Task: songer_r_bus

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
Susan Rae Baker initiated this action against appellees, Stuart Broadcasting Company, the Grand Island Broadcasting Company (an affiliate or subsidiary of Stuart Broadcasting Company), James Stuart and Helen Stuart as 100 percent owners of the stock of the two corporations, and Richard Chap-in, president of Stuart Broadcasting Company, alleging that these defendants unlawfully conspired to deprive her of her right to equal protection and due process of law under the Constitution by refusing to employ her at a Grand Island, Nebraska, radio station because of her sex. The action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) , was dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim under this section. The court ruled that § 1985(3) did not extend beyond racially-motivated conspiracies. We need not pass on the substantive issue of whether § 1985(3) will afford judicial relief for nonracially-motivated conspiracies because the petitioner’s amended complaint does not allege an actionable conspiracy cognizable under this statute.
In her complaint, Ms. Baker alleged that on or about April 1, 1973, she applied for an advertising and sales position with radio station KRGI in Grand Island, Nebraska. She further claims that she was tentatively hired for this position but was subsequently advised by defendant-Richard Chapin, president of defendant-Stuart Broadcasting Company, that she would not be hired because she was a female. Ms. Baker’s original complaint named Stuart Broadcasting Company as the sole defendant. She subsequently filed an amended complaint adding the additional parties listed above as defendants. Ms. Baker’s sole allegation of conspiracy relates “that the corporate and individual defendants herein named conspired to and did deprive plaintiff of her rights *- * She seeks to extend the purview of § 1985(3) to discriminatory business decisions participated in by members of one business entity.
In dealing with this precise issue of an alleged conspiracy in a business situation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Dombrowski v. Dowling, 459 F.2d 190, 196 (7th Cir. 1972), observed:
We * * * believe that the statutory requirement that “two or more persons * * * conspire or go in disguise on the highway,” is not satisfied by proof that a discriminatory business decision reflects the collective judgment of two or more executives of the same firm. * * *
[I]f the challenged conduct is essentially a single act of discrimination by a single business entity, the fact that two or more agents participated in the decision or in the act itself will normally not constitute the conspiracy contemplated by this statute.
The record shows that Ms. Baker’s complaint is directed at a radio broadcasting company which, through its personnel or owners, declined to employ her. The petitioner does not allege the necessary elements of conspiracy required to maintain a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Dombrowski v. Dowling, supra, 459 F.2d at 196; see Robinson v. McCorkle, 462 F.2d 111, 113 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1042, 93 S.Ct. 529, 34 L.Ed.2d 492 (1972); Blackburn v. Fisk University, 443 F.2d 121, 124 (6th Cir. 1971); cf. Hill v. McClellan, 490 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1974). The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice to Ms. Baker asserting her claims of employment discrimination in an action pending in district court brought pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 2000e-5, see n. 2, supra.
Affirmed.
. Section 1985 (3) states in relevant part:
(3) If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on t'.e highway or on the premises of another,. for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; * * * in any case of conspiracy set fortli in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspiratox-s.
. In its dismissal, lxowever, the district court specifically noted that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 affords Ms. Baker an opportunity for redress for denial of employment based on sex discrinxixxation.
At oral argument, the parties advised the court that Ms. Baker has now commenced an actioxx for employment discrinxixxation under Title VII. Apparexxtly Ms. Baker sought relief under § 1985(3) in an attempt to circumvent the delays incident to presenting a claim before the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, thereafter, before the Nebraska Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
. The Supreme Court, in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 n. 9, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971), specifically reserved the question of whether a nonracially-moti-vated conspiracy would be actionable under § 1985(3).

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 5