Task: songer_standing

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court determine that the parties had standing?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.
In this case, brought by appellants, former employees, against their private employers, alleging violation of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appellants may be entitled to high marks for imagination, but nothing else. Defendant appellees, Conagra, Inc. and Molinos de Puerto Rico, Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiary, hereafter, collectively, defendant, found itself in a labor dispute. Appellants sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, but were turned down on the ground that they were supervisors, 29 U.S.C. § 164(a), and, therefore, not employees entitled to the protection of the National Labor Relations Act. The Puerto Rico Labor Relations Board also refused to issue a complaint, apparently on jurisdictional grounds. Briefly, the asserted underlying facts were that appellants became engaged in a dispute with defendant because of its failure to recognize their union. One of appellants was discharged because of his overvigorous behavior. The others thereupon resigned in protest. Appellants now allege that their civil rights, notably their constitutional rights of free speech and association, but also of property, were infringed.
Passing the question whether appellants could be thought to allege any rights at all, we are at a loss to see where it could be thought that defendant’s actions involved any state action, a basic requirement for recovery under section 1983. Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 1974, 419 U.S. 345, 95 S.Ct. 449, 42 L.Ed.2d 477; Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 1970, 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142. The Puerto Rico Labor Relations Board’s mere refusal to protest a private action is not state action, see Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., supra; cf. NLRB v. Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 571, cert. denied sub nom. Foreman’s Assoc. of America v. Edward G. Budd Mfg. Co., 335 U.S. 908, 69 S.Ct. 411, 93 L.Ed. 441, the more particularly because that Board is without power to prohibit the discharge of supervisors because of their union membership. Beasley v. Food Fair of North Carolina, Inc., 1974, 416 U.S. 653, 94 S.Ct. 2023, 40 L.Ed.2d 443. Appellants offer no suggestion as to how anything the named defendant did, or did not do, involves state action. The discussion of involuntary servitude prior to the Civil War is scarcely pertinent. At best, the case at bar involves the continuation, vel non, of private employment voluntary on both sides.
We have studied the briefs. No oral argument could breathe life into this case. The judgment is affirmed under Local Rule 12.
Actions involving only the federal government are beyond the scope of section 1983. District of Columbia v. Carter, 1973, 409 U.S. 418, 92 S.Ct. 683, 30 L.Ed.2d 661.

Question: Did the court determine that the parties had standing?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: A