On April 20, 2015, Arin debuted as a member of Oh My Girl. She first performed their debut single on SBS MTV's The Show on April 21. On April 2, 2018, Arin debuted in Oh My Girl's first sub-unit, Oh My Girl Banhana. On September 7, 2019, it was announced that Arin would be appearing on XtvN's The Ultimate Watchlist 2. In August 2019, it was confirmed that Arin would be taking part in Queendom.
Dube, Arindrajit and Richard Freeman 2010. "Complementarity of Shared Compensation and Decision-Making Systems," in Kruse, Freeman, and Blasi, eds., Shared Capitalism at Work: Employee Stock Ownership, Profit and Gain Sharing, and Broad-based Stock Options. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Arin is first seen at a slave auction by Kestrel. She eventually buys him after hearing of his singing talent, for a high price, though she never does hear him sing until much later on. He works as a blacksmith at the villa and collects information to feed to the Herrani revolutionaries. Kestrel always chose him as her escort, and this caused rumors about their relationship throughout the city. He eventually falls in love with Kestrel which makes him feel conflicted towards where his true loyalties lie. Kestrel doesn't know that Arin is working with the auctioneer named Cheat, to overthrow the Valorians. Arin was supplying Cheat with information about the Valorians from within the Trajan household. He plays a key role in the Firstwinter Rebellion: when many Herrani slaves rebelled against the Valorians residing in conquered Herrani territory. They poisoned the wine and easily overpowered the Valorians at the Firstwinter Ball. Many of the Valorians were killed or severely injured. The Herrani take over the houses, and Arin takes Kestrel to his old home, Lord Irex's former estate. There she stays until she hears that the Valorian army (led by her father) will be coming to invade and take back the city/state. There was a very brutal battle at the mountains, with many casualties on both sides, but a victory for the Herrani. When Kestrel hears that they might break down the wall, she sneaks out, and takes a boat to the Valorian continent. There she makes a truce with the emperor: she will marry his son Verex if he stops the battle at Herran. This agreement makes Arin governor and gives the Herrani their homes back (temporarily). Kestrel gives this to Arin at the end of the book.
Arin remains in love with Kestrel (albeit slightly bitter), despite thinking that she brought the military to fight the Herrani. He goes to the capital to confront Kestrel about her engagement to the prince and frequently corners her, although she continues to lie to him. She does feed his spymaster Tensen valuable information regarding the Valorian army's movements (though Arin was unknowing). He leaves the capital after hearing that Kestrel ordered the poisoning of the easterner horses, which ended in the mass killing of many Easterners. He heads east to make allies against the Valorians. He needs allies because his people are weak, which he later finds out is because the water they drank was poisoned. He returns to the capital after finding out that she has been a spy for the Herrani from inside the capital but after she denies it he leaves again for Herran. She was caught off-guard in her music room, where there was an adjoining room that her father was in to listen to her play. She tried several times to discreetly tell Arin that she was lying, or wanted to tell him somewhere else, but he was angry and demanded answers. She had to deny her love for him, his suspicions for her reasons for signing the treaty, and her loyalties towards the Valorian empire/him and the Herrani. After he stormed from the room, she wrote a letter explaining everything and gave it to Tensen. Later that night, Tensen was murdered by General Trajan and the captain of the guard. Kestrel was trying to sneak into Tensen's quarters, and finds the emperor, her father, the captain of the guard, and a dead Tensen. She is accused with treason and is shipped off to the brutal, backbreaking work camp of the North, where she is forced to mine sulfur.
The "Garb Statute," a provision of the Pennsylvania School Code, prohibits teachers and certain other Pennsylvania public school professional employees from wearing religious dress, marks, garb, emblems or insignia while performing their duties in public schools. 24 Pa. Stat. Ann. 11-1112, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, art. XI, 1112. The "Religious Affiliations" policy adopted by defendant ARIN Intermediate Unit 28 ("ARIN") prohibits all of its employees from wearing "religious emblems, dress, or insignia" in schools under ARIN's authority, specifically including religious jewelry such as "crosses and Stars of David" as examples of prohibited religious apparel or accessories.
The Court heard oral argument on May 9, 2003, and thereafter scheduled an evidentiary hearing and directed the parties to present evidence on the three factual matters in dispute: the size of plaintiffs cross; the frequency and length of time she had worn the cross and whether she wore it visibly; and Mr. Truscello's knowledge or awareness that plaintiff wore a cross to work at Penns Manor (i.e., what did he observe and when did he observe it). The evidentiary hearing was conducted on May 12, 2003. Pursuant to this Court's order, the parties have filed supplemental briefs and supplemental joint stipulations of facts not in dispute.
12. In 1997, Ms. Nichol received a notice with her paycheck, dated October 16, 1997 and addressed to Intermediate Unit Staff, that explained the "Pennsylvania Public School Code (24 Pa. Stat. Ann. 11-1112)" did not allow wearing religious jewelry, giving "Crosses or Stars of David" as examples. The notice included an explanation of consequences-a one-year suspension, and a permanent suspension in the event of a second infraction.
13. On March 11, 2003, Mr. Truscello approached the teacher in Ms. Nichol's classroom, as well as Ms. Nichol and other co-workers of Ms. Nichol, reminding them to comply with the Pennsylvania School Code that prohibits wearing any religious symbol, or not to display any religious symbol openly if they chose to wear one, while at work. He explained that this prohibition included a cross or any other religious symbol. They were asked either not to wear their crosses or to tuck them in.
21. Following the evidentiary hearing, the parties filed a second supplemental stipulation accompanied by Plaintiffs Exhibit 3, which is an actual sized photograph of the cross alongside a ruler taken in natural lighting. The cross has white stones embedded on it and no other symbols or figures. Exhibit 3 supports the parties' oral stipulation that Ms. Nichol's cross is 1 & 7/16 inches in height and 15/16 inches in width.
22. Ms. Nichol testified, inter alia, that her mother gave her the cross as a gift after her mother's stroke in 1996, and she began wearing the cross to school shortly after that; plaintiff wore the cross on average three times a week in the classroom and throughout the school, and in the presence of the teacher she worked with, Debbie Dudt, who saw her wearing the cross; other employees at Penns Manor saw her wear the cross at work; plaintiff never tucked in the cross when she wore it; no one said anything to her about the cross until March 20, 2003, when Ms. Dudt reminded her of Mr. Truscello's request that her cross be tucked in, and then on April 4, 2003, when Mr. Truscello approached her about it; plaintiff had received a memo or notice about the religious dress policy in 1997 but she continued to wear her cross, as other school district employees were wearing similar jewelry. Ms. Nichol also stated the following reason she wore her cross and refused to take it off upon request: "I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. And I believe that this would be denying him in a sense of tucking this cross in because I am not ashamed of my Lord and Savior Jesus. I will do nothing to deny my faith and belief in him." Transcript, Evidentiary Hearing, May 12, 2003, at 17.
23. Mr. Truscello testified, inter alia, that he has been plaintiffs supervisor since she began with ARIN; that he saw plaintiff intermittently about 1 or 2 times a week since 1996, but the duration and nature of his weekly interactions with plaintiff would vary greatly, from formal meetings and formal classroom observations, to short and informal classroom observations and brief hallway encounters; that he did not observe plaintiff wearing her cross until April 4, 2003, but that he "would be very sensitive" to wearing of crosses by employees he supervised; that pins such as his "DAD" pin could be and were worn at school so long as they did not have religious symbolism; that he learned on March 10, 2003, that someone had informed a teacher's union representative that one of the instructional assistants was wearing a cross; that on March 11th or 18th, he spoke with Ms. Nichol and other staff employees of ARIN and reminded them of its policy as set forth in ARIN's handbook, and at that meeting she definitely was not wearing her cross; and that Ms. Nichol had very positive relationships with the emotionally challenged fourth grade student and Ms. Dudt, the student and teacher with whom she most often worked, and Ms. Nichol had been "very successful" helping her student with his transition into mainstream classes.
24. As counsel for ARIN acknowledged at oral argument, plaintiffs and Truscello's affidavits as to the duration, frequency and visibility of the cross wearing are not necessarily inconsistent, nor is their testimony at the evidentiary hearing. The Court finds Mr. Truscello's and Ms. Nichol's testimony and affidavits are, in fact, compatible as to how often and how visibly Ms. Nichol wore her cross to work.
26. Crediting Mr. Truscello's testimony, the Court finds he did not observe plaintiff wearing her cross until April 4, 2003, although he would see her once or twice a week for various lengths of time (from minutes to hours) depending on his degree of interaction and observation. The Court credits his testimony that on March 11th or 18th, Ms. Nichol did not wear her cross. 041b061a72