FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 30, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 73 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. 1 0- CA-3 76 28 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us CSS HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App li cat io ns forEnfo rcem en t o f a Deci si on of t he Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Bo ard

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 30 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Inth is cas e, th e Nat io na l Lab orRel at io ns Bo ard(NLRB) s eek s en fo rcem en tof

anadm in is tra ti ve law ju dg e’s (ALJ) ord er i ns tru ct in g C SS Heal th care Serv ic es (CSS ) to rei ns ta te form er em pl oyee Vict or iaTorl ey . CSS al so see ks rev ie w of the ALJ an d NLRB ord er. Afte r a rev ie w of t he reco rd , we con cl ud e th atsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e NLRB’s d eci si on an d, ac co rd in gl y , we enf or ce the ord er. I. Back gr ou nd 1 CSS p ro vi de s i n- ho m e h eal th -car e se rv ic es in Jo ne sb or o, Geo rg ia . In 2 00 7, Jo hn Agu lu e, th e CEO of CSS an d Geo rg iaCo m

m un it y Care So lu ti on s (GC CS), hi redTorl ey

to workforGCCS t o c oo rd in at e GCCS ’s st artup as p artof an In te ns iv e Fam il y

Int erv en ti on pro gr am

fun de d b y

Med ic ai d. To rle y

an d Dol lm ei sh iaAdam s wer e th e o nl y em pl oyees o f GCCS. Th ey

were re sp on si bl e fo r se ek in g a ccre di ta ti on an d g ran ts for th e n ew pr og ram

an d re po rte d t o Ag ul ue . Torl ey was a n h ou rly em

pl oyee who rece iv edno be ne fit s, b utsh e was pa idforth e work s he pe rfo rm edreg ard le ss of h er s uc ces s. Ag ul ue sethe r sc he du le each week ba se d o n d ead li ne s fo r pr ojec ts un de r rev ie w. She was in it ia ll y pa idwith c he ck s fro m CSS an d wo ul d o ccas io na ll y us e CSS adm in is tra ti ve st aff. To rle y ha d a cces s to a GCCS c om

pu te r, co m

pa ny car, an d v ari ou s o ffi ce s up pl ie s t hr ou gh GCCS.

The AL J cre dited Torley ’s testimony . We givespecia l defe renc e to the AL J ’s 1 cre dibilit y

deter minations, which will not be disturbed unless they are inhere ntly

unrea sonable or self-c ontradictory . NLRB v. United Sanitation Serv., 737 F.2d 936, 938 ( 11th Cir. 1984). Havingrevie wed the te stimony from the a dministrative he aring , we se e nothinginhere ntly unrea sonable in his cre dibilit y finding s. Thus, we re cite the f acts a s found by

the ALJ . 2Torl ey

subm it te d wee kl y

“ act iv it y rep orts ” to Agu lu e an d wo ul d c on su ltwith Agu lu e ab ou t o th er p os si bl e g ran t s ou rces be fo re ap pl y in g fo r su ch gra nt s. Agu lu e wou ldrev ie w gra ntap pl ic at io ns be fo re the y were s ub m it te d t o t he ap pr op ria te ag en cy . InApri l 2 00 8, wh il e v ari ou s ap pl ic at io ns were p en di ng an d the re was no ad di ti on al workforTorl ey to do , Agu lu e to ldTorl ey to tak e a h ia tu s an d h e wou ld cal l i f th ere was workforhe r. Two week s l at er, Ag ul ue ask edTorl ey to workat CSS a s a b eh av io r sp eci al is t. Alt ho ug h s he in it ia ll y work edpa rt- ti m e in th is cap aci ty, sh e la te r be gan t o wo rkful l-t im e whe n s he to okon ad di ti on al pro jects th atne ed edaccr ed it at io n. Sh e al so saton va rio us CSS em pl oyee co m

m it te es as as si gn edby A gu lu e. Torl ey co nt in ue d t o wo rkon anho ur ly bas is an d was requi redto si gn inan d o utforti m e-k eep in g p ur po se s. To rle y

att en de d wee kl y st aff m eet in gs an d was pre se ntwhenot he r em pl oyees e xp res se d c on cern s ab ou t worki ng co nd it io ns . Nik it a Dav is , th e p ro gr am m an ag er fo r CSS’s M en ta ll y Ret ard edW ai ve r Pro gr am , bro ug htth es e co nc ern s t o Ag ul ue ’s att en ti on an d rep orte d a t a s ub se qu en t s ta ff m eet in g t ha t Ag ul ue was s up po rti ve of t he st aff’s co nc ern s. Altho ug h Dav is to ldth e st aff t ha t Ag ul ue wou ldim pl em en t p ol ic y ch an ge s, n o c ha ng es ev er o ccu rred . InJu ly 200 8, as a res ul t o f a ro ut in e st at e au di t, CS S’s pr og ram s wer e ci te d 3fo r a num

be r of de fic ie nc ie s. Am on g t he de fic ie nc ie s ci te d was th e au di to r’s co nc ernov er To rle y ’s qu al ifi cat io ns as abe ha vi or sp eci al is t. Tor le y

co m pi le d t he do cu m en ts th e au di to r ne ed edan d u lt im at el y cle aredth e d efi ci en cy . Duri ng th is sa m e ti m e p eri od , Torl ey res earc he d t he st aff m em be rs ’ co m pl ai nt s an d l earn ed th atth e st aff wo ul d h av e m or e le ve rag e if th ey form eda co ll ect iv e b arg ai ni ng un it . Afte r ad vi si ng he r co -wo rk ers of t hi s, ab ou t t enem pl oyees m etwith Ag ul ue an d hi s wi fe t o p res en t em

pl oyee po li cy

su gg es ti on s. Ag ul ue advi se d t he m th atth ey were i nd ep en de ntco nt ract or s an d wo ul d n otbe co ns id eredem pl oyees u nt il th ey ha d wo rk edforth e co m

pany for m or e th an90 da y s. WhenTorl ey ask edwhathe r st atus was, Ag ul ue was e va si ve un ti l h is wife st at edth atTorl ey was a n e m

pl oyee. Fo ll owi ng th is m eet in g, To rle y res earc he d Ag ul ue ’s cla im an d d et erm in edth athe r co -wo rk ers were n otin de pe nd en t co nt ract or s. Sh e to ldhe r co -wo rk ers at t he ne xt st aff m eet in g. On Se pt em

be r 3, To rle y

m etwith Ag ul ue an d “ in vo ke d wh is tl eb lo wer st atus .” Sh e in fo rm edAgu lu e th atth e em pl oyees h adform eda co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng un it . Agu lu e to ldTorl ey th atCSS d idno t n eeda fu ll -ti m e b eh av io r sp eci al is t, b utTorl ey

rem in de d h im

th atsh e worke d o n o th er p ro jects forCSS. Sh e la te r se ntAgu lu e ane-m ai l o n t hi s t op ic . Agu lu e al le ge d t ha t h e res po nd edby m em o, ad vi si ng Torl ey

th atth ere was no op en in g fo r a b eh av io r sp eci al is t an d

4qu es ti on in g t he st atus of t he GCCS g ran t ap pl ic at io ns . Thatsame day , Agu lu e’s

wife m etwith To rle y

an d a sk edTorl ey

why sh e was trying to crea te tro ub le for CSS. On Se pt em

be r 8, 2 00 8, To rle y

att en de d ast aff m eet in g i n wh ic h e m pl oyees rai se d n ew co nc ern s ab ou t wo rk in g c on di ti on s. Ag ul ue pro po se d apo li cy ch an ge to ad dr es s t he se co nc ern s. Whenno ne of the em pl oyees c omm en te d abo utth e ne w po li cy , Torl ey

sp ok e up. Ag ul ue ask edif To rle y was s pe ak in g fo r he rs el f, an d wh enTorl ey

sai d “ no ,” Agu lu e to ldhe r sh e sh ou ldbe qu ie t. Tha t af te rn oo n, Agu lu e cam e to Torl ey ’s off ic e to di sc us s t ha t h e h adlearn edth atGCCS’s s ta te accr ed it at io n app li cat io n h adbe ende ni ed . After t he two ag ai n d is cu ss edTorl ey ’s ro le at C SS, Tor le y

was t erm in at ed . Agu lu e to ldTorl ey sh e was be in g fi red be cau se sh e fai le d t o p ro du ce re su lt s. In20 09 , Torl ey

fil edanun fai r labo r pr act ic e ch arg e wit h t he NLRB ag ai ns t CSS, al le gi ng th atsh e was term in at eddu e to he r in vo lv em en t wi th pro te ct ed co nc ert edact iv it ie s. CSS res po nd edth atTorl ey was n otanem

pl oyee un de r th e Nati on al Labo r Rel at io ns Act (t he Act) , bu t was anin de pe nd en t co nt ract orhi red by ano th er co m

pany, G CCS, In c. CSS al so de ni eden ga gi ng in any un fai r labo r pr act ic es . At the adm in is tra ti ve he ari ng , bo th Torl ey an d Ag ul ue tes ti fie d. Ag ul ue 5st at edth athe ha d t erm in at edTorl ey be cau se sh e b eg an“ cau si ng a co m m ot io n” an d b ecame “hyste ric al ” whe n h e que st io ne d h er ab ou t GCC S’s accr ed it at io n st atus . He als o t es ti fie d t ha t h e fi redTorl ey be cau se sh e h adno t p ro du cedres ul ts an d b ecau se th e st at e au di t h adfou ndhe r work u ns at is fact ory . The ALJ 2 co nc lu de d t ha t To rle y

was a n e m

pl oyee un de r th e Actan d t ha t CS S h ad te rm in at edTorl ey ’s em

pl oym en t due to he r in vo lv em en t wi th pro te ct edco nc ert ed act iv it ie s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e ALJ ap pl ie d t he co m m on -la w age nc y

tes t t o d et erm in e if To rle y was a n e m

pl oyee. Poi nt in g t o t he Res ta te m en t (S eco nd ) of Agen cy , § 2 20 , th e ALJ co ns id eredth e fo ll owi ng fact or s: (a) t he ex te ntof c on tro l wh ic h . . . th e [em pl oyer] m ay

ex erci se ov er th e d et ai ls of t he work ; (b ) whe th er o r no t the [in di vi du al ] is en ga ge d in a di st in ctoc cupa ti onor b us in es s; (c) the ki ndof o ccupa ti on , with refe ren ce t o wh ethe r, in th e lo cal it y , th e work i s u su al ly don e u nd er th e d ire ct io n o f th e em

pl oyer or b y

a sp eci al is t wi th ou t s up erv is io n; (d ) th e sk il l re qu ire d i n t he pa rti cu lar oc cupa ti on ; (e ) whe th er the em pl oyer or t he [in di vi du al ] supp li es th e in st ru m en ta li ti es , to ol s, an d th e p la ce o f work fo r th e p ers on do in g t he work ; (f ) th e le ng th of t im e fo r whi ch th e p ers on is em pl oyed; (g) th e m etho d o f paym en t, whe th er b y

th e ti m e o r by the job ; (h ) whe th er o r no t the workis a pa rt o f th e reg ul ar b us in es s o f th e em pl oyer; (i ) whe th er o r no t the pa rti es be li ev e th ey

are cr eat in g t he rel at io n o f [em pl oyer an d em pl oyee]; and(j) whet he r th e p rin ci pa l i s o r is no t i n t he bu si ne ss . The state a

uditor testified at the a dministrative he aring , contra dicting A gulue’s 2 testimony and cor roborating Torley ’s. The a uditor confirme d that the state ha d been satisfied with Torley ’s cr edentials a nd that CSS had bee n prohibited from a dmitti ngany new patients to its progr ams until itclea

red theaudit defic iencies. The direc tor for the state provider enrollment also testified, explaining that the state had re jected CSS’s and GCCS’s applications based on the defic iencies. 6RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 22 0 (1 95 8) .

The ALJ th enfou ndth atTorl ey was e ng ag edin pro te ct edco nc ert ed act iv it ie s an d t ha t Ag ul ue fir edhe r fo r th is reas on . The ALJ c red it edTorl ey ’s te st im on y ab ou t h er i nv ol ve m en t i n s ta ff m eet in gs an d b rin gi ng st aff c on cern s t o Agu lu e’s at te nt io n. Th e ALJ fu rth er n ot edMrs . Agu lu e’s st at em en t t o To rle y th at sh e was trying to crea te tro ub le forth e ag en cy . The ALJ t he n c on si de redwhet he r Torl ey wou ldha ve be enterm in at edreg ard le ss of h er ac ti vi ti es an d fo un d tha t Agu lu e h adno t p ro ve n t hi s t o b e th e cas e. The ALJ fou ndth atAgu lu e’s st at ed reas onforTorl ey ’s term in at io n –th atTorl ey ha d n otde li ve redon he r pr om is e to ob ta in fun di ng forGCCS –was p ret ex tu al be cau se th ere was ev id en ce tha t the de la y in fun di ng was due to de fic ie nc ie s i n C SS’s p ro gr am s as de te rm in edby the st at e au di t an d n otdu e to an y fau ltby T or le y . Accor di ng ly, th e ALJ o rd eredCSS to rei ns ta te Torl ey ’s em

pl oym en t an d t o m ak e h er wh ol e fo r an y lo stearn in gs an d be ne fit s. The NLRB ad op te d the ALJ’s de ci si on . On ap pe al to th is co urt, we v acat ed an d re m an de d fo r rec on si de rat io n i n l ig htof t he Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si onin New Pro ces s Ste el

, L.P. v. NLRB , 13 0 S .Ct. 2 63 5 (2 01 0) (requi rin g aqu orum of t hr ee m em be rs forNLRB pa ne l). Se e CS S Hea lthc ar e S

ervs ., Inc . v. NLRB , 20 10 W L 40 69 52 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (unpubl is he d) . On rem an d, t he NLRB ag ai n a do pt edth e 7ALJ’s d eci si on an d o rd eredth atTorl ey be rei ns ta te d wi threi m

bu rs em en t fo r lo st earn in gs an d b en efi ts . The NLRB n ow s eek s en fo rcem en t o f th is ord er. II. St an da rdof R ev ie w W e rev ie w th e NLRB’s d eci si on to en su re tha t i t i s s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce o n t he reco rdas awho le . NLRB v. U.S. Po st al Se rv . , 52 6 F .3d72 9, 7 32 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) ; se e a ls o 29 U.S.C. § 1 60 (e). Th is st an da rddo es no t p erm itus to ov erturn aNLRB de ci si on supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce ev enif we wo ul d reac h adi ffer en t co nc lu si on were we t o d eci de th e cas e de no vo . Pur ol at or Armo re d, In c. v. NLRB , 76 4 F .2d14 23 , 14 28 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). W e m us t al so gi ve sp eci al de fere nc e to th e ALJ’s cre di bi li ty det erm in at io ns , whi chwil l n otbe di sturbe d u nl es s t he y

are i nh eren tl y

un reas on ab le or s el f-co nt rad ic to ry . NLRB v. Uni te d S an it at io n Serv., 73 7 F .2d93 6, 9 38 (11 thCir . 19 84 ). III. Di sc us si on The NLRB arg ue s t ha t s ub st an ti al ev id en ce s up po rts th e ALJ’s co nc lu si on th atTorl ey

was a n e m

pl oyee un de r th e Actba se d o n t he fact or s s etou t i n Res ta te m en t (S eco nd ) of

Agen cy , § 2 20 . It fu rth er ar gu es th atsubs ta nt ia l ev id en ce s up po rts th e co nc lu si on th atAgu lu e fi redTorl ey be cau se of h er pa rti ci pa ti on in pro te ct edco nc ert edact iv it ie s. Fi na ll y , th e Bo ardarg ue s t ha t Agu lu e’s st at edreas on s fo r te rm in at in g To rle y were p ret ex tu al . 8CSS d is pu te s t ha t To rle y was a n e m

pl oyee be cau se he r job was t em po rary an d C SS d idno t re gu la te he r act iv it ie s. CSS als o d is pu te s t ha t To rle y en ga ge d i n an y pro te ct edco nc ert edact iv it y , anditno te s t ha t i t was un aware of a ny suc h co nduc t. Acco rd in g t o C SS, th e ALJ re li edso le ly on c red ib il it y de te rm in at io ns to fin d t ha t To rle y

en ga ge d i n c on cert edact iv it ie s. CSS co nt en ds th atitcan di sc ha rg e anem

pl oyee fo r an y

reas on , reg ard le ss of m ot iv e, be cau se em pl oym en t in Geor gi a is at- wil l. CSS the n a rg ue s t ha t the ALJ’s co nc lu si on s t ha t To rle y 3 en ga ge d i n c on cert edact iv it ie s an d t ha t Ag ul ue fir edhe r be cau se of t hi s co nduc t were n otsupp orte d b y

subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Sect io n 8 (a)( 1) of t he Act m ak es itan“un fai r labo r pr act ic e fo r an em pl oyer . . . to in te rfer e wit h, re st rai n, o r co erce em pl oyees i n t he ex erci se of t he rig ht s g ua ran te edin[se ct io n 7 ]. ” Sect io n 7 gu aran te es em pl oyees “ th e ri gh t t o se lf- or ga ni zat io n, t o fo rm , join , or a ss is t l ab ororg an iz at io ns ,” an d “ to en ga ge in ot he r co nc ert edact iv it ie s fo r th e p ur po se of c ol le ct iv e b arg ai ni ng or o th er m utua l ai d o r pr ot ect io n.” 29 U.S.C. § 1 57 . Thu s, the Act p ro te ct s ac ti vi ti es th atare reas on ab ly exp ect edto affe ctco nd it io ns of e m pl oym en t. Bro wn &Roo t, In c. v.

We rejec t this argument without further discussion bec ause G eorg ia’s status as a n 3 at-will employ

ment state is not releva

nt to whether a

n employer violate d the Act. 9NLRB , 63 4 F .2d81 6, 8 18 (5t h C ir. 1 98 1) . To fal l wi th in § 7 ’s “ co nc ert ed 4 act iv ity ,” th e em

pl oyee m us t ac t “ wit h o r on th e au th or it y of o th er em

pl oyees, an d no t s ol el y by andon be ha lf o f th e em pl oyee hi m se lf.” Roc kwe ll Int ern’ l Co rp . v. NLRB , 81 4 F .2d15 30 , 15 34 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). Acts of asi ng le em pl oyee co ul d co ns ti tu te co nc ert edact iv ity . Id. at 1 53 5. The Act ap pl ie s t o a ny em pl oyee un de r 29 U.S.C. § 1 52 (3 ), bu t n otto an in de pe nd en t co nt ract or . To de te rm in e whe th er the ch arg in g p arty was a n em pl oyee oranin de pe nd en t co nt ract or , th e NLRB ap pl ie s co m m on law ag en cy pr in ci pl es . Se e NLRB v. Dea to n, In c. , 50 2 F .2d12 21 , 12 23 (5t h C ir. 1 97 4) . W e wil l af firm th e NLRB’s d et erm in at io n i f supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce an d we wil l n otsubs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t fo r th atof t he Bo ard . Id. Afte r a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we agr ee wi th th e ALJ’s wel l-r eas on edan al y si s as setforth in it s o rd er an d c on cl ud e th atTorl ey was anem

pl oyee un de r th e Act , th atsh e en ga ge d i n p ro te ct edco nc ert edact iv it ie s of whi ch Agu lu e was aware, an d t ha t Ag ul ue fir edhe r du e to he r in vo lv em en t i n th es e act iv it ie s. Acco rd in gl y , we ado ptth e ALJ’s rep ort an d i ss ue anen fo rcem en t or de r ag ai ns t CS S. Dec isions handed down by the forme r F ifth Circuit before the close of business on 4 September 30, 1981 a

re bindingprec edent in the Ele venth Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ). 10Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, the en fo rcem en t o rd er o f th e NLRB i s

GRANTED.

11