu., Oct. 5, 2017 12:02 PM
"That's right, bitches. I'm back!"
After six long seasons, Danielle Staub finally made her triumphant return to The Real Housewives of New Jersey in the season eight premiere. And boy were the circumstances that facilitated her return different from those that sent her packing after season two.
Long gone was the intense animosity between her and Teresa Giudice that once sent a table flying amid screams of "prostitution whore." Instead, there was a new Zen-like approach to their relationship, with the two having bonded over yoga and the loss of their mothers. Danielle arrived late in the episode, joining the ladies on their trip to Boca Raton, FL. And while she didn't find herself in the center of any drama just yet—the episode's main focus would be Siggy Flicker's (over-)reaction to Teresa hurling Melissa Gorga's birthday cake across a restaurant patio (as a joke, not an explosion of anger)—but the season's supertease is all the proof you need that she'll be in the thick of it soon enough.
Danielle's hardly the first former Housewife to make a grand return to the franchise that gave them their start, however. She's not even the first RHONJ alum to do it. So, where does her return rank among all the rest? Check out our official ranking below!
15. WORST: Kelly Bensimon (Real Housewives of New York seasons 2-4, guest in season 6-7)
Kelly and her jellybeans gave us Scary Island during the third (and quite possibly best?) season of RHONY, but she was part of the big shakeup following season four and left the show with Jill Zarin, Cindy Barshop and Alex McCord. She reappeared at a fashion show with Aviva Drescher, Luann de Lesseps and some of the other ladies in season six. She wore a mask, but nothing special really happened. She popped back up in season seven during Luann's Ladies' Night Out, coming face-to-face with Bethenny Frankel, but fans hoping for a redux of Scary Island were sadly disappointed when Bethenny immediately left, blaming Lu for not mentioning Kelly would be there.
14. Taylor Armstrong (Real Housewives of Beverly Hills seasons 1-3, recurring)
Taylor showed up in season four, but in season five she was there alongside Adrienne Maloof and Camille Grammer at Kyle Richards' White Party for an OG RHOBH reunion. Unlike her fellow RHOBH returnees, Taylor didn't really add much to the scenes/season.
13. Kathy Wakile (Real Housewives of New Jersey seasons 3-5, "friend" in seasons 6-7)
Kathy joined the show in season three as part of the post-Danielle Staub era. Her family drama with Teresa Giudice fueled much of the show, but she left the series after season five only to return to show viewers Kevin Jonas was building her new house (huh?, react to Teresa's legal problems, and get told by her cousin that she wants nothing to do with her anymore. Ouch.
Article continues below
12. Adrienne Maloof (Real Housewives of Beverly Hills seasons 1-3, recurring)
Adrienne had her fair share of drama over her three seasons, including a particularly ugly fight with Brandi Glanville. She returned for Kyle Richards' White Party in season 5 and had a sitdown with Brandi to clear the air and put all the nastiness between them to bed. She later showed up to listen to Kim Richards' problems and host a magic show/product lunch/. Her tense sitdown with Brandi and "magic show" worked in her favor.
11. Lydia McLaughlin (Real Housewives of Orange County seasons 8 and 12)
After a one-and-done season where her pop-smoking mother made more of an impact than her and a four-year absence, the sparkles and rainbows-obsessed Lydia has returned full-time for the current season of RHOC. She's attempted to play peacemaker between the endlessly feuding Vicki Gunvalson and Tamra Judge, and she's proven to have more of a backbone than the first time around, standing up to Shannon Beador's steamrolling tendencies, but the jury's still out on whether this return was warranted after all.
10. Jacqueline Laurita (Real Housewives of New Jersey seasons 1-5, 7, "friend" in season 6)
Jacqueline returned to the fray not even a season after she left and filmed with Teresa Giudice's cousin and former cast member Kathy Wakile. Viewers got to see how her son Nicholas was doing and how Jacqueline reacted to Teresa's legal woes and prison sentence. She added an even more emotional backbone to a crazy (and at times boring) season. She then returned full-time the following season, went to war with Teresa and Melissa Gorga in an especially nasty way and lost quite a bit of fan goodwill. She did not return for season eight.
Article continues below
9. Jill Zarin (Real Housewives of New York City seasons 1-4, guest in season 9)
After four seasons that saw the audience completely turn on her following her nasty friendship break-up with Bethenny Frankel and four seasons away, Jill popped up as a guest, hosting Luann de Lesseps and Dorinda Medley at a "bullying lunch" (whatever that is) in season nine as the former Countess was preparing to marry her now ex-husband Tom D'Agostino. The whole thing was mostly a non-event, though Jill did utter one epic line that pretty much summed her whole appearance up: "I miss it. I'm not going to lie. I kind of miss the gossip." We know you do, Jill. We know.
8. Lauri Waring Peterson (Real Housewives of Orange County seasons 1-4, "friend" in season 8)
Lauri didn't get an orange when she returned in season eight, but boy did she make a splash. One of the original Real Housewives, Lauri returned with rumors about Vicki. They involved a threesome, because of course. The former friends clashed, naturally and her rumors were the fuel to a lot of the drama fire.
7. Jeana Keough (Real Housewives of Orange County seasons 1-5, a "friend" in season 6, a guest in seasons 7, 10, 11 and 12)
Jeana is no stranger to viewers, but the most memorable return appearance she had was in season six when she was on the receiving end of Tamra Judge's wine. That's why she's ranked so high. Everybody loves Jeana, with or without wine all over herself.
Article continues below
6. Dina Manzo (Real Housewives of New Jersey seasons 1-2, 6, guest in season 4)
Dina had a big exit where she told Danielle Staub she was done. Then her real-life family feuds took hold of the headlines and she wasn't seen again until season four at an event for Teresa Giudice (she said she didn't think cameras would still be there). Once her sister Caroline Manzo exited the show for her own spinoff, Dina returned as a Housewife fulltime for season six where she tried to keep the peace amongst the ladies, date while still living with her husband and support Teresa.
5. Camille Grammer (Real Housewives of Beverly Hills seasons 1-2, recurring after)
Camille did not have a good first year. No sir. However, year two was better, but she called it quits with the show as a fulltime Housewife after that. But thanks to her real-life friendships with many of the women on the show, Camille has graced audiences with presence on multiple occasions. This year she did Yolanda's scavenger hunt with the women, listened to Kyle Richards' problems and attended Adrienne Maloof's magic show (or whatever that was supposed to be). Whenever Camille returns good things (sometimes dramatic) happen.
4. Danielle Staub (Real Housewives of New Jersey seasons 1-2, "friend" in season 8)
We never expected Danielle Staub to receive an invitation to return to RHONJ, especially as an ally to Teresa Giudice, who once threw a table at her and then chased her off the stage at a reunion taping. But here we are, with the former full-time Housewife back on the scene as a "Friend of the Housewives" in season eight. Having only seen one episode as of press time, we're all still a little in the dark on what to expect from Danielle this time around, but if the season's supertease is any indication, she won't be lacking in the fireworks department.
Article continues below
3. NeNe Leakes (Real Housewives of Atlanta seasons 1-7,10, guest season 8)
Oh, the shade! NeNe starred in seven seasons of the Bravo hit before turning in her peach. She returned as a guest in season eight, but was entirely absent from season nine. She reclaimed her peach in season 10 and wasted no time stirring the drama pot. Welcome back NeNe!
2. RUNNER-UP: Luann de Lesseps (Real Housewives of New York seasons 1-5, 7-9, "friend" in season 6)
Countess Luann wasn't a fulltime member of the show in season six, but she sure was around a lot and it turned into her best season yet! She was relatable, funny and most important: real. She got her apple back for season seven and already had a signature line: "Be cool. Don't be all…uncool." This new Countess Luann was totes cool, but didn't last very long as seasons eight and nine saw her fall in love with, marry and then ultimately divorce Tom D'Agostino, all while her fellow co-stars warned her with bad news that was always about Tom. Here's hoping for a return to Cool Countess in season 10!
1. BEST: Bethenny Frankel (Real Housewives of New York seasons 1-3, season 7-9)
Her talk show and marriage both failed, so Bethenny returned to what she knows best: The Real Housewives. In her three seasons back, we've seen a tougher Bethenny, a more closed-off Bethenny, as she struggled with her health, her crushing and ugly divorce, and any co-star who dared step to her. (We're looking at you, Ramona Singer!) But her trademark humor has also been on display. And watching her fall in friend love with fan-fave Carole Radziwill has been nothing sort of a delight. Bethenny is back with a vengeance, y'all!
Article continues below
What did you think about Danielle's big return? Sound off in the comments below!
The Real Housewives of New Jersey airs Wednesdays at 9 p.m. on Bravo.
(E! and Bravo are both part of the NBCUniversal family.)
celebrity gossip. Check out the hottest fashion, photos, movies and TV shows!
Thank you for subscribing.
we're sorry. an error has occurred
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our US edition?
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Canadian edition?
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our UK edition?
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Australian edition?
E! ist überall
Dieser Inhalt ist für internationale Besucher verfügbar. Möchtest du ihn in der deutschen Version anschauen?
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our German edition?
E! est partout
Une version adaptée de ce contenu est disponible pour notre public international. Souhaitez-vous voir ça dans notre édition française ?
E! Is Everywhere
This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our French edition?
This content is available customized for our international audience. Switch to US edition?
This content is available customized for our international audience. Switch to Canadian edition?
This content is available customized for our international audience. Switch to UK edition?
This content is available customized for our international audience. Switch to Australian edition?
Möchtest du zur deutschen Version wechseln?
Do you want to go to the German edition?
Souhaitez-vous vous rendre sur l'édition française ?
Do you want to go to the French edition?
Nós especializamos nosso site para sua região! Você gostaria de ir para E! Online Brasil?
We have specialized our website for your region. Would you like to switch to our Brazilian edition?
¡Hemos especializado nuestro sitio para tu región! ¿Quieres ir a E! Online Latino?
We have specialized our website for your region. Would you like to switch to our Latino edition?
Barbara E. Staub
Barbara E. Staub, M.D.
First Year of Practice:
B.S. Chemistry; B.A. Biology - University of Rochester (1976)
Albany Medical College of Union University (1980)
University of Minnesota (1983)
Dr. Staub grew up in Minnesota. She recieved a B.S. in Chemistry and a B.A. in Biology from the University of Rochester. Dr. Staub recieved her doctorate in medicine from Albany Medical College of Union Universtiy in Albany, New York in 1980. She then moved back to Minnesota to complete her pediatric residency at the University of Minnesota. Prior to working at Central Pediatrics, she practiced in St. Paul and White Bear Lake in general pediatrics. She takes a special interest in children with chronic conditions. Dr. Staub lives in the Scandia - Marine area with her husband; they have three adult children. She enjoys reading, running and the St. Croix River.
Associations and Memberships:
St. Paul 651.645.4693
Woodbury 651.738.0470
Evenings and Weekends
Copyright 2017, Central Pediatrics, All Rights Reserved.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий