EXPECT MORE FROM THE ONLY MATTRESS PROFESSIONALS!Columbia, MD Furniture Store Browse Home Decor Ideas Online. Stop by our Columbia, MD showroom, and we'll give you even more reasons to love your home. It's easy to be on trend and under budget with furniture choices that are stylish & affordable! Shop The Look for a little high-style, low-budget interior design inspiration! Dial 1-800-723-BOBS for the store nearest you. Monday thru Saturday 10:00am - 9:30pmSunday 11:00am - 7:00pmSkip to Search Form Skip to Page Content Yelp users haven’t asked any questions yet about Mattress Firm Columbia Crossing. Mattress Firm stores feature more than 55 different models of mattresses from top mattress brands such as Temur-Pedic, Sealy Posturepedic, Serta, and Simmons Beautyrest. We also carry specialty mattresses and bedding products incorporating the latest sleep technology, including pressure relieving memory foam mattresses. Our stores are designed around the "Comfort by Color" concept, which allows guests to easily compare the different comfort levels of the mattresses: Firm (Yellow), Plush (Orange), Pillow Top (Red), Contoured (Green) and Personalized (Blue).
Since opening in Houston in 1986, Mattress Firm has grown to over 3000 mattress stores across 47 states and has become the nation's largest mattress retailer. We offer our guests comfortable store environments, highly-trained sales professionals, and guarantees on price, comfort, and service. Mattress Firm is committed to making sure our guests sleep happy.Request a mailed catalog Do you agree to the terms of service? Sign-up for exclusive email offers and promotions! As the area's premier furniture emall, we offer the largest selection of quality home furnishings. Stop in, our selection will amaze you. We offer styles for every decor and budget. Choose from beautiful in-stock options or custom order. Our special order capabilities allow you to create a unique look to fit your lifestyle. Always White Glove Delivery Our professional delivery team inspects and preps all furniture prior to delivery. Complete assembly and set-up in your home in the exact spot you want the furniture is guaranteed.
8835c Columbia 100 Pkwy Organic Latex Mattress Engineering a division of Rhintek, Inc. Rhintek has been incorporated since 1977 as a high tech/engineering company. there have been many diverse projects. Some of these projects were directed to a specific client, while others became the basis of a continuing product line for Rhintek. This project started when someone needed a new mattress and started trying to figure out the engineering behind an ideal mattress. This web site tries to explain our research, viewpoints,For those of you who just want our conclusion, go to the product section and see what we are offering; make an appointment, and get fitted for your "ideal" (at least Please note: The opinions expressed are the result of the information we could find as well as the testing that we have done. The results and conclusions may not be right for you or any particularYou must be the final judge about your needs and the fitness of any particular product
These webpages are an ongoing project. We want to approach helping you in selecting your "ideal" mattress from a different, more scientific, viewpoint. We can tell you that latex is the best mattress material, and that going 100% organic is a wise decision, but you must come to those conclusions by your own research. If you have any thoughts, corrections, or suggestions, please drop us a note. (replace the *s with the company name) Please: put "Mattress" in the subject line If you live near Columbia, Maryland, or if you are going to be passing through our area, call: of 87results123NextDidn't find what you were looking for?magnifying glass Laurel, MD Furniture & Mattress Store Mon - Sat: 10am - 9pmSunday: 11am - 7pm Take Beltway to Exit 25A/Route 1 North. Go 5 miles to Contee Road and Marlo is on the left.Mattress industry veteran and employee of Innovative Mattress Solutions shares how the company culture powered his passion for an industry he's dedicated to his career to.
Innovative Mattress Solutions owns over 150 mattress retail stores operating as Mattress Warehouse, Sleep Outfitters, and Mattress King.Mattress Warehouse employee shares how the leadership of her CEO, Kim Knopf, inspired her passion to grow within the company.MInnovative Mattress Solutions owns over 150 retail mattress stores operating as Mattress Warehouse, Sleep Outfitters, and Mattress King,From developing your core skill sets to the impact of an influential CEO, this Corporate Trainer shares her experience working with Mattress Warehouse.Innovative Mattress Solutions owns over 150 retail mattress stores operating as Mattress Warehouse, Sleep Outfitters, Mattress Warehouse, and Mattress King. ReviewsOverall5 stars4 stars3 stars2 stars1 starWork/Life BalanceCompensation/BenefitsJob Security/AdvancementManagementCultureStockerMattress Warehouse Questions and AnswersWhat is the vacation policy like? How many vacation days do you get per year?Do u get paid every week? About Mattress WarehouseMattress Warehouse stores constitute one of three mattress retail brands operated by parent firm Innovative Mattress Solutions (iMS), a privately held company headquartered in Lexington, Ky. Founder and CEO Kim Knopf started her company with one Mattress Warehouse store in South Charleston, W.Va. in 1983.
iMS operates 51 of its more than 155 stores – more...Nungesser’s parents, meanwhile, wrote in an email to me that “graduation was devastating.” They were especially upset by an exhibition at a university gallery, preceding graduation, that included Sulkowicz’s prints of a naked man with an obscenity and of a couple having sex, inked over a copy of a Times article about Nungesser. “We cannot imagine a more humiliating experience,” Andreas Probosch, Nungesser’s father, told me via email after going to the exhibition. Sulkowicz wrote in an email that the images are cartoons. “What are the functions of cartoons?” she asked. “Do they depict the people themselves (a feat which, if you’ve done enough reading on art theory, you will realize is impossible), or do they illustrate the stories that have circulated about a person?” Sulkowicz and Nungesser’s case is unusual in the exhausting intensity of the media circus that has attended it. But the swirl of accusations and counteraccusations, and the reaction to them, reflects the current moment — a transitional period in the evolution of how universities handle sexual assault.
The Obama administration has demanded that institutions do more to investigate and adjudicate complaints of sexual assault and harassment, but it’s not clear that they have shown that their disciplinary processes have the requisite legitimacy. It is a moment in which, as the tumult at Columbia shows, we can’t afford to stay for long.As universities scramble to improve their disciplinary processes, it’s hard to know how much things are changing on the ground; the cases remain shrouded in secrecy. There are good reasons to protect student privacy, not to mention a federal law requiring institutions to do so. But the utter lack of transparency also imposes a cost. The smattering of cases that blow up in the press may well present a distorted view, lowering public confidence. (This is what administrators and lawyers who see these cases up close say.) And beyond generalities, universities usually can’t respond to criticism about specific cases.As a result, even the procedural disputes between Sulkowicz and Nungesser are lost in the land of she-said-he-said.
Sulkowicz has accused university administrators of a litany of failures, including asking ignorant and insensitive questions about the physical positions that she and Nungesser had engaged in during sex. (She says that one panelist remarked, “I don’t know how it’s possible to have anal sex without lubrication first.”) Does this reflect a bias that definitively disadvantaged Sulkowicz in pleading her case? Or was it a mistake in a mostly reasonable effort to ask Sulkowicz the kind of probing if grueling questions that are necessary to determine the truth in a rape case like this one? There is no publicly available tape or transcript of the hearing, and so no way to prove whether it was fair or unfair.Columbia hasn’t defended its handling of the case, or the outcome, beyond rejecting Sulkowicz’s appeal. To Nungesser, that’s what is unfair. “They have a process in place, which I followed to the letter,” he told me. “I had everything to lose in it. And it’s been worth nothing.
Columbia officials think that declining to comment about publicized cases is necessary to encourage other students to go to rape counselors or through the disciplinary process. “Students should be confident that the university is not going to talk about these cases in any respect,” said Suzanne B. Goldberg, a Columbia law professor who is the executive vice president for university life. Nungesser says that he prevailed despite Columbia’s refusal to consider his best evidence: Facebook messages that he and Sulkowicz sent to each other before and after the alleged rape. The messages sound friendly: “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz/because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr,” Sulkowicz wrote a few days after the night in question. After The Daily Beast published the exchanges, Sulkowicz explained them to the website Jezebel, recalling, “I’m being irrational, thinking that talking with him would help me.”
Sulkowicz says some of the Facebook messages were admitted as evidence. Her recollection is at odds with that of a graduate student who attended the hearings with Nungesser, as his designated “supporter,” and said the messages were not included. In court, the Facebook messages surrounding the night of the alleged rape would probably be admitted in a criminal case as relevant, according to Deborah Tuerkheimer, a Northwestern University law professor, and the alleged victim would also have the chance to explain them. (This is also what Columbia’s policy now appears to provide, though the rule was somewhat different at the time of the hearing.)Deciding which evidence to admit is a minefield that universities have to pick their way through. For example, Columbia says it does not allow “prior conduct violations” into evidence unless the alleged assailant has been found “responsible” for them. (That’s the word universities use instead of “guilty.”) State courts would usually exclude evidence of prior sexual misconduct in a criminal sexual assault case, Tuerkheimer says, though federal courts may admit it.
The distinction is the subject of another dispute over process between Nungesser and Sulkowicz. At the time Sulkowicz came forward, two other women accused Nungesser of different forms of sexual misconduct. He was found not responsible. She says the panel at her hearing did not consider the other allegations against him. Nungesser’s father said the allegations were mixed together. (To briefly summarize them, Nungesser’s girlfriend from freshman year said their monthslong relationship was abusive and included nonconsensual sex; the case was dropped after she stopped answering Columbia’s emails over the summer. A second woman, who lived at the same literary society as Nungesser, said he grabbed her in an empty room during a party there. A third accusation against Nungesser, brought in 2014, was dismissed earlier this month.) Nungesser denies all the allegations. He was initially found responsible in the party incident, but he was granted an appeal, and the finding against him was overturned.
The appeal raises another issue with the rules. At the time it took place, the university said that a supporter at a hearing had to be a current Columbia faculty member, administrator or student. The woman who said Nungesser grabbed her at the party had graduated, and so had the close friends she would have chosen as supporters, she told me. The lack of emotional support was one reason she didn’t want to go through a rehearing. This is an issue Columbia has tried to address. Last summer, the university announced significant changes to its sexual assault and harassment procedures. Students are now permitted to bring a lawyer to their hearings, and if they can’t afford an attorney, the university will provide one. The university also hired new investigators and other staff members and gave training on how to hear cases to the administrators who serve as panelists. Columbia also started a “sexual respect initiative” aimed at prevention.Maybe the changes will help prevent another case from going awry in the way Sulkowicz and Nungesser’s did.
Both feel that they are victims. Sulkowicz has concluded that “the system is broken because it is so much based on proof that a lot of rape survivors don’t have.” She sees it this way: “Even if you have physical evidence, you can prove that violence occurred but not that someone didn’t want the sex to be violent.” Nungesser, of course, sees a different kind of failing. “Some part of me will never move on from this,” he said. “It will forever change how I walk into a room. I had immense trust in people and institutions, perhaps naïvely, and that trust is very much gone.” Their reactions, natural but also unrealistic in their expectations of this or any other justice system, underscore an old truth: Rape is extremely difficult to prosecute both effectively and fairly. Should universities be handling these cases at all? Plenty of people are asking that question. And yet, in the eyes of the government, universities have this responsibility because of an important principle rooted in the federal law, Title IX: If a rape prevents a victim from taking full advantage of her education, then it is a civil rights violation as well as a crime.