Opinion ID: 412704
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discharge of Anenburn

Text: 24 The events leading to the discharge of Ms. Anenburn occurred during the morning of November 20, 1979. Ms. Anenburn was working the 7:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m. shift on the third floor of the Avraham facility at that time. Shortly after commencing work on that day, Anenburn was informed that one of her patients, Mrs. Serena Dimant, was unable to breathe without serious difficulty. Anenburn promptly paged Assistant Director Palma to apprise her of the situation. 25 Palma explained that when she arrived in Mrs. Dimant's room, Anenburn was checking the patient's vital signs. Palma further testified that Anenburn administered oxygen to Mrs. Dimant and competently cared for the patient while she left to call for an ambulance. The parties concede that during the entire Dimant incident at least one additional registered nurse and one licensed practical nurse were present to assist Mrs. Dimant. Mrs. Dimant subsequently was taken by ambulance to the hospital. She returned, fully recovered, to the Avraham facility the following day. 26 Ms. Anenburn was notified during the Dimant incident that her mother had called the Avraham Home and had indicated that she was not feeling well. Ms. Palma noticed later that morning that Anenburn was preoccupied with the state of her mother's health. Palma decided to give Anenburn permission to leave work early so that she might care for her mother. Director Milano conceded that management knew Anenburn had permission to leave work early. She also testified that Ms. Palma was fully authorized by the Company to grant such requests. In fact, Milano observed Anenburn leaving early on that date but did not attempt to ascertain the reasons for her departure. 27 Director Milano telephoned Anenburn later that evening and indicated to her that management would expect a doctor's note explaining why her mother's condition had required hospitalization. Anenburn stated to Milano that even though her mother was diabetic and hypertensive, her condition did not warrant hospitalization. She thus explained that it would be impossible to get a doctor's note. 28 Upon reporting to work the next morning, November 21, 1979, Anenburn noticed that her punch card was not in its usual place. She was instructed at that time to report to the nursing office. Anenburn subsequently met with Mr. Gary Stern 8 and Director Milano in the nursing office. Prior to commencing this interview, however, Anenburn requested that another employee be present during the course of the meeting. 9 When Mr. Stern denied this request, Anenburn indicated that she would not meet with Stern and Milano alone. Stern promptly informed Anenburn: So I told her under those circumstances she could take her coat and go home, she was terminated. See J.App. at 196. Anenburn was not given an official reason for her discharge at that time, nor did she receive an official termination notice. Mr. Stern did testify at the administrative proceeding, however, that Anenburn was terminated because she abandoned a dying patient. See J.App. at 14. 29 The ALJ found the Company's asserted reason for discharging Anenburn to be clearly pretextual. See J.App. at 14. He credited the testimony of Anenburn and Palma and noted that the statements of these witnesses were largely corroborated by the nursing supervisor at the Avraham facility, Mrs. Elsa Wilson. 10 The judge also found that the Company was aware that Anenburn had permission to leave early on November 20, 1979, and that the evidence offered at the administrative proceeding conclusively proved that Ms. Anenburn performed her duties professionally and competently during the Dimant incident. He concluded that: 30 I find that Annenburn [sic] gave proper care to the patient, Mrs. Dimant. She was then given permission by Palma, who had authority to give such permission, to leave the Home. Milano and Stern knew that she was given that permission before they terminated her. I find that Annenburn's [sic] termination was a culmination of events which started with the giving of the warning notice and then the refusal to approve the request for leave. These actions were taken by Respondent because of Annenburn's [sic] activity on behalf of Local 144 and because of her appearance at the Board hearing on November 15. 31 In re American Geri-Care, Inc., NLRB, JD-(NY)-57-81, at 8 (June 15, 1981), reprinted in J.App. at 1, 15. The ALJ cited American Geri-Care for violations of Sections 8(a)(1), (3) and (4) of the Act, based upon his findings of unlawful discharge. The Board subsequently adopted these findings. 32 There is substantial evidence to support the Board's ruling that American Geri-Care was motivated by anti-union animus, not sound business judgment, when discharging Shirley Anenburn. See United Aircraft Corp. v. NLRB, 440 F.2d at 91; NLRB v. International Metal Specialties, Inc., 433 F.2d at 871. Management has not offered any persuasive evidence to support its contention that Anenburn abandoned a dying patient. Indeed, the individuals who were present during the Dimant incident each testified at the NLRB proceeding that Anenburn performed her duties professionally and capably when administering to Mrs. Dimant. The ALJ credited this testimony and management has been unable to show that the statements of Ms. Palma, Mrs. Wilson, or Ms. Anenburn were hopelessly incredible or irrational. NLRB v. Columbia University, 541 F.2d at 928; NLRB v. Dinion Coil Co., 201 F.2d at 490. This is not a case where the employer has accumulated strong evidence of employee neglect or incompetence, 11 or where there is substantial probative evidence both supporting and refuting charges of unlawful management motivation. 12 Rather, the evidence presented at the administrative proceeding revealed that Anenburn was a capable employee who was subjected to three acts of management harassment within the space of one week--the tardiness notice, the denial of vacation leave, and the discharge--precisely because she had engaged in protected union activity. 33 Counsel for management argues, however, that the ALJ erred when he applied the so-called Wright Line test to the facts of this case. In Wright Line, A Division of Wright Line Inc., 251 N.L.R.B. 1083 (1980), enf'd on other grounds, 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1612, 71 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982), the Board announced that it would henceforth shift the burden of proof in dual-motive discharge cases. 251 N.L.R.B. at 1087-88. Under this approach, once the General Counsel has made a strong prima facie showing of unlawful motivation, the burden of proof shifts to the employer. To prevail, management must show that it would have taken the same action even if the employee had not engaged in protected labor activity. Id. The Board noted in Wright Line that the burden shift contemplated by its decision had been applied by the Supreme Court in Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 576, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977), where a public employee alleged that a motivating factor in the non-renewal of his contract was his constitutionally protected activities. 34 Counsel for management concedes that the Mt. Healthy test may be proper in constitutional cases, but asserts that it is singularly inappropriate to apply this burden shift in discharge cases under the NLRA. Counsel correctly notes that there is a substantial division in the Circuits over the question of whether the Board may properly shift the burden of proof in discharge cases. 13 35 This Court need not resolve the Wright Line issue in this appeal, however, because there is substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that management's explanation for Anenburn's discharge was clearly pretextual. The ALJ specifically noted at two points in his administrative decision that the Company's justification for terminating Anenburn, i.e., for abandoning a dying patient, was mere pretext. In re American Geri-Care, Inc., NLRB, JD-(NY)-57-81, at 7, 12 (June 15, 1981), reprinted in J.App. at 14, 19. 36 Once the finding of pretext is made, and is supported by substantial evidence in the enforcement proceeding, the adjudication is complete and neither the Board nor the Court need engage in the Wright Line analysis. NLRB v. Charles Batchelder Co., 646 F.2d 33, 39 (2d Cir.1981). 14 In his concurring opinion in Batchelder Judge Newman has argued that the burden shift espoused in Wright Line cannot be applied in pretext cases and is appropriate, if at all, only in the second type of discharge case, the dual motive case. Id. at 43. Indeed, implicit in the finding of pretext is the judgment of the court that the employer has not marshalled any convincing evidence to support its position. Thus, any reference in this action to the Wright Line standard was unnecessary and does not detract from the Board's finding of pretext. 37 We are, of course, mindful of the Supreme Court's statement in SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87, 63 S.Ct. 454, 459, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943), that [t]he grounds upon which an administrative order must be judged are those upon which the record discloses that its action was based. But the Chenery doctrine, as Professor Davis has rightly said, has been softened in its application. 3 K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise Sec. 14.29, at 130 (2d ed. 1980). It does not mean that a reversal and remand are required each and every time an administrative agency assigns a wrong reason for its action; rather, it requires reversal and remand only where there is a significant chance that but for the error, the agency might have reached a different result. See NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 766 n. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1426, 1430 n. 6, 22 L.Ed.2d 709 (1969) (plurality opinion); Massachusetts Trustees of Eastern Gas & Fuel Associates v. United States, 377 U.S. 235, 248, 84 S.Ct. 1236, 1245, 12 L.Ed.2d 268 (1964); Friendly, Chenery Revisited: Reflections On Reversal And Remand Of Administrative Orders, 1969 Duke L.J. 199, 210-11. We are convinced in this case that even if we were to find the Board's Wright Line test to be inconsistent with the NLRA, reversal and remand would be an idle and useless formality, NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. at 766 n. 6, 89 S.Ct. at 1430 n. 6, because there is not the slightest doubt that the Board would simply reaffirm its order on the ground that the employer's reasons for discharging Anenburn were clearly pretextual. 38 Finally, it should be noted that even the First Circuit, which has most vigorously opposed the burden shift contemplated in Wright Line, routinely enforces orders that rely on the Wright Line analysis so long as the Board has also made a supportable finding of pretext. Where the Board's decision has not turned on the niceties of burdens of proof, NLRB v. Magnesium Casting Co., 668 F.2d 13, 16 (1st Cir.1981), the First Circuit has concluded that no remand is necessary. See NLRB v. Steinerfilm, Inc., 669 F.2d 845, 850 (1st Cir.1982); NLRB v. Wright Line, A Division of Wright Line, Inc., 662 F.2d 899, 907 n. 13 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1612, 71 L.Ed.2d 848 (1982). 15 39 The Court orders that the decision of the Board on the discharge issue be enforced according to the terms outlined in the administrative opinion.