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.
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 second listed appellant. If there are more than two appellants and at least one of the additional appellants has a different general category from the first appellant, then consider the first appellant with a different general category to be the second appellant.

Opinion:
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Werner H. KRAMARSKY, As Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, the New York State Division of Human Rights, and the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 19, Docket 80-7185.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Originally Argued Sept. 25, 1980.
Decided May 11, 1981.
Petition for Rehearing June 9, 1981.
Decided Nov. 24, 1981.
Remanded from the United States Supreme Court June 24, 1983.
Decided Dec. 27, 1983.
Ann Thacher Anderson, Gen. Counsel, State Div. of Human Rights, New York City, for defendants-appellants.
Jeffrey A. Mishkin, New York City (Jeffrey D. Fields, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before KEARSE and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges, and TENNEY, District Judge.
Honorable Charles H. Tenney, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
For the reasons stated today in our opinion in Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Kramarsky, 725 F.2d 146, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983), we affirm the judgment of the district court enjoining enforcement of New York’s Human Rights Law, N.Y.Exec.Law § 296 (McKinney 1972 & Supp. 1980-81).

Question: What is the nature of the second listed appellant whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed appellant?

Choices:
private business (including criminal enterprises)
private organization or association
federal government (including DC)
sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
government - level not ascertained
natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
miscellaneous
not ascertained

Answer: 4