Court Opinion

ID: 2964679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:29:25.1233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:08.599049
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1826

                             YESTERDAY'S CHILDREN, INC.,

                            Petitioner, Cross-Respondent,

                                          v.

                           NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

                            Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.

                                 ____________________

                      PETITION FOR REVIEW AND CROSS-APPLICATION
                            FOR ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER OF
                          THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

               Clare  Hudson Payne,  with whom  Eaton, Peabody,  Bradford &
               ___________________              ___________________________
          Veague, P.A. was on brief, for petitioner.
          ____________
               David B. Schwartz, Attorney,  with whom Frederick C. Havard,
               _________________                       ___________________
          Supervisory  Attorney, Frederick  L. Feinstein,  General Counsel,
                                 _______________________
          Linda Sher,  Associate General Counsel, and  Aileen A. Armstrong,
          __________                                   ___________________
          Deputy Associate General Counsel, were on brief, for respondent.

                                 ____________________

                                     May 30, 1997
                                 ____________________

                      LYNCH, Circuit Judge.  The National Labor Relations
                      LYNCH, Circuit Judge.
                             _____________

            Board filed a host of unfair labor practice charges under   8

            of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.   158, against

            Yesterday's Children.   Yesterday's Children is  a non-profit

            corporation which  operates,  among other  facilities,  Agape

            House,1  a  20-bed  residential  nursing  home  for  mentally

            retarded  adults in Ellsworth, Maine.   Evidence was heard in

            October 1993 by an  Administrative Law Judge, who recommended

            dismissal  of  all  the   charges,  based  in  part  on   his

            credibility  determinations  after  observing the  witnesses.

            His  decision was  reviewed by  a  three-member panel  of the

            NLRB.

                      The case comes  here with only  two of the  various

            charges  still at  issue:   charges relating  to disciplinary

            actions taken against two employees,  nursing assistant Laura

            Cunningham  and charge  nurse Jean  Smith.   As to  these two

            charges,  the  Board  reversed  the ALJ  and  found  that the

            employer's actions  were illegal  because the conduct  of the

            two employees was protected  by   7 of the  Act, 29 U.S.C.   

            157.   Cunningham  had been  issued  a written  reprimand for

            "conduct unbecoming" after calling  a co-worker to enlist her

            support  in  a letter-writing  campaign  to  the employer  in

            support of a recently discharged  supervisor.  Smith had been

                                
            ____________________

            1.  During this  litigation, the facility's  name was changed
            from Agape House to Birchwood Living Center.

                                         -2-
                                          2

            issued   two  written   reprimands   and   then   discharged,

            purportedly for  her role in two  incidents involving patient

            care.

                      The  Board ordered  reinstatement and back  pay for

            Smith and ordered the removal of the reprimands of both Smith

            and  Cunningham  from  the  employer's  files.    Yesterday's

            Children  petitions this  court for  review, and  the General

            Counsel cross-petitions,  seeking  enforcement of  the  Board

            order.  We enforce the Smith order, but vacate the Cunningham

            order  and remand that portion  of the case  to the Board for

            further consideration.

                                          I.

                      The facts  are now largely undisputed.   During the

            first half of  1992 Laura Cunningham was  a nursing assistant

            at  Agape  House,  and  Smith  was  a  charge  nurse2  there.

            Cunningham had been  working at Agape  House since 1988,  and

            Smith since 1985.  In January 1992, Jeffrey Cake was hired as

            the  Executive  Director  of  Yesterday's  Children  and  the

            Administrator of Agape House.

                      In mid-June 1992, Cunningham and Smith attempted to

            start a  letter-writing campaign  to the employer's  Board of

            Directors  in  support  of  the  recently  discharged  Glenda

                                
            ____________________

            2.  The  record  does  not  reveal the  specific  duties  and
            responsibilities of charge nurses at Agape House.  It appears
            that the charge  nurse is the  head nurse on  a given  shift,
            that  is,  the  person  at  the  facility  who  is  primarily
            responsible for the medical care of the residents.

                                         -3-
                                          3

            Leavitt.  Leavitt is  alternately described in the  record as

            the  "Program Director"  at  Agape House  and the  "Qualified

            Mental  Retardation Professional"  ("QMRP") at  Agape House.3

            Leavitt had been fired by Cake on June 11, after  a series of

            letters  from state  authorities  led Cake  to conclude  that

            Leavitt did not have the required professional qualifications

            for the position.   At the time of  the campaign, Leavitt was

            appealing her dismissal  to Yesterday's  Children's Board  of

            Directors.

                      On  June 13,  Cunningham  called  Lucinda  Sargent,

            another  nursing assistant,  at home  from a  nursing station

            telephone to try  to enlist Sargent's support  in the letter-

            writing  campaign.    Resolving  a  factual  dispute  between

            Cunningham and  Sargent, the  ALJ determined  that Cunningham

            made the  call during  her  work shift.   The  Board did  not

            question  this finding.   Cunningham made  several derogatory

            remarks  about   Cake  in   the  course  of   this  telephone

            conversation, referring  to him  as an "asshole,"  and saying

            that she would like to "get rid of" him. 

                                
            ____________________

            3.   Whatever her title, the record reflects that Leavitt was
            in  charge of  the implementation  and development  of active
            treatment   services  for   the  residents.     It   was  her
            responsibility to assess, evaluate, and  make recommendations
            to  an  interdisciplinary  team  of employees  on  goals  and
            objectives for the residents and to monitor and  review those
            plans as they  were implemented.   She was  also involved  in
            employee scheduling. 

                                         -4-
                                          4

                      Sargent complained to her supervisor, Gayle Haslam,

            about  the call.  Haslam  reported the incident  to Cake, who

            wrote a letter to Cunningham stating that her call to Sargent

            "during regular working hours" was, if the facts as  reported

            to  him were accurate, "just cause for dismissal."  Cake then

            met personally  with Cunningham to discuss  the incident, and

            concluded  that  Cunningham's  effort  was  directed  not  at

            supporting Leavitt, but at getting him (Cake) fired.

                      A  few days  later, Cake  sent Cunningham  a second

            letter which  constituted a "formal  reprimand" for  "conduct

            unbecoming."    On  a  contemporaneous  "employee  counseling

            form,"  Cake noted  that  he had  reprimanded Cunningham  for

            "using  agency  resources and  time  to  agitate against  the

            actions  of the  administration including  attempts to  place

            undue stress on other  staff while on duty."   Cunningham was

            not fired.4

                      The conflicts  between Cake and  Smith ran  deeper.

            Almost  immediately   upon  Cake's  arrival   at  Yesterday's

            Children,  the two were at odds.   The ALJ traced this enmity

            to  January 1992, when a group of employees submitted to Cake

                                
            ____________________

            4.  A  second   unfair   labor  practice   charge   regarding
            Cunningham  involved an alleged "interrogation" of Cunningham
            by Cake in  response to rumors of a strike  in protest of the
            firing of  Leavitt.  Cunningham claimed  that Cake threatened
            to fire any  employee who  walked out, but  the ALJ  credited
            Cake's corroborated  testimony that  he made no  such threat.
            The  Board upheld the ALJ's dismissal of this charge, and the
            General Counsel does not press this claim on appeal.

                                         -5-
                                          5

            a  letter  requesting the  reinstatement  of  Liz Martin,  an

            employee  Cake had  fired.   Smith's  name  led the  list  of

            signatories.5    Then,  in  early  February,  Smith   angrily

            confronted Cake, in front of another employee, over a memo he

            had issued to employees stating  that he intended to withhold

            paychecks for a week to enable the  corporation to ride out a

            cash  flow crisis.  Cake  issued Smith an  official letter of

            reprimand after this incident,  which he later withdrew after

            Smith explained her views to him in greater detail.

                      In  June, Cake  discharged  Leavitt, and  Smith was

            among   the  employees   who  supported  Leavitt's   bid  for

            reinstatement.    Smith  and Cunningham  initiated  a letter-

            writing campaign on Leavitt's  behalf.  Additionally, on July

            12, Smith and Leavitt met  with representatives of the Office

            &  Professional  Employees   International  Union   regarding

            organizing  the facility.   Then,  on July  14, Smith  read a

            prepared letter in support of Leavitt to the employer's Board

            of  Directors, which  was meeting  at a  local hotel  to hear

            Leavitt's  appeal  of  her termination.6    Smith's statement

            included  sharp  criticism of  Cake.    After discussing  the

            circumstances of  Leavitt's dismissal by Cake,  for instance,

            Smith claimed "no professionalism was exhibited."  She stated

                                
            ____________________

            5.  Cunningham  also  signed this  letter,  a  fact noted  by
            neither the ALJ nor the Board.  In addition, thirty-one other
            employees signed the letter.

            6.  This appeal was ultimately denied.

                                         -6-
                                          6

            that  Cake   "has  managed  to  frighten   [the  staff]  into

            submission and silence by  threatening them with lawsuits and

            their  jobs."   Smith  also criticized  Cake's budget-cutting

            decisions, which, she claimed,  had caused a deterioration in

            the physical appearance of Agape House, posing health hazards

            to the residents.  During the meeting, the  Union distributed

            flyers outside on the street.  

                      Smith  was  also  involved  in   two  patient  care

            incidents  in July  1992.   One was denominated  the "choking

            incident."   On  July 10,  Smith was  at the  nursing station

            talking  with Dale  Zebulske, Leavitt's replacement  as QMRP,

            when they heard a brief scuffle a short distance away.  After

            peering down the hall, Smith said to Zebulske, whose back was

            to the incident, "Patient ___ is choking patient ___."  Smith

            claims to have been joking and claims that there had  been no

            choking at all.   Zebulske, however, did not realize  she was

            joking.  Later that day, Zebulske happened to be on the phone

            with the mother of the resident he thought was the victim  of

            the choking attack.   Though it was apparently  against Agape

            House policy,7 he  mentioned the incident to the  mother, who

            later complained to state  authorities.  Although Smith would

                                
            ____________________

            7.  No  explicit findings  were made  on this point,  but the
            Board  apparently credited Smith's  undisputed testimony that
            Yesterday's Children policy prohibited anyone other  than the
            staff   social  worker,   Philip   Hurley,  from   contacting
            residents'  parents about  incidents  like the  one  Zebulske
            thought had occurred.

                                         -7-
                                          7

            be required to write up an "incident report" in  the event of

            an  incident like the one Zebulske believed occurred, she did

            not doso (because,according toher, therehad beenno incident).

                      On July  16, at  the  request of  Joan Abbott,  the

            acting Director  of Nursing,8  Smith wrote an  explanation of

            the  phantom incident; she said that  she had simply remarked

            to  Zebulske that it "looked  like" one of  the residents was

            "going to choke"  the other,  but that she  had no idea  that

            Zebulske understood her to  be saying that a choking  attempt

            had  in  fact  been made.    (Later,  at  the hearing,  Smith

            testified  that  she had  been joking  and  that she  had not

            realized that  Zebulske was taking  her seriously.)   On July

            21, Goss verbally counseled Smith for her "poor judgment" and

            issued a written confirmation of the counseling.  Cake signed

            off on this written confirmation.

                      The second patient care episode was denominated the

            "sunburn  incident."  On July 16, a resident returned from an

            outing  with a serious sunburn on his shoulder.  Verna Chick,

            a  staff  member who  had been  on  the outing,  reported the

            sunburn  to Cake and  to Smith, who  was the  charge nurse on

            duty at the time.   As required, Chick wrote  up an "incident

            report."

                                
            ____________________

            8.  Abbott,  a   nurse  at   Agape  House,  was   filling  in
            temporarily  for  Betty  Goss,  the  facility's  Director  of
            Nursing, while Goss was on vacation.

                                         -8-
                                          8

                      Smith   applied  another   resident's  prescription

            Silvadene  ointment  to  the  sunburn.9    Smith  noted  this

            treatment  on  Chick's  incident  report,  and  also  made  a

            notation  in  the "24-hour  notebook,"  a  notebook in  which

            nurses  on  different  shifts  communicate  with  each  other

            concerning patient matters.  She did not, however, record the

            incident  in  the  "medical   logbook"  (the  book  in  which

            individualized records concerning each resident are kept) and

            did  not enter it into the "nursing notes" (the formal record

            of nursing actions).10  These were both violations of policy.

                      Later, Smith told Ben Starbuck, the charge nurse in

            the  next shift  (the  overnight shift),  about the  sunburn.

            Starbuck checked  the resident's  sunburn while  the resident

            slept  but took no other  action.  Starbuck,  in turn, claims

            that he informed Virginia Conklin, the charge nurse  who took

            over in the morning,  about the sunburn.  Conklin  later told

            Cake she had  not been informed  of the  sunburn, but at  the

            hearing admitted that she had been told.  Some time the  next

            morning,  during Conklin's  shift, nursing  assistant Sargent

                                
            ____________________

            9.  The state  investigators, who came in  later, erroneously
            concluded  that the  resident's  sunburn went  untreated  for
            sixteen hours.   Both the ALJ and the  Board found that Smith
            had in fact promptly treated the sunburn with Silvadene.

            10.   After  receiving a written reprimand  about the sunburn
            incident, however (see  below), Smith was  advised by one  of
            the state  investigators  to  prepare  a late  entry  in  the
            nursing notes stating that she had applied Silvadene ointment
            to the sunburn.  She did this.

                                         -9-
                                          9

            (the  nursing  assistant  whom  Cunningham had  called  about

            Leavitt) allowed  the sunburned  resident to get  into a  hot

            whirlpool  bath,  which  caused  extreme  blistering  of  the

            sunburn.   Sargent, who claims  that she had  not known about

            the sunburn,  told Conklin about  the problem.   Conklin then

            went to  Cake,  at  which  time Conklin  denied  having  been

            informed  about the  sunburn.   Conklin then  arranged  for a

            prescription of Silvadene ointment for the resident.

                      On  July  27,  three  inspectors  from   the  State

            Department of  Human Services, which  had received  anonymous

            complaints about  Agape House,  showed up unannounced  at the

            facility to investigate,  inter alia, the two  incidents.  At
                                      _____ ____

            the end of their  visit, the state investigators gave  Goss a

            hand-written list of deficiencies.  Several shortcomings were

            noted, including  the sunburn  incident (but not  the choking

            incident).    The  listed  deficiencies  were:   (1)  failure

            properly  to  treat  a  resident for  an  ear  infection; (2)

            treatment of  a resident with a psychotropic drug without the

            consent  of his  guardian;  (3) failure  to establish  proper

            procedures for  the use  of two psychotropic  drugs; and  (4)

            failure  to treat a sunburn  for sixteen hours.   An official

            letter  of  violation  followed  on   August  19,  materially

            identical to the July 27 hand-written list.

                        On  July  28,  Smith,  along  with  fifteen other

            employees, attended a Union  organizing meeting and signed an

                                         -10-
                                          10

            authorization card.  The  next day, Goss told Cake  about the

            meeting, but it is  unclear from the record whether  she told

            him, or  he otherwise  discovered, that  Smith was  among the

            employees who had attended the meeting.

                      On August 4, Goss issued Smith two separate written

            reprimands  for her  role  in the  sunburn  incident and  the

            choking incident.  The choking incident reprimand stated that

            James  Barnes,  one  of   the  state  inspectors,  "was  very

            concerned  about the  issue of  your judgement [sic]  and not

            satisfied  with the  administrators [sic]  recommendations of

            counseling."   However, Barnes  testified before the  ALJ and

            denied having  ever expressed any such  dissatisfaction.  The

            sunburn incident  reprimand stated  that Smith's  "failure to

            note [the sunburn] within  [the patient's] medical records or

            examine him  carefully, resulted in  his being placed  in the

            whirlpool . . . ."  The  letter went on  to state that  Smith

            "failed  to properly act, both in terms of record keeping and

            in terms of making recommendations to the nurse assuming duty

            after [her] shift."

                      On  August  10, Smith  was  fired.   The  discharge

            letter from Cake cited her conduct in the sunburn and choking

            incidents  and  her  lack  of   "consistent  good  judgment."

            Smith's appeal of  her termination to the  board of directors

            was denied.

                                         II.

                                         -11-
                                          11

                      Because  the  employer asserts  that  there  is not

            substantial  evidence  supporting  the  Board's  unfair labor

            practice determinations,  and because  the Board and  the ALJ

            reached contrary conclusions, it is helpful to understand the

            opinions of the Board and of the ALJ.

            Cunningham
            __________

                      The ALJ  found that  Cake "honestly"  believed that

            Cunningham,  in  calling  Sargent,  was   agitating  for  his

            dismissal.  This aspect of  the call, said the ALJ, was  what

            "bothered  Cake the most."  The ALJ found that the phone call

            "was  clearly divorced . . . from any activity under the Act"

            both  because  it was  made  on  company time  using  company

            resources  (the   nursing  station  phone)  and   because  of

            Cunningham's  derogatory  remarks  about Cake.    Hence,  the

            letter  of reprimand from Cake, concluded  the ALJ, though it

            "may   have  not  been   completely  appropriate,"  was  "not

            unlawful."

                      On  appeal, the  Board,  without analyzing  whether

            Cunningham's call was protected  by   7,11 ruled that  it did

                                
            ____________________

            11.  Section 7 provides, in relevant part, that:
                           Employees  shall  have the  right to
                      self-organization,  to   form,  join,  or
                      assist  labor  organizations, to  bargain
                      collectively  through representatives  of
                      their  own  choosing,  and  to  engage in
                      other   concerted   activities  for   the
                      purpose of collective bargaining or other
                      mutual aid and protection . . . .
            29 U.S.C.   157.

                                         -12-
                                          12

            not lose  the protection of  the Act because  it was  made on

            company time or because of the derogatory remarks.  The Board

            reversed  the   ALJ,  finding  that   the  employer  violated

              8(a)(1).12

                      The remarks  about Cake, said the  Board, were "not

            so egregious as  to cause her to  lose the protection of  the

            Act."  The  prime focus of Cunningham's efforts, reasoned the

            Board,  was not  to get  Cake fired  but was  to  get Leavitt

            reinstated, adding:

                      [E]mployees  who are engaged in Section 7
                      activity in  protest of actions  by their
                      employer  do not  lose the  protection of
                      the  Act simply because they mention that
                      they  dislike  an  employer  manager  and
                      would like to see the manager discharged.

            The Board  stressed that there is no evidence that Cunningham

            took any affirmative steps to get Cake fired.

                      Without discussing  whether  an employee's  use  of

            company time and company  resources to engage in the  kind of

            activity at  issue here might justify a  reprimand, the Board

            stated  that the  employer had  failed to  establish that  it

            disciplined Cunningham  for  this reason.   The  disciplinary

            action,  said the  Board, was  in response  to  the offensive

            remarks, not  to Cunningham's use of  company resources, and,

            on these facts, this was impermissible.

                                
            ____________________

            12.  Section 8(a)(1) provides:  "It shall  be an unfair labor
            practice  for an  employer  to interfere  with, restrain,  or
            coerce  employees in  the  exercise of  rights guaranteed  in
            [  7]."  29 U.S.C.  158(a)(1).

                                         -13-
                                          13

            Smith
            _____

                      The Board's General Counsel asserted that Smith was

            fired for her engagement in activities protected under   7 of

            the Act.  In contrast, the employer argued that she was fired

            for her poor judgment and breach of proper protocol.  The ALJ

            employed  the Wright  Line  burden-shifting  paradigm in  his
                          ____________

            analysis.    See  Wright  Line,  251  N.L.R.B.  1083  (1980),
                         ___  ____________

            enforced, 662 F.2d 899  (1st Cir. 1981).   He found that  the
            ________

            General  Counsel had  failed to  "make a prima  facie showing

            sufficient to  support the inference  that conduct  protected

            under  the Act was a motivating factor" in Smith's reprimands

            and  discharge.  The ALJ  found that "Smith's  actions in the

            'choking'  and 'sunburn'  incidents did  prompt, in  part the

            state  investigation" and  that this,  "together with  Cake's

            personal dislike  for Smith," resulted in  the reprimands and

            termination.  Thus,  the burden never shifted to the employer

            to show that the  punishment would have occurred even  in the

            absence of  protected conduct  and the analysis  ended there.

            The ALJ concluded that there was no unfair labor practice.

                      The Board, on appeal, reversed, finding a violation

            of    8(a)(1)  under  the same  Wright  Line  burden-shifting
                                            ____________

            analysis.  The elements  necessary to make out a  prima facie

            case,  stated the Board,  are "protected activity, knowledge,

            timing,  and animus."  The Board said that all these elements

            were  met  here.   Smith engaged  in  a variety  of protected

                                         -14-
                                          14

            activities; the  employer knew about her  engagement in these

            activities; her reprimands and her termination were in "close

            proximity"  to the  employer's  learning about  her protected

            activities;  and  the   employer's  animus  "toward   Smith's

            protected  activities  in  particular,  and   its  employees'

            protected activities in general, is clear."

                      The  Board agreed with the  ALJ that Cake had acted

            out  of a personal dislike for Smith, but disagreed about the

            import of this fact:

                      Cake's dislike of  Smith arose  initially
                      from   Cake's   resentment   of   Smith's
                      protected   activities. . . .  Thus,   as
                      Cake's dislike began from  animosity over
                      protected  activity,  we infer  that this
                      "dislike" was a product of  animus toward
                      Smith's protected activity.

            Thus, the  Board found that the  General Counsel successfully

            made out his prima facie case.

                      The  burden then shifted,  on the Board's analysis,

            to  Yesterday's   Children  to   show  that  it   would  have

            disciplined and  discharged Smith even if she had not engaged

            in protected activities.  The Board found that the employer's

            proffered   explanation  --   that  Smith   failed  to   show

            "'consistent    good   judgment    in   [her]    duties   and

            responsibilities' with respect to the  'sunburn' and choking'

            incidents"  --  was pretextual,  and  that  the employer  had

            "failed to show that it  would have taken the same  action in

            the absence of Smith's protected activity."

                                         -15-
                                          15

                      With regard to  the "choking  incident," the  Board

            noted that Zebulske, who violated company policy by informing

            the  resident's mother  about  the phantom  incident, was  at

            least  equally responsible  for the state  investigation, and

            yet was not disciplined  at all.  Additionally, the  August 4

            reprimand  from Goss  explained,  in light  of the  fact that

            Smith had already been scolded on July 21 for her role in the

            incident, that further reproach  was in order because Barnes,

            one of the state investigators, was concerned about the issue

            of Smith's judgment and dissatisfied with the leniency of the

            counseling.   Barnes, however, testified at  the hearing that

            he had stated no such concern or dissatisfaction.

                      Regarding   the   "sunburn  incident,"   the  Board

            challenged Cake's explanation that  Goss issued the reprimand

            to Smith  on  August  4  based on  the  state  investigators'

            report,  which found  that Smith  had engaged  in  "abuse" by

            neglecting  to treat the  resident's sunburn.   The Board, in

            discrediting this explanation, noted  that the report did not

            issue  until  August 19,  after the  reprimand and  after the

            discharge.13   Additionally,  while the  state investigators'

                                
            ____________________

            13.  The Board misread the  record.  The state investigators,
            on the day of their investigation, July 27, gave Cake a hand-
            written list of deficiencies, which foreshadowed their formal
            findings.    The  sunburn   incident  was  listed  among  the
            deficiencies  on  this  note:   "Client  suffered  a  sunburn
            resulting in blisters  on left shoulder  and not treated  for
            over  16  hours."    The  formal  letter,  dated  August  19,
            reiterated: "[C]lient  sustained a sunburn  on 7/16/92, while
            at day  program,  which  resulted in  blisters  to  his  left

                                         -16-
                                          16

            report  referenced  by  Goss's  letter  of  reprimand  listed

            various  deficiencies at  Agape House,  the Board  noted that

            only Smith was disciplined in response to these deficiencies.

                      In conclusion, the Board said:

                      [H]aving found that  the General  Counsel
                      established a prima facie case warranting
                      an inference that  Smith was  reprimanded
                      and   subsequently  discharged   for  her
                      protected concerted  activity, and having
                      found   that   [Yesterday's   Children's]
                      explanations   for   its   actions   were
                      pretextual and that the actual reason for
                      Smith's reprimands and discharge were her
                      protected   concerted    activities,   we
                      conclude   that   [Yesterday's  Children]
                      violated Section  8(a)(1) by reprimanding
                      and subsequently discharging Smith.

                                         III.

                      Our standard  of review for decisions  of the Board

            is a deferential one.  "As the Board is primarily responsible

            for developing and applying a coherent national labor policy,

            we  accord its  decisions considerable  deference."   NLRB v.
                                                                  ____

            Boston  Dist. Council of  Carpenters, 80  F.3d 662,  665 (1st
            ____________________________________

            Cir.  1996)   (internal  citation  omitted).     We  may  not

            substitute our judgment  for the Board's  when the choice  is

                                
            ____________________

            shoulder.   The physician was  not notified and treatment was
            not administered until  7/17/92."  The criticisms  in the two
            writings  are  fundamentally  the  same;  the  formal  letter
            contained  no  new details.    The Board  therefore  erred in
            determining that  the employer could  not have relied  on the
            state investigators' findings on August 4 and August 10.
                      The investigators' citation erroneously stated that
            Smith failed to  treat the sunburn.   In fact, she  did treat
            it, but  with another  resident's prescription ointment.   In
            either event, she violated nursing policy.

                                         -17-
                                          17

            "between two fairly conflicting  views, even though the court

            would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter

            been before it de novo."  Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340
                                      ______________________    ____

            U.S.  474, 488 (1951).  This is  not to say, however, that we

            simply "rubber stamp" the decisions of the Board.  See Kelley
                                                               ___ ______

            v. NLRB,  79 F.3d 1238, 1244  (1st Cir. 1996).   We enforce a
               ____

            Board order only if  the Board correctly applied the  law and

            if its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence

            on the  record.  Acme  Tile & Terrazzo  Co. v. NLRB,  87 F.3d
                             __________________________    ____

            558, 560 (1st Cir. 1996); Boston Dist. Council of Carpenters,
                                      __________________________________

            80 F.3d at 665; see N.L.R.A.   10(e), 29 U.S.C.   160(e).
                            ___

                      We address separately the  Board's two findings  of

            unfair labor practices.

            Cunningham
            __________

                      There can, of course,  be no violation of   8(a)(1)

            by the employer  if there is no underlying   7 conduct by the

            employee.   Conduct must  be both concerted  and protected to

            fall within    7.  In finding a   8(a)(1) violation, however,

            neither the Board nor the ALJ analyzed the issue, a close one

            in this case, of  whether Cunningham's concerted activity was

            protected by    7.  This  compels a remand  to the Board  for

            further consideration.

                      The ALJ found that:

                      Cunningham's  phone  call to  Sargent was
                      improper  because it was  a personal call
                      made during working time from the nursing
                      station phone, rather than the employee's

                                         -18-
                                          18

                      phone.  But what bothered  Cake the most,
                      understandably,   was    the   derogatory
                      remarks made about him . . . .  That part
                      of Cunningham's call to Sargent regarding
                      support for Leavitt  could be  considered
                      protected  concerted  activity, if  taken
                      alone,  but other  aspects  of  the  call
                      (which  bothered  Cake the  most) clearly
                      divorced  the  call  from   any  activity
                      protected under the Act.

                      The  Board,  in reversing  the  ALJ  and finding  a

            violation  of   8(a)(1),  misinterpreted the  ALJ's reasoning

            and in so doing "glossed over the analytically tough question

            presented here."  NLRB v. Auciello Iron Works, Inc., 980 F.2d
                              ____    _________________________

            804,  811 (1st  Cir. 1992).   The  Board stated that  the ALJ

            "found that  Cunningham's efforts  on behalf of  Leavitt were

            concerted and protected," but that

                      [c]ontrary to  the [ALJ], we  do not find
                      that  Cunningham's  activities  lost  the
                      protection  of the Act either because (1)
                      the  conversation   contained  derogatory
                      remarks   about   Cake,   or    (2)   the
                      conversation alluded to the  discharge of
                      Cake, or (3) the  telephone call was made
                      during  working  time  from  the  nursing
                      station.

            The  difficulty with the Board's position is that the ALJ did

            not find  that Cunningham's  action was protected;  he simply
            ___

            posited that even if her act were protected it would lose its
                         ____ __

            protection because of the manner in which she acted.

                      The end  result is  that neither  the  ALJ nor  the

            Board  addressed the  basic  legal  issue underlying  whether

            Cunningham's  phone call  was  protected by    7:   Leavitt's

                                         -19-
                                          19

            undisputed  status  as  a  "supervisor"14   and  the  special

            standards under    7 pertaining  to employee protests  of the

            employer's supervisor-related actions.

                      The  General Counsel argues that the Board properly

            understood the ALJ's analysis.  This assertion is undermined,

            however,  by  the ALJ's  failure  even  to mention  Leavitt's

            status as  a  supervisor,  let alone  that  such  status  was

            relevant to  the   7 inquiry.  The ALJ, on our reading of his

            decision, did  not find that Cunningham's  call was protected

            by  the Act,  and  the Board  erred  in concluding  that  the

            conduct was  protected  without undertaking  the  appropriate

            legal  analysis.    The  correct analysis,  as  both  parties

            implicitly recognized, must begin  with the fact that Leavitt

            was  a "supervisor"  for purposes  of the  Act, see  N.L.R.A.
                                                            ___

              2(11),  29  U.S.C.   152(11),  and that  Cunningham's phone

            call  was at  best an  employee protest  about  a supervisory

            staffing matter.

                      It is  fundamental to the structure of the Act that

            "not all  forms of employee protest  over supervisory changes

            are  per se  protected."   Puerto Rico  Food Prods.  Corp. v.
                                       _______________________________

            NLRB, 619 F.2d 153, 155 (1st Cir. 1980); Abilities & Goodwill
            ____                                     ____________________

            Inc. v. NLRB, 612 F.2d 6, 8-10 (1st Cir. 1979); see also NLRB
            ____    ____                                    ___ ____ ____

            v.  Sheraton Puerto  Rico Corp.,  651 F.2d  49, 51  (1st Cir.
                ___________________________

                                
            ____________________

            14.  The General Counsel concedes  this point.  Additionally,
            Zebulske, Leavitt's replacement as QMRP, is clearly viewed by
            the General Counsel as a member of management.

                                         -20-
                                          20

            1981) ("[W]hen non-supervisory  employees engage in  activity

            directly  related to  the retention  of supervisors . . . the

            Board  must  proceed  with  caution.").    Section 7  shields

            employees from  hostile employers  when  the employees  seek,

            through union  membership or otherwise, to  band together for

            the  purpose of  "mutual  aid or  protection."   The  guiding

            policy behind   7 is not implicated when supervisors, who are

            management's  "faithful  agents,"  are  the  ones concertedly

            agitating  against the employer's  actions.   Sheraton Puerto
                                                          _______________

            Rico, 651 F.2d at  51 (quoting H.R. Rep No.  245, 80th Cong.,
            ____

            1st Sess.  16-17 (1947));  see N.L.R.A.   2(3),  (11).   And,
                                       ___

            similarly,  the policy  is not  clearly implicated  when non-

            supervisory employee concerted activity  concerns supervisory

            staffing  matters.    "Traditionally,  the  interest  of  the

            employer  in  selecting  its  own management  team  has  been

            recognized and insulated  from protected employee  activity."

            Abilities & Goodwill, 612  F.2d at 8; see also NLRB  v. Oakes
            ____________________                  ___ ____ ____     _____

            Mach. Corp., 897 F.2d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 1990) ("Employee action
            ___________

            seeking to influence the  identity of management hierarchy is

            normally  unprotected activity  because it  lies outside  the

            sphere of legitimate employee interest.").

                      We have held  that two basic  criteria must be  met

            for employee concerted action regarding  supervisory staffing

            matters  to gain  the protection  of   7.   Puerto  Rico Food
                                                        _________________

            Prods., 619 F.2d at 155; Abilities & Goodwill, 612 F.2d at 8-
            ______                   ____________________

                                         -21-
                                          21

            10.    "First,  the   employee  protest  over  a   change  in

            supervisory  personnel must  in fact  be  a protest  over the

            actual  conditions of  their  employment," and  second,  "the

            means  of  protest must  be  reasonable."   Puerto  Rico Food
                                                        _________________

            Prods., 619F.2d at155-56 (internal quotationmarks omitted).15
            ______

                        Because the Board did not analyze this key issue,

            we  vacate the Cunningham order  and remand to  the Board for

            further consideration.  See NLRB v. Acme Tile & Terrazzo Co.,
                                    ___ ____    ________________________

            984 F.2d 555, 555 (1st Cir. 1993) (per curiam); see also Acme
                                                            ___ ____ ____

            Tile &  Terrazzo, 87  F.3d at  560;  cf. NLRB  v. Food  Store
            ________________                     ___ ____     ___________

            Employees  Union, 417  U.S.  1, 9-10  (1974); Sullivan  Bros.
            ________________                              _______________

            Printers, Inc. v. NLRB, 99 F.3d 1217, 1231 (1st Cir. 1996).
            ______________    ____

                      "[T]the task of  defining the scope  of   7 is  for

            the  Board to perform in  the first instance  as it considers

            the wide variety of cases that come before it."  NLRB v. City
                                                             ____    ____

            Disposal  Sys.,  Inc., 465  U.S.  822,  829 (1984)  (internal
            _____________________

                                
            ____________________

            15.  This test, which  traces back at  least half a  century,
            has been fashioned through an interplay between the Board and
            the courts of  appeals.   See, e.g., Phoenix  Mut. Life  Ins.
                                      ___  ____  ________________________
            Co., 73 N.L.R.B.  1463 (1947),  enforced, 167  F.2d 983  (7th
            ___                             ________
            Cir.  1948);   Guernsey-Muskingum  Elec.  Coop.,   Inc.,  124
                           ________________________________________
            N.L.R.B.  818 (1959), enforced,  285 F.2d 8  (6th Cir. 1960);
                                  ________
            Dobbs  Houses, Inc.,  135  N.L.R.B.  885 (1962),  enforcement
            ___________________                               ___________
            denied,  325 F.2d  531  (5th Cir.  1963) (enforcement  denied
            ______
            because employee acts in support of discharged supervisor not
            "reasonable"); Abilities &  Goodwill, Inc., 241  N.L.R.B. 27,
                           ___________________________
            enforcement denied, 612 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1979) (employee acts
            __________________
            not reasonable due to lack of nexus between dispute and means
            of protest);  Oakes Machine  Corp., 288 N.L.R.B.  456 (1988),
                          ____________________
            enforced in  relevant part, 897 F.2d 84  (2d Cir. 1990).  The
            __________________________
            Board is not free to ignore its own precedent.  Auciello, 980
                                                            ________
            F.2d at 812.

                                         -22-
                                          22

            quotation marks omitted).   But "[a]  court may require  that

            the Board's decision 'be supported by articulate, cogent, and

            reliable analysis.'"   Auciello Iron  Works, 980 F.2d  at 813
                                   ____________________

            (quoting  Northport Health  Servs.,  Inc. v.  NLRB, 961  F.2d
                      _______________________________     ____

            1547,  1553-54 (11th Cir. 1992)).  If the Board believes that

            Cunningham's  call  to  Sargent  in support  of  Leavitt  was

            protected  by    7, it  should  explain its  reasoning.   See
                                                                      ___

            Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States,  371 U.S. 156,
            ____________________________    _____________

            167-68 (1962).  In  particular, the Board should explain  how

            Leavitt's   termination   relates   to  the   non-supervisory

            employees' working conditions.

                           Of   course,   every  dispute   over
                      managerial  employees   involves  working
                      conditions to some degree; after all, the
                      jobs  of  many  managers  in  large  part
                      involve  creating  and  maintaining  such
                      conditions.   Yet . . .  there must  be a
                      somewhat  more  direct relationship  than
                      this to the concerns of  ordinary workers
                      before  concerted  action  aimed  at  the
                      choice  of  managers  enjoys   the  Act's
                      protection.

            Sheraton  Puerto Rico, 651 F.2d  at 53; see  also Puerto Rico
            _____________________                   ___  ____ ___________

            Food Prods., 619 F.2d at 156-57.
            ___________

                      We  do not reach the  issue -- about  which the ALJ

            and  the Board  are in  apparent disagreement  -- of  whether

            Cunningham's   conduct,  if  initially  protected,  would  be

            stripped of its protection because of her derogatory comments

            about Cake  and/or the fact that she made the call during her

            working shift from a company phone.  We note only  that, as a

                                         -23-
                                          23

            conceptual  matter, an  employee's act  or course  of conduct

            certainly could  lose the protection it  would otherwise have

            enjoyed under    7 because of  the "abusive manner"  in which

            the employee behaved.   City Disposal Sys., 465 U.S.  at 837;
                                    __________________

            El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico v. NLRB, 853 F.2d 996, 1006 (1st
            ____________________________    ____

            Cir. 1988); Keosaian v. NLRB, 630 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1980)
                        ________    ____

            (per curiam).

            Smith
            _____

            1.  Motion to Amend Pleadings
            _____________________________

                      We  address first  a threshold  issue in  the Smith

            claim.   Yesterday's  Children asks  that  the Smith  case be

            remanded to the Board  with instructions to allow Yesterday's

            Children  to raise the argument,  not made before  the ALJ or

            the  Board, that Smith is  a "supervisor" under  the Act, see
                                                                      ___

            N.L.R.A.    2(11),  instead of  an  "employee,"  see N.L.R.A.
                                                             ___

              2(3),  and that as such  she lacks the protections accorded

            employees  under   7.    See generally  Sheraton Puerto Rico,
                                     ___ _________  ____________________

            651 F.2d 49.  The Smith claim, if this argument were to carry

            the day, would fail ab initio.
                                _________

                      Yesterday's  Children  attempted   to  raise   this

            argument  before  the  ALJ,  but  failed  due  to  procedural

            default.   It now argues  that the  ALJ erred in  denying its

            post-hearing motion to  amend its answer, and  that the Board

            erred in upholding this erroneous ruling.  We review a denial

            of a motion to  amend the pleadings for abuse  of discretion.

                                         -24-
                                          24

            Golas v. HomeView, Inc., 106 F.3d 1, 3 (1st  Cir. 1997); Reid
            _____    ______________                                  ____

            v. New  Hampshire, 56 F.3d 332, 342 (1st Cir. 1995); see also
               ______________                                    ___ ____

            Carlo v.  Reed Rolled Thread Die  Co., 49 F.3d 790,  792 (1st
            _____     ___________________________

            Cir. 1995).

                      We  place  the  matter  in  context.    Yesterday's

            Children  moved, almost  two  years into  the litigation,  to

            amend   its  answer  in  order  to  deny  that  Smith  is  an

            "employee."    Relying   on  an  intervening  Supreme   Court

            decision,  NLRB v.  Health Care  & Retirement  Corporation of
                       ____     _________________________________________

            America, 114 S. Ct.  1778 (1994), Yesterday's Children sought
            _______

            to assert  the affirmative  defense that Smith,  as a  charge

            nurse, is a "supervisor."

                      There were,  at the time, various  NLRB proceedings

            occurring  simultaneously involving  this employer.   One  of

            these proceedings (RC-19849) involved the  certification of a

            claimed bargaining unit which included the  facility's charge

            nurses.  In this proceeding,  the employer took the  position

            that the charge nurses were supervisors under the Act, rather

            than  employees.  But the Regional Director, to whom the NLRB

            had delegated its authority pursuant to   3(b) of the Act, 29

            U.S.C.   153(b), found to the contrary on September 29, 1992.

            The employer petitioned the NLRB for review of this decision.

                      In light of the adverse ruling in the certification

            case, but  before the NLRB had  yet acted on  the request for

            review,  the employer  chose not  to deny  that Smith  was an

                                         -25-
                                          25

            employee  in its November 19, 1992 answer to the complaint in

            this  unfair labor  practice  case.   Shortly thereafter,  on

            December  14,  1992,  the  NLRB turned  down  the  employer's

            request for review of the Regional Director's finding in  the

            certification case.  The  ALJ conducted the three-day hearing

            in this  unfair labor practice  case in  early October  1993.

            Then,  before the ALJ issued  his decision, the Supreme Court

            decided Health Care on May 23, 1994, after which the employer
                    ___________

            sought  to amend  its  answer on  June  22.   The  ALJ, in  a

            footnote to its  written opinion in  this case, issued  eight

            days later on June 30, denied the motion without explanation,

            and the Board affirmed the denial on untimeliness grounds.

                      In  defense of  this  ruling,  the General  Counsel

            cites  the  basic  proposition  that  "an  intervening  court

            decision that  suggests a new and  previously unmade argument

            to  a respondent is not a circumstance that excuses a failure

            to raise the argument before an administrative  agency at the

            time  appropriate  under   the  agency's  practice."     True

            enough,16 but at  the same  time it is  not entirely fair  to

            characterize  the  employer's  argument   here  as  "new  and

                                
            ____________________

            16.  See,  e.g., United  States v.  L.A. Tucker  Truck Lines,
                 ___   ____  ______________     _________________________
            Inc., 344 U.S. 33, 36-37 (1952); NLRB v. International Health
            ____                             ____    ____________________
            Care, Inc., 898 F.2d  501, 507 (6th Cir. 1990);  Szewczuga v.
            __________                                       _________
            NLRB, 686 F.2d 962,  971 (D.C. Cir. 1982). But  see Sure-Tan,
            ____                                       ________ _________
            Inc.  v.  NLRB,  467  U.S.  883,   896  n.7  (1984)  (deeming
            ____      ____
            "substantial   change   in   controlling   [case]   law"   an
            "extraordinary  circumstance," and thus  allowing employer to
            raise a new argument not raised before the Board).

                                         -26-
                                          26

            previously unmade."   The broader reality  is that this  same

            respondent had unsuccessfully raised an identical argument in

            a  recent and  related  case before  the same  administrative

            body.

                      Still, while the  issue is a close  one, the denial

            of the motion was not an abuse of discretion.  Significantly,

            the  NLRB had not  yet ruled, at  the time of  the employer's

            initial  filing of its answer in this case, on the employer's

            petition for review of the Regional Director's earlier ruling

            on the charge nurses' non-supervisory status.   The fact that

            the  employer  itself  had  sought  review  of  the  Regional

            Director's decision, and that this request was pending at the

            time the answer here  was filed, shows that the  employer did

            not regard the Regional Director's decision as a final agency

            determination.    The  employer  should  have  preserved  the

            argument in this case by raising it in the pleadings.

            2.  Merits
            __________

                      Both the ALJ and the Board assumed without inquiry,

            for the purpose of  the Wright Line analysis, that  Smith had
                                    ___________

            engaged  in  a range  of  protected  activities before  being

            disciplined  by the  employer:  Smith's  signing a  letter to

            Cake seeking  the reinstatement  of a co-worker,  Liz Martin;

            her confrontation with Cake  over Cake's decision to withhold

            employee paychecks;  her initiation  of  the Leavitt  letter-

                                         -27-
                                          27

            writing campaign; her appearance before  the employer's board

            of directors on  Leavitt's behalf; and her two  meetings with

            Union  organizers.   The Board  found that  Cake fired  Smith

            because he did  not like  her, and that  this dislike  "arose

            initially   from   [his]   resentment   of   [her]  protected

            activities."    Thus,  concluded  the Board,  she  was  fired

            because of her protected activities.  

                      We  discount  two of  Smith's  activities  that the

            Board deemed protected because  they were done in support  of

            Leavitt.  The  Board's analysis  is flawed  in precisely  the

            same way as  its analysis of Cunningham's conduct.   However,

            Smith's  other cited  activities  -- the  Martin letter,  the

            paycheck  dispute, and  the Union  activity --  are obviously

            protected.  They provide sufficient evidence in the record to

            uphold the  inference drawn by  the Board that  Cake disliked

            Smith because of her engagement in protected activities.  The

            Board's view that Cake was, in effect,  discharging Smith for

            her involvement in these protected activities is a reasonable

            one.  See  National Ass'n  of Letter  Carriers, 315  N.L.R.B.
                  ___  ___________________________________

            1176,  1178  &  n.10  (1994) (if  employer's  animus  towards

            employee  begins in  response  to  employee's protected  act,

            Board  will presume  later  animus derives  from same  unless

            contrary evidence presented).

                      The employer argues that it has met its Wright Line
                                                              ___________

            burden because  it would have disciplined  Smith anyway, even

                                         -28-
                                          28

            absent the  protected activities, for her  involvement in the

            choking  incident and the  sunburn incident.   Cake based the

            August 10 letter  of dismissal  largely on the  two August  4

            letters of reprimand  for those  two incidents.   If the  two

            letters of reprimand are pretextual, it follows, as the Board

            recognized, that the letter  of dismissal is also pretextual.

            We  address the two incidents  in turn, concluding that there

            is  sufficient support  for  the Board's  position that  both

            letters are pretextual.

                      Smith's  joke  about  an  attack  by  one  resident

            against  another  was   clearly  a  breach   of  professional

            judgment, especially  since Zebulske, the person  to whom she

            made the facetious  remark, had only  begun working at  Agape

            House four days earlier and may  not have known Smith well at

            this time.  The  Board, in calling it a  "nonevent," blithely

            understated the seriousness of  the incident.17  The possible

            choking  of one resident by  another is not  a joking matter.

            However,  the fact remains that both the timing of the August

            4  letter  of reprimand  and the  explanation offered  by the

            employer for the discipline raise suspicions.

                      Smith had already been  verbally counselled by Goss

            on July 21 about her role in the choking incident.   Cake had

                                
            ____________________

            17.  The  General  Counsel  is  equally  cavalier  about  the
            choking incident,  claiming that Zebulske's decision  to tell
            the   resident's  mother   was  the   "sole  cause"   of  the
            controversy.

                                         -29-
                                          29

            recommended  this  counseling,  and  he  signed  off  on  the

            counselling  form.    This  level  of  discipline  apparently

            satisfied  him  for two  weeks.   The  matter appeared  to be

            closed, until it was reopened by the August 4 letter.

                      The  employer's stated  reasons for  increasing the

            discipline  on August 4 were that  Smith's breach of judgment

            had, in part, led to the state investigation and that one  of

            the investigators  was dissatisfied with the  leniency of the

            July 21 counselling.   Both explanations by the employer  are

            undercut  by the  record.   The  investigators'  hand-written

            statement  of deficiencies  made  no mention  of the  choking

            incident  (nor  did  the   formal  letter  of  citation  that

            followed).  The  statement in  the August 4  letter that  the

            regional advocate, Barnes, was "not satisfied" with the prior

            disciplinary measure is  even more  directly contradicted  by

            the evidence.   In  testimony before  the ALJ, Barnes  stated

            that,  while he  was aware  of the  choking incident  and had

            discussed it  with Cake,  he did not  express dissatisfaction

            withthe informalcounselling orrecommendadditional discipline.

                      Additionally,  the  employer  took no  disciplinary

            action against Zebulske, who shared responsibility with Smith

            for  the scandal.  It  was Zebulske who,  contrary to company

            policy,  informed  the  resident's  mother  of   the  alleged

            choking.   The existence  of disparate treatment  for similar

            misconduct can  support a  finding of  improper motive.   See
                                                                      ___

                                         -30-
                                          30

            Wyman-Gordon  Co. v. NLRB, 654 F.2d 134, 141 (1st Cir. 1991).
            _________________    ____

                      Given the employer's  implausible explanations  and

            the disparate  treatment of  Smith and Zebulske,  the Board's

            conclusion  that the  August  4 reprimand  was pretextual  is

            supported by substantial evidence in the record.

                      The  sunburn incident,  like the  choking incident,

            raises  serious concerns about  patient care.   The  story is

            troubling in  two distinct ways.   First, while  the resident

            was promptly  treated, the treatment was  with someone else's

            prescription ointment and  the treating nurse,  Smith, failed

            to create complete records.  Second, the resident was allowed

            the  next morning  to get  into a  hot whirlpool  bath, which

            caused  severe   blistering.    Clearly,  patient   care  was

            compromised even before the  whirlpool, and Smith is squarely

            to  blame  for  this.   Nevertheless,  there  is  substantial

            evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion that

            the  employer's August 4 letter of reprimand to Smith for the

            sunburn incident was pretextual.

                      The August 4 letter states that Smith's "failure to

            note  [the sunburn]  within [the  patient's] medical  records

            resulted  in his  being placed  in the  whirlpool."   The ALJ

            found,   however,  that  Smith,   despite  making  incomplete

            treatment   records,   personally   informed  Starbuck,   the

                                         -31-
                                          31

            overnight charge nurse, about  the resident's sunburn.18  And

            Starbuck, in turn, told Conklin, the charge nurse who came on

            duty in the morning.  It  was on Conklin's watch that nursing

            assistant Sargent allowed the  sunburned resident to get into

            the hot bath.

                      The employer  does not challenge these  findings of

            fact.  It is clear that either Conklin or Sargent  -- and not

            Smith -- was to blame for the resident's being allowed to get

            into the whirlpool.  This fault is at  least equal to Smith's

            fault.    But  only Smith  was  disciplined  for the  sunburn

            incident.   While the  employer was undoubtedly  justified in

            disciplining her for  her role in the  incident, the employer

            has  failed to explain why  no one else  was disciplined too.

            This disparate  treatment is telling.   See Wyman-Gordon, 654
                                                    ___ ____________

            F.2d at 141.19

                      Like  us,  the Board  viewed  this  as a  disparate

            treatment  case, but the Board  also relied on  the fact that

                                
            ____________________

            18.  Smith also  made a  notation in the  "24-hour notebook,"
            the notebook in which nurses  at Agape House communicate with
            each  other across shifts.   The August 4  letter is somewhat
            disingenuous, then, in stating that Smith "failed to properly
            act, both in  terms of record keeping and in  terms of making
            recommendations  to  the  nurse  assuming  duty  after  [her]
            shift."

            19.  Additionally,   a  few  weeks  after  Smith's  dismissal
            another nurse  at Agape House was reprimanded, but not fired,
            for  applying Silvadene  to  a sunburned  resident without  a
            prescription.  This too is reflective of disparate treatment.
            However,  a year before Smith's discharge,  a nurse was fired
                                                                ___
            for the more  serious offense of giving a  seizure medication
            to a resident without a prescription.

                                         -32-
                                          32

            the  employees  responsible for  the four  other deficiencies

            cited  by the  state  investigators were  not disciplined  by

            Yesterday's Children.   The employer  has convincingly argued

            that  these  other deficiencies  were  systemic problems  for

            which  no individual  employees were  at fault.   Our  focus,

            consequently, is  on the other employees  responsible for the

            sunburn  incident.   While our  disparate treatment  analysis

            differs somewhat from the Board's, we think  that the Board's

            ultimate conclusion of pretext is a reasonable one.

                      Because  we  conclude  that  there  is  substantial

            evidence  in the record to support the Board's inference that

            the  employer's  discipline of  Smith  for  both the  choking

            incident and the sunburn incident was pretextual, the Board's

            Smith order  is enforced.   For reasons discussed  above, the
                            ________

            Board's Cunningham order is vacated and her case  is remanded
                                                                 ________

            to the Board for further consideration.

                                         -33-
                                          33