Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page1 of 12

143284(L)
TriplePlayv.NationalLaborRelationsBoard

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT

SUMMARYORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURTS
LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHENCITINGASUMMARYORDERINADOCUMENTFILEDWITHTHISCOURT,APARTYMUSTCITEEITHER
THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION SUMMARY ORDER). A PARTY CITING A
SUMMARYORDERMUSTSERVEACOPYOFITONANYPARTYNOTREPRESENTEDBYCOUNSEL.

AtastatedtermoftheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSecond
Circuit,heldattheThurgoodMarshallUnitedStatesCourthouse,40Foley
Square,intheCityofNewYork,onthe21stdayofOctober,twothousandfifteen.

PRESENT: CHESTERJ.STRAUB,
BARRINGTOND.PARKER,
RICHARDC.WESLEY,

CircuitJudges.
______________________

THREED,LLCd/b/aTRIPLEPLAY
SPORTSBARANDGRILLE,

PetitionerCrossRespondent,

v.

Nos.143284(Lead);143814(XAP)

NATIONALLABORRELATIONS
BOARD,

RespondentCrossPetitioner.

______________________

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page2 of 12

FORPETITIONERCROSSRESPONDENT:

FORRESPONDENTCROSSPETITIONER:

MELISSAA.SCOZZAFAVA,
(EricM.Grant,onthebrief),
Yamin&Grant,LLC,
Waterbury,CT.
HEATHERS.BEARD(JillA.
Griffin,onthebrief),forRichard
F.Griffin,Jr.,GeneralCounsel,
NationalLaborRelations
Board,Washington,D.C.

AppealfromtheNationalLaborRelationsBoard.
UPONDUECONSIDERATION,ITISHEREBYORDERED,

ADJUDGEDANDDECREEDthattheAugust22,2014DecisionandOrderof
theNationalLaborRelationsBoardisAFFIRMED.
PetitionerCrossRespondentThreeD,LLC,d/b/aTriplePlaySportsBar
andGrille(TriplePlay)appealsadecisionoftheNationalLaborRelations
Board(NLRBorBoard)findingthatTriplePlayviolatedSection8(a)(1)of
theNationalLaborRelationsAct(NLRAorAct)bytakingcertainactions
againstitsemployees,includingdischarge,fortheirFacebookactivity.Triple
PlayalsoappealstheBoardsfindingthatTriplePlayviolatedSection8(a)(1)of
theActbymaintaininganoverbroadInternet/Bloggingpolicy.
WeupholdtheNLRBsfindingsoffactifsupportedbysubstantial
evidenceandtheNLRBslegaldeterminationsifnotarbitraryandcapricious.

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page3 of 12

CibaoMeatProducts,Inc.v.NLRB,547F.3d336,339(2dCir.2008)(internal
quotationmarksandalterationomitted).Substantialevidencemeanssuch
relevantevidenceasareasonablemindmightacceptasadequatetosupporta
conclusion.NLRBv.StarbucksCorp.,679F.3d70,77(2dCir.2012)(internal
quotationmarksomitted).Weassumethepartiesfamiliaritywiththefactsand
recordbelow,whichwereferenceonlyasnecessarytoexplainourdecision.
EmployeeDischargesandOtherViolationsofSection8(a)(1)
Section7oftheActguaranteesthat[e]mployeesshallhavetherightto
selforganization,toform,join,orassistlabororganizations...andtoengagein
otherconcertedactivitiesforthepurposeof...mutualaidorprotection....29
U.S.C.157.Section8(a)(1)oftheActprotectsemployeesSection7rightsby
prohibitinganemployerfrominterfer[ing]with,restrain[ing],orcoerc[ing]
employeesintheexerciseoftherightsguaranteedin[Section7]....29U.S.C.
158(a)(1).
AnemployeesSection7rightsmustbebalancedagainstanemployers
interestinpreventingdisparagementofhisorherproductsorservicesand
protectingthereputationofhisorherbusiness.SeeValleyHosp.Med.Ctr.,Inc.,
351NLRB1250,125253(2007).Accordingly,anemployeescommunications

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page4 of 12

withthepublicmaylosetheprotectionoftheActiftheyaresufficientlydisloyal
ordefamatory.SeeMasTecAdvancedTechnologies,357NLRBNo.17,slipop.at*6
(2011).Thesecommunicationsmaybesufficientlydisloyaltolosetheprotection
oftheActiftheyamounttocriticismsdisconnectedfromanyongoinglabor
dispute.SeeNLRBv.Elec.WorkersLocal1229(JeffersonStandard),346U.S.464,
47677(1953).
Anemployeespublicstatementisdefamatoryifmademaliciously,
meaningwithknowledgeofitsfalsity,orwithrecklessdisregardofwhetherit
wastrueorfalse.Linnv.UnitedPlantGuardWorkersofAmerica,Local114,383
U.S.53,61(1966).Themerefactthatstatementsarefalse,misleadingor
inaccurateisinsufficienttodemonstratethattheyaremaliciouslyuntrue.Where
anemployeerelaysingoodfaithwhatheorshehasbeentoldbyanother
employee,reasonablybelievingthereporttobetrue,thefactthatthereportmay
havebeeninaccuratedoesnotremovetherelayedremarkfromtheprotectionof
theAct.ValleyHosp.,351NLRBat125253.
TheBoarddeterminedasaninitialmannerthattheonlyemployeeconduct
atissuewas(1)SpinellaslikeofLaFrancesinitialstatusupdate(Maybe
someoneshoulddotheownersofTriplePlayafavorandbuyitfromthem.They

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page5 of 12

cantevendothetaxpaperworkcorrectly!!!NowIOWEmoney...Wtf!!!!);and
(2)SanzonescommentstatingIowetoo.Suchanasshole.SpecialAppx5.
Regardingthisconduct,theBoardconcludedthat,inthecontextoftheongoing
dialogueamongemployeesabouttaxwithholding,SpinellaandSanzonehadat
maximumendorsedLaFrancesclaimthatTriplePlayhaderredinhertax
withholding.SpecialAppx5.TheBoarddeclinedtoholdeitherSanzoneor
SpinellaresponsibleforanyotherstatementpostedintheFacebookdiscussion
ongroundthatneitherSanzonenorSpinellawouldhavelosttheprotectionof
theActmerelybyparticipatinginanotherwiseprotecteddiscussioninwhich
otherpersonsmadeunprotectedstatements.SpecialAppx5.
TheALJfoundandtheBoardagreedthattheFacebookactivityinthiscase
wasconcertedunderthestandardsetforthinMeyersIndustries,281NLRB882,
887(1986)enfd.subnom.Prillv.NLRB,835F.2d1481(D.C.Cir.1987),cert.denied
487U.S.1205(1988),becauseitinvolvedfourcurrentemployeesandwaspart
ofanongoingsequenceofdiscussionsthatbeganintheworkplaceabout[Triple
Plays]calculationofemployeestaxwithholding.SpecialAppx3(internal
quotationmarksomitted).TheBoardalsoadoptedtheALJsrecommendation
thattheFacebookactivitywasprotectedbecausethediscussionconcerned

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page6 of 12

workplacecomplaintsabouttaxliabilities,[TriplePlays]taxwithholding
calculations,andLaFrancesassertionthatshewasowedbackwages.Special
Appx3.
AfterfindingthatSanzonesandSpinellasFacebookactivityconstituted
protectedconcertedactivity,theonlyremainingquestionbeforetheBoardwas
whetherthatFacebookactivitywassodisloyalordefamatoryastolosethe
protectionoftheAct.TheBoardappliedJeffersonStandardtoconcludethat
SanzonesandSpinellasFacebookactivitywasnotsodisloyalastolose
protectionoftheActbecause[t]hecommentsatissuedidnotevenmention
[TriplePlay]sproductsorservices,muchlessdisparagethem.SpecialAppx5.
TheBoardfurtherconcludedthatTriplePlayfailedtomeetitsburdenunder
Linntoestablishthatthecommentsatissueweredefamatorybecausethereis
nobasisforfindingthattheemployeesclaimsthattheirwithholdingwas
insufficienttocovertheirtaxliability,orthatthisshortfallwasduetoanerroron
[TriplePlay]spart,weremaliciouslyuntrue.SpecialAppx6.
TriplePlayarguesonappealthatbecauseSanzonesandSpinellas
Facebookactivitycontainedobscenitiesthatwereviewedbycustomers,the
BoardshouldhavefoundthatthisactivitylosttheprotectionoftheActunder

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page7 of 12

Starbucks,acaseinwhichaSecondCircuitpanelremandedaBoardOrderfor
reconsiderationoftheproperstandardtoapplywhenanalyzinganemployees
utteranceofobscenitiesinthepresenceofcustomers.679F.3dat80.InTriple
Playsview,thepanelinStarbucksstronglysuggestedthatanemployees
obscenitiesutteredinthepresenceofcustomerswouldnotbeprotectedinmost
orallcircumstances.AppellantsBr.20.
TriplePlaysrelianceonStarbucksismisplaced.TheStarbuckspanel
premiseditsdecisiononafindingthattheBoardhaddisregardedtheentirely
legitimateconcernofanemployernottotolerateemployeeoutburstscontaining
obscenitiesinthepresenceofcustomers.Starbucks,679F.3dat79.Here,the
BoardstatedunequivocallythatitsapplicationofJeffersonStandardandLinnwas
basedonitslongstandingrecognitionthatanemployerhasalegitimateinterest
inpreventingthedisparagementofitsproductsorservicesand,relatedly,in
protectingitsreputation...fromdefamation.SpecialAppx4.
Furthermore,acceptingTriplePlaysargumentthatStarbucksshouldapply
becausetheFacebookdiscussiontookplaceinthepresenceofcustomerscould
leadtotheundesirableresultofchillingvirtuallyallemployeespeechonline.
AlmostallFacebookpostsbyemployeeshaveatleastsomepotentialtobe

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page8 of 12

viewedbycustomers.AlthoughcustomershappenedtoseetheFacebook
discussionatissueinthiscase,thediscussionwasnotdirectedtowardcustomers
anddidnotreflecttheemployersbrand.TheBoardsdecisionthattheFacebook
activityatissueheredidnotlosetheprotectionoftheActsimplybecauseit
containedobscenitiesviewedbycustomersaccordswiththerealityofmodern
daysocialmediause.
TriplePlayfurtherarguesthat,eveniftheBoardwerecorrecttoapply
JeffersonStandardandLinn,theBoardsfactualconclusionsrelatingtothose
standardswereunsupportedbecausenoevidenceintherecord...establishes
thatSanzonescommentwaslimitedonlytoendorsingLaFrancescomplaint
thatsheowedmoneyonhertaxesduetoataxwithholdingerroron[Triple
Play]spart.AppellantsBr.2728(internalquotationmarksomitted).Triple
Playwouldhaveusfindthattheevidence,whentakenasawhole,
demonstratesthatSanzoneclearlyendorsedsuchacommentbyLaFranceand
thatSpinellaalsoendorseddisparagingcommentsaboutTriplePlayandits
owners.AppellantsBr.28.TriplePlayalsoarguesthattheBoarderredin
concludingunderLinnthatSanzonescommentwasnotdefamatorybecause
theevidenceunequivocallyestablishesthatSanzonesendorsementof

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page9 of 12

LaFrancescomplaintwasknowinglyfalse,asSanzonedidnotbelievethatTriple
Playhadmadeanyerrorswithrespecttoherincometaxwithholdings.
AppellantsBr.33.
WeagreewithcounselfortheBoardthatSpinellasandSanzones
communications,whichweremadetoseekandprovidemutualsupportlooking
towardgroupaction,werenotmadetodisparageTriplePlayortoundermineits
reputation.NLRBBr.34.TheFacebookdiscussionclearlydisclosedthe
ongoinglabordisputeoverincometaxwithholdings,andthusanyonewhosaw
SpinellaslikeorSanzonesstatementcouldevaluatethemessagecriticallyin
lightofthatdispute.
WealsoagreewithcounselfortheBoardthatSanzonescommentwasnot
defamatoryundertheLinnstandardinlightofthefactthatshehad
conversationswithotheremployeesregardingtheirtaxconcernspriortothe
Facebookdiscussion.AstheBoardobserved,simplybecauseSanzoneknew
thatTriplePlaydidnotmakeanerroronher(own)taxwithholdingsdoesnot
meanthatSanzonesendorsementofLaFrancescomplaintaboutTriplePlay
makingtaxwithholdingerrorswasdeliberatelyormaliciouslyfalse.NLRBBr.
4041.AlthoughSanzonemaynothavebelievedthatTriplePlayerroneously

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page10 of 12

withheldhertaxes,thathasnobearingonthetruthofherstatementIowetoo
orherconceivablebeliefthatTriplePlaymayhaveerroneouslywithheldother
employeestaxes.ItiscertainlyplausiblethatSanzonetrulyowedtaxes,evenif
thatwasnottheresultofanerroronTriplePlayspartandevenifother
employeesclaimsregardingerroneoustaxwithholdingslaterprovedinaccurate,
suchinaccuraciesbythemselvesdonotremovethestatementfromtheprotection
oftheAct.
InadditiontofindingthatthedischargesofSanzoneandSpinellaviolated
theAct,theBoardadoptedtheALJsconclusionsthatTriplePlayviolatedthe
Actby(1)threateningemployeeswithdischargefortheirFacebookactivity;(2)
interrogatingemployeesabouttheirFacebookactivity;and(3)informing
employeesthattheywerebeingdischargedfortheirFacebookactivity.Because
SanzonesandSpinellasFacebookactivitydidnotlosetheprotectionoftheAct,
TriplePlayschallengetotheotherviolationsofSection8(a)(1)mustnecessarily
fail.
Internet/BloggingPolicy
AruleviolatesSection8(a)(1)ifitwouldreasonablytendtochill
employeesintheexerciseoftheirSection7rights.LafayetteParkHotel,326NLRB

10

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page11 of 12

824,825(1998),enfd.203F.3d52(D.C.Cir.1999).Iftheruleexplicitlyrestricts
activitiesprotectedbySection7,thenitisunlawful.NLRBv.MartinLutherMeml
Home,Inc.d/b/aLutheranHeritageVillageLivonia,343NLRB646,646(2004).If
theruledoesnotexplicitlyrestrictactivityprotectedbySection7,theviolationis
dependentuponashowingofoneofthefollowing:(1)employeeswould
reasonablyconstruethelanguagetoprohibitSection7activity;(2)therulewas
promulgatedinresponsetounionactivity;or(3)therulehasbeenappliedto
restricttheexerciseofSection7rights.Id.at647.
NeitherpartydisputedtheALJsfindingsthatTriplePlays
Internet/Bloggingpolicy(1)didnotexplicitlyrestricttheexerciseofSection7
rights,(2)wasnotpromulgatedinresponsetounionactivity,and(3)wasnot
appliedtorestrictSection7rights.TheinquirybeforetheBoardwasthuslimited
towhetheremployeeswouldreasonablyconstruethelanguagetoprohibit
Section7activity.Id.
AlthoughtheALJfoundthatemployeeswouldnotreasonablyconstrue
thelanguageoftheInternet/BloggingpolicytorestrictSection7activity,the
Boarddeclinedtoadoptthisrecommendationandfoundinsteadthat,underthe
LutheranHeritageframework,employeeswouldreasonablyinterpret[Triple

11

Case 14-3284, Document 107-1, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page12 of 12

Play]sruleasproscribinganydiscussionsabouttheirtermsandconditionsof
employmentdeemedinappropriateby[TriplePlay].SpecialAppx7.We
believethatthemajorityopinionoftheBoardcorrectlyidentifiedtheLutheran
Heritageframeworkasthegoverningruleonthisquestionandreasonably
appliedthatruletothefactsofthiscase.
Fortheforegoingreasons,weAFFIRMtheBoardsAugust22,2014
DecisionandOrder.

FORTHECOURT:
CatherineOHaganWolfe,Clerk

12

Case 14-3284, Document 107-2, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page1 of 1

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
ROBERT A. KATZMANN

CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE

CHIEF JUDGE

CLERK OF COURT

Date: October 21, 2015

Docket #: 14-3284ag
Short Title: Three D, LLC v. National Labor Relations
Board

Agency #: 34-CA-12915
Agency: NLRB Agency #: 34-CA-12926
Agency: NLRB

BILL OF COSTS INSTRUCTIONS

The requirements for filing a bill of costs are set forth in FRAP 39. A form for filing a bill of costs
is on the Court's website.
The bill of costs must:
* be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment;
* be verified;
* be served on all adversaries;
* not include charges for postage, delivery, service, overtime and the filers edits;
* identify the number of copies which comprise the printer's unit;
* include the printer's bills, which must state the minimum charge per printer's unit for a page, a
cover, foot lines by the line, and an index and table of cases by the page;
* state only the number of necessary copies inserted in enclosed form;
* state actual costs at rates not higher than those generally charged for printing services in New
York, New York; excessive charges are subject to reduction;
* be filed via CM/ECF or if counsel is exempted with the original and two copies.

Case 14-3284, Document 107-3, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page1 of 2

.COM
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
ROBERT A. KATZMANN

CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE

CHIEF JUDGE

CLERK OF COURT

Date: October 21, 2015

Docket #: 14-3284ag
Short Title: Three D, LLC v. National Labor Relations
Board

Agency #: 34-CA-12915
Agency: NLRB Agency #: 34-CA-12926
Agency: NLRB

VERIFIED ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS

Counsel for
_________________________________________________________________________
respectfully submits, pursuant to FRAP 39 (c) the within bill of costs and requests the Clerk to
prepare an itemized statement of costs taxed against the
________________________________________________________________
and in favor of
_________________________________________________________________________
for insertion in the mandate.
Docketing Fee

_____________________

Costs of printing appendix (necessary copies ______________ ) _____________________

Costs of printing brief (necessary copies ______________ ____) _____________________
Costs of printing reply brief (necessary copies ______________ ) _____________________

(VERIFICATION HERE)
________________________
Signature

Case 14-3284, Document 107-3, 10/21/2015, 1624021, Page2 of 2