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 appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
No. 71-1165.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Heard Nov. 2, 1971.
Decided Nov. 22, 1971.
Jeffrey A. Belkin, Cleveland, Ohio, with whom Louis S. Belkin and Belkin, Belkin & Goldstein Co., L. P. A., Cleveland, Ohio, were on the brief, for petitioner.
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, with whom Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Warren M. Davison, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, and William H. Du Ross, III, Atty., were on the brief, for respondent.
Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
ALDRICH, Chief Judge.
This is a petition brought by an employer to review a finding of a section 8(a) (1) violation, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1), by the National Labor Relations Board. The facts are these. After a period of unsuccessful bargaining, the production employees of General Tire & Rubber Company went on strike. The company thereupon decided to transfer all but a handful of its clerical employees to production work. On the first morning of the strike the production union established a picket line. One Hill, a clerical employee, passed through the line. On reaching her place of work she was told to report for production. She refused, stating that her husband, who was employed by another company, was a union man; that she sympathized with the strikers, and would not do struck work. The company insisted. A discussion ensued, in which Hill was finally told that if she did not do production work the company would “show [her] the door.” She thereupon left the plant and promptly filed the present unfair labor practice charge. The Board found that her discharge was improper.
The company concedes, as it must, that if Hill had failed to cross the picket line, that is to say, had refused to enter the plant, she would have had the rights of an economic striker and not been subject to discharge. N L R B v. Union Carbide Corp., 4 Cir., 1971, 440 F.2d 54, cert. denied 404 U.S. 826, 92 S. Ct. 58, 30 L.Ed.2d 55; N L R B v. Southern Greyhound Lines, 5 Cir., 1970, 426 F.2d 1299. Its first position is that, comparable to Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon, she committed herself when she crossed the line. Whether this contention would have had validity if the company had proved that she knew, when she crossed, that she would be obliged to do production work, we need not determine, as the company failed to establish such knowledge. Cf. Virginia Stage Lines v. N L R B, 4 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d 499, cert. denied 404 U.S. 856, 92 S.Ct. 105, 30 L.Ed.2d 98; NLRB v. Kit Mfg. Co., 9 Cir., 1964, 335 F.2d 166, cert. denied 380 U.S. 910, 85 S.Ct. 894, 13 L.Ed.2d 797. It should be obvious that she should not have been required to take a position until the full facts were brought home to her. Having assumed the contrary, the company’s brief proceeds to argue that Hill was necessarily guilty of “insubordination.” We do not agree.
Alternatively, the company maintains that it had the right to discharge because Hill’s willingness to do clerical work meant that she was not truly a striker, but only a “partial striker,” and that this is impermissible. We quite agree that an employee cannot do only part of her work, and be a partial striker in that sense. See Home Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v. N L R B, 4 Cir., 1947, 159 F.2d 280, cert. denied 332 U.S. 758, 68 S.Ct. 58, 92 L.Ed. 344; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. N L R B, 8 Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 486. The company offers no authority suggesting that an employee’s willingness to do her regular work justifies its compelling her, on penalty of discharge, to do struck work. See Virginia Stage Lines, Inc. v. N L R B, 441 F.2d at 503, and Cooper Thermometer Co., 1965, 154 N.L.R.B. 502. The company’s contention is contrary to the entire principle of sympathetic striking. See N L R B v. Union Carbide Corp., 440 F.2d at 56; N L R B v. Southern Greyhound Lines, 426 F.2d at 1301. See also N L R B v. Peter Cailler Kohler Swiss Chocolates Co., 2 Cir., 1942, 130 F.2d 503, 505, and N L R B v. City Yellow Cab Co., 6 Cir., 1965, 344 F.2d 575, 582.
Lastly, the company attempts to justify Hill’s discharge by claiming that “compelling business reasons” dictated its action. While in some unusual situations an overriding business interest can justify removing an employee from the protection against discharge which the Act affords employees exercising their section 7 rights, the company shows no such exceptional circumstances. See Cooper Thermometer Co., ante, and cases cited therein. Its invocation of “business reasons” means only that it does not like strikes.
We consider the company’s position so frivolous, and certain aspects of its argument, such as reliance upon section 8(a) (3) decisions in a section 8(a) (1) ease, so inappropriate, as to call for the application of our Smith & Wesson doctrine, N L R B v. Smith & Wesson, 1 Cir., 1970, 424 F.2d 1072. The order will be enforced, with costs taxed against the employer to include counsel fees.
. Before us the company persists in its assertion that Hill quit voluntarily rather than was discharged. The contention that the Board’s finding of discharge is unsupported on the evidence is too frivolous to warrant discussion.
. It does not appear that the company assigned as error the trial examiner’s declination to resolve that issue.
. Nor does it make a difference that she offered to do the clerical work of an employee who was to be continued on clerical duties, and thus release her for production. The company says this shows she was not truly sympathetic to the strike. Good conscience requires no such counsel of perfection. Cf. United States v. Stoppelman, 1 Cir., 1969, 406 F.2d 127, cert. denied 395 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 2141, 23 L.Ed.2d 769.

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

Choices:

Answer: 1