Task: songer_genresp1

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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
Your task is to determine the nature of the first listed respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
This case is before us on the application of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) for enforcement of its supplemental order issued against Local 18, Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers’ International Union of America, AFL-CIO (the respondent Union). The matter was before this court heretofore. Local 18 Bricklayers, etc. v. NLRB, 407 F.2d 1309 (1969). In that case we entered judgment enforcing the Board’s order directing the respondent Union to cease its discriminatory practices toward the charging party Jesse Bulle and to make him whole for any loss of earnings suffered as a result of the discrimination practiced against him. Following entry of that judgment the parties were unable to agree upon the amount of back pay due Mr. Bulle under the terms of the Board’s order. The Regional Director then issued a back pay specification and notice of hearing. After several delays a hearing was held on March 31 and May 4-7, 1970. Following the hearing the Trial Examiner issued a supplemental decision awarding a specific amount of back pay to Mr. Bulle. The Board on January 27, 1971 affirmed the Trial Examiner’s findings and conclusions (with a slight and for present purposes immaterial modification) and ordered the respondent Union to pay Mr. Bulle a total of $24,728.71 in back pay.
The respondent Union cannot in this case contest the propriety of the Board’s finding an unfair labor practice or that of its decision that a back pay order was an appropriate remedy. Both of those matters were decided in the Board’s favor when the case was last before us. The Union argues however, that the Board improperly calculated back pay when it failed to take into account the charging party’s failure to mitigate damage by availing himself of employment opportunities which were open to him, his failure to produce written records of employment, and his failure to accept a settlement offer made by the Union. With respect to the availability of employment and to Mr. Bulle’s efforts to seek other employment the Board resolved credibility issues in favor of the charging party. His testimony was not clearly incredible. The settlement offer, which was made at a hearing on August 14, 1967, was one to have Mr. Bulle referred out for employment without discrimination by the respondent Union’s hiring hall, or alternatively to get him a membership in another, less desirable local. The alternative offer was, however, conditioned upon his relinquishing the remedy of back pay for past discrimination and the protection of a Board order prohibiting future discrimination. The Board’s conclusion that Mr. Bulle need not have mitigated future damages by giving up both a claim for past damages and the prospective protection of a Board order is amply supported by the record and by common sense. There is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Trial Examiner which the Board affirmed. We cannot disturb these findings. NLRB v. Bab-cock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 112, 76 S.Ct. 679, 100 L.Ed. 975 (1956); Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 491, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1950). The appropriateness, in the circumstances, of the back pay order was for the Board to determine in the exercise of its informed discretion. NLRB v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co., 396 U.S. 258, 90 S.Ct. 417, 24 L.Ed.2d 405 (1961).
The supplemental order of the National Labor Relations Board will be enforced.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: B