EF International Language Schools, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 1, 2015

363 NLRB No. 20 (N.L.R.B. 2015)

363 NLRB No. 20
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
EF International Language Schools, Inc. and Andrea
Jesse. Case 20–CA–120999
October 1, 2015
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HIROZAWA
AND MCFERRAN
On September 15, 2014, Administrative Law Judge
Mary Miller Cracraft issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a
reply brief. The General Counsel filed an answering
brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings,1 findings,2 and conclusions

1 For the reasons set forth in Administrative Law Judge Gerald
Etchingham’s prehearing order and in Administrative Law Judge
Cracraft’s decision, we affirm her finding that the use of videoconfer-
ence technology for taking the testimony of teacher Galin Franklin did
not deny the Respondent due process. We specifically note that, con-
trary to the Respondent’s argument, Sec. 102.30 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations does not preclude the taking of oral testimony by vide-
oconference. Moreover, we reject the Respondent’s argument that
Westside Painting, 328 NLRB 796 (1999), forecloses the use of vide-
oconference technology. In that case the Board held that Sec. 102.30
does not permit a witness to testify by telephone, relying on the im-
portance of the judge and the parties being able to observe the witness
for credibility, due process, and other reasons. None of those concerns
is present in this case, where the videoconferencing technology used
enabled observation of the witness at all material times.
We also find no merit in the Respondent’s contention that the judge
erred by excluding evidence of the “state of mind” of managers Haviva
Parnes and Meghan Conway, including their subjective reactions to
Charging Party Jesse’s December 18 email, thereby allegedly preclud-
ing them from testifying regarding their motivation for terminating
Jesse. Conway and Parnes were able to, and did, testify regarding their
motives for the discharge. Additionally, Conway and Parnes were able
to, and did, testify regarding what they said and did in reaction to Jes-
se’s December 18 email. Although the Respondent asked to question
Parnes regarding her subjective reaction to the December 18 email, it
did not ask to question Conway on this issue. A proffer of the excluded
evidence was received in the form of testimony by Parnes. This proffer
consisted of answers that are repetitive of Parnes’ other testimony on
this issue. Even viewing the excluded evidence in the light most favor-
able to the Respondent, Parnes’ testimony fails to show that the Em-
ployer would have discharged Jesse regardless of her protected activity.
Therefore, at most, the judge’s exclusion of the additional testimony
was harmless error.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set
forth in full below.3
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, EF International Language Schools, Inc.,
San Francisco, California, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Threatening employees with unspecified reprisals if
they engage in protected concerted activities.
(b) Discharging employees because they engage in
protected concerted activities.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Andrea Jesse full reinstatement to her former job or, if

ance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect.
Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362
(3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no
basis for reversing the findings.
In adopting the judge’s finding that Charging Party Jesse’s discharge
violated Sec. 8(a)(1), we rely on the judge’s analysis under Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982). We find the judge’s alternative analysis
under NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, 379 U.S. 21 (1964), inapplicable be-
cause the Respondent does not contend that it discharged Jesse because
it had a good-faith belief that she engaged in unprotected misconduct in
the course of otherwise protected conduct.
Further, although the judge found that the General Counsel proved
that the Respondent had a particularized motivating animus against
Jesse’s protected activity, we emphasize that such evidence is not re-
quired in order for the General Counsel to meet the initial burden under
Wright Line. See, e.g., Mesker Door, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 59, slip op.
at 2 fn. 5 (2011).
The Respondent contends in exceptions that the Sec. 8(a)(1) threat
allegations contained in the General Counsel’s complaint are barred
under Sec. 10(b) as they are not “closely related” to the sole allegation
in the charge that Jesse’s discharge violated Sec. 8(a)(1). See Redd-I,
Inc., 290 NLRB 1115, 1116 (1988); see also Nickles Bakery of Indiana,
Inc., 296 NLRB 927, 928 (1989). We find no merit to this contention.
As an initial matter, the Respondent waived this argument by failing to
raise it in its answer to the complaint or at the hearing. See, e.g., Paul
Mueller Co., 337 NLRB 764, 764–765 (2002). Even if the Respond-
ent’s 10(b) argument were properly before us, we would find that it
lacks merit. The threat allegations and the discharge allegation concern
the same general legal issues, stem from the same sequence of events,
and involve the same actors. Accordingly, we find that the threat alle-
gations are closely related to the discharge allegation and thus were
properly included in the complaint. See Alternative Energy Applica-
tions, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 139, slip op. at 1–2 (2014).
3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the
Board’s standard remedial language. We shall substitute a new notice
to conform to the Order as modified and to the Board’s standard reme-
dial language.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Andrea Jesse whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimina-
tion against her, in the manner set forth in the remedy
section of the decision.
(c) Compensate Andrea Jesse for the adverse tax con-
sequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award, and submit the appropriate documentation to the
Social Security Administration so that when backpay is
paid to Andrea Jesse, it will be allocated to the appropri-
ate calendar quarters.
(d) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful discharge,
and within 3 days thereafter, notify the employee in writ-
ing that this has been done and that the discharge will not
be used against her in any way.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel rec-
ords and reports, and all other records, including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its San Francisco, California facility copies of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
20, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous plac-
es including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of
paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and

4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since November 20, 2013.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 20 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. October 1, 2105
Mark Gaston Pearce, Chairman
Kent Y. Hirozawa, Member
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with unspecified reprisals if
you engage in protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge you for engaging in protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Andrea Jesse full reinstatement to her former
job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially
EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC. 3
equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or
any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Andrea Jesse whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits resulting from her discharge,
less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate Andrea Jesse for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay
award, and WE WILL submit the appropriate documenta-
tion to the Social Security Administration so that when
backpay is paid to Andrea Jesse, it will be allocated to
the appropriate calendar quarters.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful discharge of Andrea Jesse, and WE WILL, within 3
days thereafter, notify her in writing that this has been
done and that the discharge will not be used against her
in any way.
EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE
SCHOOLS, INC.
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CA-120999 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273-1940.
Jason P. Wong, Esq., for the General Counsel.
James W. Bucking, Esq., and Lyndsey M. Kruzer, Esq., for the
Respondent.
DECISION
MARY MILLER CRACRAFT, Administrative Law Judge. The
amended complaint1 alleges that Charging Party Andrea Jesse
(Jesse), after being threatened with unspecified reprisals for
helping coworkers and sending group emails addressing em-
ployees’ terms and conditions of employment, was discharged
by her employer EF International Language Schools, Inc. (Re-
spondent) because she engaged in protected, concerted activity.

1 The charge was filed on January 21, 2014. The amended complaint
issued on May 16, 2014. The hearing was held on June 10 and 11,
2014, in San Francisco, California.
I find the violations as alleged.
On the entire record, and after considering the briefs filed by
counsel for the General Counsel and by counsel for the Re-
spondent, I make the following
FINDING OF FACTS
JURISDICTION AND LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent is a privately held global company which pro-
vides language instruction as well as travel and cultural ex-
change program assistance. Respondent admits that it satisfies
the Board’s jurisdictional standard for private schools and that
it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act).2 Thus this dispute affects interstate commerce and
the Board has jurisdiction of this case pursuant to Section 10(a)
of the Act.3
CREDIBILITY AND VIDEO TESTIMONY
Specific credibility resolutions have been made based upon a
review of the entire record and all exhibits in this proceeding.
Witness demeanor and inherent probability of the testimony
have been utilized to assess credibility. Testimony contrary to
my findings has been discredited on some occasions because it
was in conflict with credited testimony or documents or be-
cause it was inherently incredible and unworthy of belief.
At the time of the hearing, former teacher Galin Franklin
(Franklin) was employed in Madrid, Spain. The legality of
Franklin’s departure from Respondent’s employment was not at
issue in the unfair labor practice proceeding. In a pre-hearing
motion, the General Counsel sought permission to take Frank-
lin’s testimony by videoconference from Madrid, where Frank-
lin resided at the time of the hearing, further averring that
Franklin had no plans to return to the United States at the time
of hearing. Respondent opposed the request asserting that video
testimony would not allow adequate opportunity for assessment
of credibility and might not be trustworthy, therefore constitut-
ing a denial of due process. Respondent’s argument was based
on the NLRB’s stated preference for live testimony as set forth
in Westside Painting, 328 NLRB 796 (1999). Respondent fur-
ther noted a fundamentally different trial dynamic in federal
court in that pretrial discovery, including depositions, reveals a
witness’ testimony in advance. Thus there is no element of
surprise involved in federal court while in NLRB proceedings
there is no discovery so the testimony of each opposition wit-
ness has not been heard before. Due to this different dynamic,
Respondent argues for precluding application of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 43(a) in NLRB proceedings. Finally, Re-
spondent set forth numerous safeguards which should be in
place citing the NLRB Division of Judges Bench Book, §11-
620.
After carefully considering all of these arguments, by un-
published order dated May 23, 2014, Associate Chief Adminis-

2 29 U.S.C. §152(2),(6), and (7).
3 29. U.S.C. §160(a).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
trative Law Judge Gerald Etchingham granted the motion to
take Franklin’s testimony by videoconference over the objec-
tion of Respondent on due process grounds. The order required
a number of safeguards, which were utilized at the hearing.
These included:
 A representative for Respondent was present at the
remote location at the U.S. Embassy in Madrid,
Spain, and observed all proceedings.
 The reporter was present in San Francisco and was
able to transcribe the testimony.
 The reporter and all participants were able to hear all
speakers without regard to where they were located.
 Cameras were adjustable at both the San Francisco
and Madrid locations in order to provide not only a
close-up view of counsel and the witness but also a
panoramic view of the entire room.
 All exhibits were exchanged in advance of the video
session.
 Both in San Francisco and Madrid video technicians
were present throughout Franklin’s testimony to at-
tend immediately to any technical difficulties, should
they have arisen.
I find that Respondent was not denied due process by utiliza-
tion of videoconferencing technology for Franklin’s testimony.
Rule 102.30 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations provides,
inter alia, that “Witnesses shall be examined orally under oath,
except that for good cause shown after the issuance of a com-
plaint, testimony may be taken by deposition.” In Westside
Painting, supra, 328 NLRB at 796–797, the Board reversed the
administrative law judge and held that telephonic testimony did
not comply with Board Rule 102.30 which “expresses a prefer-
ence for oral testimony” and requires “the physical presence in
the hearing room of the witness being examined.” The Board
further noted that the sole exception to the preference for oral
testimony was deposition testimony when the witness was una-
vailable for the hearing. Id. Finally, the Board noted that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not controlling in Board
proceedings. Id., 328 NLRB at 797 fn. 7.
However, Westside Painting dealt with telephonic testimony
only and is therefore distinguishable from the instant videocon-
ferencing situation. Indeed, the NLRB subsequently instituted a
pilot project in 2008 for use of video testimony in representa-
tion cases when warranted.4 Although the Board has not ruled
on the use of video testimony in unfair labor practice cases, the
Board’s pilot project in 2008 indicates that it did not feel bound
by Westside Painting regarding video testimony, at least in the
representation context. Thus, it is reasonable to find that
Westside Painting is not directly dispositive of the issue of
video testimony.
Further, although not controlling, the Board has often re-
ferred to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for useful guid-

4 See OM 08-20, January 2008, Associate General Counsel Richard
Siegel.
ance.5 FRCP 43(a) provides that “for good cause in compelling
circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may
permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmis-
sion from a different location.” FRCP 43(a).
The 1996 Advisory Committee Notes to FRCP 43(a) stress
that,
The very ceremony of trial and the presence of the factfinder
may exert a powerful force for truthtelling. The opportunity to
judge the demeanor of a witness face-to-face is accorded great
value in our tradition. Transmission cannot be justified merely
by showing that it is inconvenient for the witness to attend the
trial.
See also, In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 439
F.Supp.2d 640, 644 (E.D. La. 2006) (stressing importance of
live testimony particularly in making credibility resolutions).
However, in F.T.C. v. Swedish Match North America, Inc.,
197 F.R.D. 1 (D. D.C. 2000), the district court stated that courts
are generally more receptive to use of videoconference testi-
mony than the Advisory Committee and opined that videocon-
ference testimony is equivalent to live testimony. Moreover,
federal courts have permitted videoconference testimony for
witnesses particularly in cases involving international travel
which is lengthy, expensive, and subject to bureaucratic re-
strictions such as visa requirements. See, e.g., Virtual Architec-
ture, Ltd. v. Rick, 2012 WL 388507 (S.D.N.Y. 2012 at *2 (col-
lecting cases); cf. SEC v. Yang, 2014 WL 1303457 at *5-6
(N.D. Ill. 2014) (denying motion to permit testimony by vide-
oconference where witness residing in China did not show in-
surmountable obstacles to obtaining a visa to enter the United
States stating the party seeking to present the testimony should
have taken the witness’ deposition during the discovery period).
In its posthearing brief, the Respondent does not specifically
reassert its objection to Franklin’s video testimony or contend
that the safeguards were inadequate. However, Respondent
argues repeatedly that Franklin’s testimony should be discredit-
ed. In any event, I find that the safeguards utilized at hearing
amply ensured that due process was not denied to Respondent.6
During the video transmission, which had been tested prior to
the hearing, the audio and video quality was flawless, the wit-
ness’ demeanor, i.e., his appearance, attitude and manner, was
easily observable. Certainly, any hesitation, discomfort, arro-
gance, or defiance would have been easily discerned. The entire

5 Brink’s Inc., 281 NLRB 468 (1986). See also, e.g., Flaum Appetiz-
ing Corp., 357 NLRB No. 162, slip op. at 7–8 (2011); San Luis Truck-
ing, 352 NLRB 211, 212 (2008), reaffd., 356 NLRB No. 36 (2010),
enfd. mem. 479 Fed.Appx. 743 (9th Cir. 2012); Central Telephone Co.
of Texas, 343 NLRB 987, 988 (2004); Kaiser Aluminum, 339 NLRB
829 (2003); and Clinton Food 4 Less, 288 NLRB 597 fn. 2, 618–619
(1988).
6 Another safeguard utilized in federal courts is that if audio or video
is lost three times, the video conference will be terminated and all tes-
timony stricken. See, e.g., Monserrate v. K.K. Machine Co., 2013 WL
1412194 (E.D.N.Y 2013), and Sawant v. Ramsey, 88 Fed.R.Evid.Serv.
429 (D. Conn. 2012).
EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC. 5
proceeding was as spontaneous as live testimony. There was
little or no audio delay between the questions and answers.
Thus, Franklin’s testimony by video may be evaluated on an
equal footing with the testimony of witnesses appearing in per-
son at the hearing. See, e.g., F.T.C. v. Swedish Match North
America, Inc., supra.
ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The San Francisco School
Respondent operates 14 schools in the United States. At its
San Francisco school, Respondent teaches English to students
who come to the United States to learn English as a foreign
language. Respondent’s San Francisco teachers are not repre-
sented by a labor organization.
The events in this case are clustered in the months of No-
vember and December 20137 which was a transitional time in
the top tier of administration at the San Francisco school.
School director Robert Miller left in September. This was fol-
lowed by a period of time when the school functioned without a
director. In the absence of a school director, Denver-located
Meghan Conway, director of operations for the west coast,
visited the school several times during late 2013. Haviva
Parnes, director of academic management for North America,
officed in Boston, also visited the San Francisco school in No-
vember.
Then on November 18, Steve Reilly took over as the school
director replacing former Director Robert Miller. Erin Freeny
became academic director that same date, replacing Mike
Serangeli, but spent her first week on the job in training in Bos-
ton. A subtext to the transition, voiced by new director Reilly,
was to bring the San Francisco school into nationwide con-
formance with corporate policies.
Other levels of administration had been in place for some
time by mid-November. Mike Serangeli was academic director.
Stephanie Eto was the academic coordinator and academic
manager was Sendy Ramos. Completing the administrative
ranks in San Francisco, the university preparations program
managers were Pamela Astarte and Heidi Briones.
Jesse, one of 20–30 teachers at the San Francisco school, be-
gan teaching for Respondent at the San Francisco school in July
2011. Jesse was discharged on December 20. At the time of her
termination, Jesse was the third most senior teacher and taught
about 35 hours per week. In order to be considered full time, a
teacher must, among other things, work at least 30 hours per
week.
Management personnel utilize employer email accounts.
Teachers do not have employer email accounts and thus use
their personal email accounts for work-related matters.
Meeting of Friday, November 1, regarding Healthcare, Corpo-
rate Citizenship, and Student Survey Evaluation System
At approximately 1 p.m. on Friday, November 1, a regular
weekly meeting of employees, teachers, and administrators
took place on the second floor in the Dolores Park room. Fif-

7 All dates are in 2013 unless otherwise referenced.
teen or twenty teachers attended in addition to then-academic
director of the school, Mike Serangeli. Other administrators
attending included academic manager Sendy Ramos and uni-
versity preparation program manager Pamela Astarte.
Serangeli spoke about employer-provided health care cover-
age for teachers explaining that in order to obtain this coverage,
a teacher must work more than 30 hours a week, must continue
to do so without more than 2 consecutive weeks of vacation,
must maintain a 4.0 student survey rating average or higher,
and must be a good corporate citizen. Serangeli stated that the
school’s program was in line with the Affordable Care Act.
There is no dispute that prior to the fall of 2013, teachers at
the San Francisco school were not routinely apprised of their
student survey evaluation ratings. The first reference to these
ratings occurred in August when Parnes named three teachers,
including Jesse, as the three highest rated teachers at the San
Francisco school. At this time, teachers knew little or nothing
about how the scores were calculated and what scores were
expected of them. Moreover, they had never seen a student
evaluation form.
In any event, Respondent typically distributed evaluations
forms to students at the beginning, middle, and end of each 5 or
6-week course. Completion of the survey was not mandatory.
The first survey was given during the first week of the course.
The school did not use this first survey for teacher evaluation
purposes. The second survey was distributed 2–3 weeks into
the course, about halfway through the course. It was not used
for teacher evaluations either but was relevant as a benchmark.
The last survey was distributed during the last week of the
course and it was the survey utilized by Respondent to rate
individual teacher’s performances.
The surveys stated the teacher’s name and asked that the stu-
dents rate the teacher on a scale of one to five—one being the
lowest score and five, the highest. The students did not always
complete these surveys. If there were fewer than 17 responses,
the rating was not utilized. The average of all final survey
scores was the teacher’s rating. For instance, if 20 students
were surveyed and 10 responded with a 5 while the other 10
responded with a 4, the teacher’s evaluation would be 4.5.
Jesse’s November 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 Emails regarding
Healthcare, a 401(k) Plan, Corporate Citizenship, and Student
Survey Evaluation System
On the following day, November 2, Jesse initiated a group
email concerning healthcare—specifically, her disagreement
with Serangeli’s statement that the school’s policy for health
insurance eligibility was in line with the Affordable Care Act.
She sent this email to Serangeli, Ramos, and Astarte as well as
24 teachers. In the email, Jesse asserted that the number of
hours required to receive health insurance coverage under the
federal program was based on an average number of hours and
would offer more employees coverage than Respondent’s pro-
gram which required maintaining at least 30 hours each week.8

8 At a later meeting, Conway, director of operations for the West
Coast explained that Respondent would comply with the Affordable
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
Jesse also stated her understanding that Respondent’s health
care eligibility standards required maintaining a student survey
evaluation score of 4.0 or above. Jesse criticized this eligibility
requirement as a precarious criteria based on the subjective
whims of students. Finally, she noted that the requirement of
good corporate citizenship was understandable although she
observed that many of the “corporate citizenship” virtues in-
volved teachers expending their free, uncompensated time for
school activities.
In response, Serangeli suggested that Jesse come to speak
with him. Jesse declined by a group email of November 4 not-
ing that at least half of the teachers responded to her email and
fully supported her statements. Jesse concluded, “It’s not about
me. It’s about us.” Serangeli responded that he would address
the concerns in the next meeting. On November 6, Jesse sent a
group email to administrators and teachers summarizing infor-
mation about the Affordable Care Act.
At the next meeting, November 8, Serangeli told the teach-
ers, including Jesse, who continued to express concerns about
healthcare, to save their questions for Director of West Coast
Operations Conway, who would meet with employees on No-
vember 13. After the November 8 meeting, Jesse sent an email
to 20 or more teachers. She asserted that “sticking up for what’s
best for ALL teachers” was the best avenue for success. The
email solicited questions regarding healthcare in advance of the
November 13 meeting and suggested questions as follows:
1. What is the pathway for new teachers to acquire more
classes/hours (if wanted)?
2. Once a teacher has received full-time hours, what is the
pathway to getting health care paid by [Respondent]?
3. Are 401Ks offered by [Respondent]?
4. Soon to be former director Mike [Serangeli] told the
teachers that it is important to be a good “corporate citizen.”
Can you describe what being a “good corporate citizen” means
being as specific as possible?
5. Teachers have also been told that (average) student evalu-
ation scores are important to their standing at [Respondent]. We
are rarely shown these scores, so it’s hard to know where we
stand. Can you describe how teachers can learn these scores on
a regular basis?
Jesse forwarded the email to Serangeli on Sunday, Novem-
ber 10, asking that he provide email addresses for Conway and
Reilly so she could forward the questions to them in prepara-
tion for the November 13 meeting. Serangeli did not respond.
Wednesday, November 13, Meeting regarding Pay Raise, Hir-
ing of New Teachers, a 401(k) plan, Corporate Citizenship, the
Student Survey Evaluation System, and More Computers for
Teachers
Fifteen to 20 teachers attended the November 13 meeting.
Conway introduced Reilly, who would begin serving as the
director of the San Francisco school on the following Monday,
November 18. In addition to Conway and Reilly, administrators

Care Act, as required, beginning in January 2015 and that Respondent’s
healthcare coverage was a separate item.
Serangeli, Astarte, Ramos, and Eto were also presented. There
is little discrepancy between Jesse’s testimony and that of
Conway and Eto regarding this meeting. However, Jesse’s tes-
timony is much more detailed and I credit her testimony to the
extent there are any discrepancies. In any event, there is no
dispute that during this meeting, Jesse advocated an increase in
the administrative rate of pay for teachers, questioned the effi-
cacy of hiring new teachers when existing teachers wanted to
teach more classes, asked if teachers were eligible for a 401(k)
plan, asked about corporate citizenship expectations, ques-
tioned usage of the student survey evaluation system, and re-
quested more computers for teachers. These topics were dis-
cussed in addition to Conway’s explanation of Respondent’s
healthcare system and its interface with the Affordable Care
Act, which would be implemented by Respondent in 2015.
Pay Raise: All parties agree that Conway announced that
there would be a 2 percent raise for teachers who started before
a certain date. Both Conway and Jesse agree that Jesse asked if
the raise applied to both the “teacher” pay rate and the “admin-
istrative” pay rate. Conway clarified that the raise applied only
to the “teacher” pay rate. A general discussion ensued about the
high expense of living in San Francisco and criticism of the
administrative pay rate as just barely above the San Francisco
minimum wage rate. Conway addressed Jesse asking, “[W]hat
do you think [the administrative wage rate] should be, An-
drea?” After further discussion, Conway agreed to look into
adjustment of the administrative pay rate. Eventually in Febru-
ary 2014, the administrative rate was raised by $1 per hour.
Hiring of New Teachers: After the discussion about wages,
Jesse asked why new teachers were constantly being hired
when existing teachers wanted more hours so they could quali-
fy for health care insurance. Conway addressed this issue tell-
ing the group that hiring new teachers was necessary for suc-
cession planning.
401(k) plan: In response to Jesse’s question regarding eligi-
bility for a 401(k) plan, Conway turned to the 401(k) issue and
told the group that “timesheet” employees were not eligible for
this program.9
Corporate Citizenship: Jesse then pointed to her badge and
noted that Serangeli had told employees that wearing a badge
was a part of being a good corporate citizen. Jesse asked what
else was involved. Conway responded that corporate citizen-
ship involved “looking sharp, keeping your room tidy, getting
to your class on time.” Conway’s testimony, in basic agreement
was that she told the employees it meant wearing your name
tag, showing up on time to work, and following the Respond-
ent’s dress code.
Student Survey Evaluation Scores: Jesse told Conway that
student survey evaluation scores were “kind of a mystery to
us.” Jesse explained that teachers did not regularly receive this

9 An explanation for the term “timesheet” employee is not contained
in the record. Sarah Cady from corporate human resources in Boston
specifically addressed employee benefits, including health care, sick
leave, and 401(k) benefits in meetings held in San Francisco in early
December. Some teachers were eventually found eligible to participate
in the 401(k) plan.
EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC. 7
information. Other teachers asked questions about the evalua-
tions too. Conway stated that student survey evaluations were
important and announced that with the addition of academic
director Freeny to the staff, Freeny would be able to sit down
with each teacher on a quarterly basis to review scores. Conway
said the student survey evaluation system would be revamped
by spring 2014 because there were questions about it. Conway
explained that these scores were “nothing to panic about, that if
they were low that they would lead to a conversation . . . to
bring them back up.” Conway recalled telling employees that in
order to qualify for healthcare coverage, teachers needed a bare
minimum of 4.0 “but we look for 4.2.” Teacher Franklin re-
called that Conway said the evaluation scores would not lead to
termination. I credit Franklin’s testimony regarding evaluation
scores not leading to termination and note that various adminis-
trators, including Conway, agreed.
In the fall of 2013, in order to maintain full-time status, full-
time teachers were actually expected to maintain a 4.2 average
or higher on the third student survey evaluation—not a 4.0 as
Serangeli stated in the meeting. Conway testified that in order
to maintain full-time status, teachers must have a 4.0 minimum
but Respondent preferred 4.2.10 Parnes explained that the 4.2
score is an expectation—“what we’re shooting for”—but it is
not a requirement either for maintaining employment or for
maintaining full-time status. Rather, Respondent works with
teachers who fall below 4.2 and, according to Respondent’s
witnesses, no one has been terminated for falling below 4.2 or
4.0.
The employee handbooks for 2012 were in effect in 2013 but
do not contain a policy concerning the relationship between
evaluation scores and ability to maintain full-time status. There
is no description of the evaluation system in the handbooks.
However, another of Respondent’s publications, the Teacher
Book, contains a description of the student survey evaluation
system and provides for a performance improvement plan when
a teacher’s evaluation falls below 4.0:
For those full-time teachers with a score that has fallen below
4.0; we will provide observation, assistance and coaching.
Our goal is to support the development of our teachers. A per-
formance improvement plan will be developed by the Aca-
demic Director for those teachers with continued low evalua-
tion scores and classroom observations.
Computers for Teachers: Finally, Jesse asked if more com-
puters could be made available for teachers and Conway agreed
to look into this request. At a later date, another computer was
made available to teachers.
Following the meeting, several teachers thanked Jesse for
advocating for them. Jesse sent a series of three emails to about
20 teachers—those who had not been able to attend as well as
those who were in attendance. She included program manager

10 In 2011, teachers were expected to maintain a score of 3.6 to 3.8.
Because higher scores were routinely maintained, the score expectation
was raised to 4.2 in the fall of 2012.
Astarte on one of these emails. Jesse attached her minutes and
observations of the November 13 meeting to these emails.
Jesse’s Dissatisfaction with A2-1 Assignment
In the fall of 2013, with no academic director in place, visit-
ing academic directors from other schools rotated in and out of
San Francisco on a weekly basis. None of them recommended
reduction in the number of classes even though student enroll-
ment was falling. Because none of the rotating academic direc-
tors had told her to do otherwise, Eto continued to schedule the
same number of classes without reduction. Finally, in mid to
late November, as the school’s enrollment continued to de-
crease, a visiting academic director noticed the need to reduce
classes and closed down a number of classes. Ramos and Eto
worked together to reassign the remaining classes.
An email of Saturday, November 16 from Ramos to all
teachers attached new teacher schedules. Jesse was assigned to
teach two general education classes (A2-1 and B1-3) and one
elective course, an idiom class. Although Jesse had taught A2-1
in September or October, Jesse was upset that she did not have
an assignment to teach A2-2. She felt she had mastered that
course and had never received any complaints. Additionally, as
she examined other teachers’ schedules, Jesse noticed that
Galin Franklin and Sandy Teixeira had each lost one of their
general education courses thus reducing them from full-time
status to part-time status.
About an hour and one-half after receiving the new schedule,
Jesse emailed Ramos asking that her A2-1 class be reassigned.
She noted her seniority and her success with A2-2. Jesse pre-
dicted that “whoever teaches [the A2-2 class] is likely not to
have my high student evals. Bad student evals are bad for the
whole school.” Jesse further noted the presence of a student in
the assigned A2-1 class whom Jesse had attempted to hold back
due to her belief that he was cheating. She felt she should not
have to teach this student. Ramos did not respond.
After waiting 30 minutes for Ramos to respond and receiving
no response, Jesse forwarded the Ramos email to Reilly asking
that he step in and diplomatically resolve the issue of her being
assigned A2-1 for the next round of classes. Jesse attached her
earlier email to Ramos. In addition to her earlier reasons for
seeking to be relieved of the A2-1 assignment, Jesse also noted
that many of the students in the assigned A2-1 class were re-
sentful because the prior teacher had failed the entire class.11
Still later on November 16, teacher Teixeira emailed Jesse
stating that one of her general education classes had been taken
away. Teixeira and Jesse discussed Teixeira taking Jesse’s idi-
om course but ultimately decided not to do that. Teacher Galin
Franklin reviewed the new schedule and noted that he had been
reduced from 24 blocks (an hour and twenty minute period) a
week to 14 blocks per week thus converting his status from
full-time to part-time status. On the following day, Sunday,

11 On the following day, teacher Hesse explained to Jesse that the ex-
isting A2-1 class was not composed of students who remained at the
same level. Rather, these students, including the one Jesse had attempt-
ed to hold back, were now in the A2-2 class that he was teaching.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
November 17, teacher Franklin called Jesse and they discussed
his losing a general education course. Franklin recalled that
they also discussed Jesse’s assignment to teach A2-1 as well as
the fact that a substitute teacher who had quit some weeks be-
fore had been given a full-time schedule as a substitute teacher.
On Sunday, November 17, Reilly, whose first day of work
would be the following day, checked with academic assistants
Ramos and Eto before responding to Jesse. Reilly learned that
the previous week, 60 students had departed leading to a low
volume of student enrollments. Consequently, in formulating
the new schedule, various classes were closed. Reilly respond-
ed to Jesse stating the school would adhere to the schedule as
issued.
Jesse quickly responded to Reilly stating,
It still hasn’t been explained to me why I had to switch out my
A2-2 class which I have been teaching since I started at [Re-
spondent] 2.5 years ago. Normally (during [Miller’s] tenure)
teachers are asked what they want before scheduling takes
place and then are given what they want based on seniority. I
thought seniority had it’s [sic] privileges, but I guess that’s
only true for some teachers.
Jesse also offered to give the A2-1 class to Franklin who had
lost a class. In a follow-up email, Jesse offered to give her idi-
om class to Teixeira. Reilly responded to the first email rec-
ommending speaking with Eto and explaining that Jesse could
lose her full-time status by giving a class to Franklin. Respond-
ing to the second email, Reilly stated,
Thanks for the follow up. I just replied to your other email
explaining that we can’t maintain your [full-time] status with-
out hitting the required teaching hours. I really appreciate the
teamwork, but if other teachers have concerns I do think it’s
best that they approach [Ramos or Eto] directly to work out
their individual situations.
We’re going to consider this closed for now and can certainly
follow up with affected teachers throughout the week. Enjoy
the rest of your Sunday!
Jesse responded immediately asking what hours were neces-
sary to maintain full-time status. She also requested a link to
the employee handbook and suggested piecemeal substitution
of one teacher for another for a few weeks.
Email of November 17
In a separate November 17 email, Jesse wrote to Eto, Ramos,
and Astarte as well as about 20 teachers expressing her dissatis-
faction with her assignment to teach A2-1. Jesse asserted that
although Ramos sent out the schedule, she could see Eto’s
“handy-work” in them. Jesse accused Eto of allowing her per-
sonal feelings to influence scheduling by giving full-time hours
to a substitute teacher who was a friend of Eto’s. Jesse stressed
her seniority and success as an A2-2 teacher, reiterated her
concerns for Franklin and Teixeira, and requested a meeting
with Eto on the following day. Jesse urged solidarity among
teachers on the scheduling issue and noted their success in get-
ting a pay raise and a new computer. Eto did not respond to this
email.
Meetings of Monday, November 18
On Monday, November 18, Eto told Franklin and Jesse that
she would like to talk to them one-on-one. They stated a prefer-
ence to meet with her together and she complied with their
request. Referencing a list of questions given to her by Franklin
and Jesse, Eto attempted to answer some but not all of the ques-
tions. Regarding the question, “Why did you choose to hire a
sub . . . over giving available hours to [Franklin] and [Teixei-
ra]?” Eto explained that the substitute teacher was given a full-
time load because he was substituting for a full-time teacher on
vacation.
After further protestation from Jesse and Franklin regarding
Franklin’s loss of full-time status, Eto said, “I didn’t want to
have to tell you this but it’s because of evaluation scores, poor
evaluation scores.” Eto explained that the substitute teacher had
higher evaluation scores than Jesse, Franklin, and Teixeira.
Jesse and Franklin asked what the specific scores were and how
long the practice of awarding classes by evaluation scores had
been in place. Eto did not recall the specific scores but stated
that evaluation scores had always been used to award class
assignments. Eto did not complete the list of questions but told
Jesse and Franklin that she felt they were bullying her and
asked if they could continue the meeting in Reilly’s office.
Ashley Weitman, director of the San Diego school, was pre-
sent at the San Francisco school for Reilly’s first few days.
Weitman and Reilly met with Eto, Franklin, and Jesse and the
conversation continued regarding how Eto and Ramos had
assigned teachers to the reduced number of classes. Once again,
Jesse asserted that she did not want to teach the A2-1 class she
was assigned. Reilly told Jesse that the schedule would remain
as issued.
Jesse took the position that it was outrageous that Franklin’s
hours were reduced based on poor evaluation scores. She stated
as far as she and Franklin were concerned, “this whole [evalua-
tion score] policy . . . came out of nowhere.”
Franklin mentioned that an opportunity for shared sacrifice
had been lost. He opined that the reduction in schedule could
have been shared equitably without anyone experiencing too
much pain. Franklin and Jesse asked further questions about
the evaluation process. Reilly responded that it was his first day
on the job and he did not have the answers. Two days later,
Franklin was laid off.
Meeting of November 20 Admonishing Jesse to be Careful
about Speaking on Behalf of Others
On November 20, Reilly conferenced with Conway regard-
ing Jesse. Conway advised Reilly to meet with Jesse about
policies and procedures. At the meeting with Jesse later that
day, in Weitman’s presence, Reilly indicated, according to
Jesse, that he was aware that Jesse wanted to help Franklin “but
you really need to focus on your teaching and not get involved.
Reilly testified he told Jesse that full-time teachers were ex-
pected to maintain their required hours each week and be avail-
able to teach any class at any level. Reilly told Jesse he was
concerned with the list of questions presented to Eto because it
made Eto feel attacked. In addition, Reilly testified that he
EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC. 9
thanked Jesse for her concern and advised her to “be careful
about speaking on behalf of others” adding that “all teachers
can speak to us directly with any concerns they may have.”
Email of November 20 Cautioning Jesse regarding Speaking on
Behalf of Colleagues
Reilly followed up with an email later that evening stating
that he appreciated Jesse’s openness to his feedback. Reilly
noted that in planning teaching schedules, the school utilized
student volumes, student survey evaluation scores, and worked
to keep full-time teachers at their required teaching level. Reilly
acknowledged that there might be changes from past admin-
istration’s practices and asked for patience in bringing San
Francisco into nationwide conformation. Reilly concluded:
I know you have been with us for a long time, and I appreci-
ate that you are looking out for your colleagues. That being
said, we also want to maintain a high degree of professional-
ism at the school. While you should certainly feel free to
voice your concerns, how you go about this is very important.
It is not appropriate to jump to conclusions about how and
why decisions are made, and certainly not acceptable to spec-
ulate about the personal relationships of our staff. In addition,
I would caution you from speaking on behalf of colleagues
and instead redirect them to the academic team or myself.
This will help us resolve situations more quickly and effi-
ciently with less confusion all around.
December 6 and 7 Emails Requesting additional Computers
In response to a work-related December 6 email to all teach-
ers from Freeny, Jesse replied to all on December 7 suggesting
that additional computers and a printer be made available to
teachers. By email of December 9, Freeny thanked Jesse for the
suggestion and more computers were provided.
December 16 Email Admonishing Group Email Usage
Reilly was out of the country during the December 6 and 7
email exchange. However, on December 16, Reilly responded
to Jesse’s December 6 email stating,
As we’ve discussed before, please come and speak with one
of us in person about any questions or concerns you may
have. Unfortunately, sending out a group email like this [De-
cember 6 email] is not a professional or effective way to re-
solve your concerns. Please keep this in mind for the future,
and our door is always open if you do need to chat.
Jesse replied asserting that she and other employees often
sent group emails and defending her use of group emails:
I’m sure you can appreciate that we (teachers) were without
an Academic Director for some time and have resorted to
email to communicate with one another about keeping things
running smoothly without a leader. This is the most efficient
way for us to communicate as we are not all in the teachers’
room at the same time.
The Very Blue Book, utilized and distributed by Respondent
for orientation, specifies, “When a matter is urgent and you are
unable to resolve it in person, pick up the phone. Don’t send an
email.” Jesse recalled receiving this book at a meeting in Janu-
ary. One of twelve tips for success states, “Pick up the phone.”
The book further provides,
Email.etiquette@ef
 Avoid sending angry emails; words [obliterated] they are
written down.
 Sometimes it’s helpful to write the email but not send it.
If you’re angry, wait. Then pick up the phone or, better
yet, talk to the person face-to-face.
 Avoid blaming people for not having important infor-
mation by saying “but I copied you on that email” or “it
was in one of the attachments of that email I sent you.”
If it’s important, don’t cut and paste or attach. Pick up
the phone
Despite these policies, I find that Respondent’s teachers and
administrators routinely utilized group emails in order to dis-
cuss employment-related matters. Teachers Jesse, Franklin, and
Teixeira recalled specific group emails to and from teachers
and administrators regarding attendance lists, time sheets, Mil-
ler’s departure in September, requests for substitute teachers, a
football pool, get-togethers outside of work, and locating miss-
ing books or property. Administrators were routinely included
on these emails. These three witnesses, including Franklin via
videoconferencing, were highly credible, corroborated each
other, and were not contradicted by witnesses for Respondent
regarding the use of group emails for employment-related mat-
ters. Moreover, the record contains numerous such emails.
Jesse’s December 18 Email to Freeny Opining that any Drop in
her Student Survey Evaluation System Rating was due to a
“Complainy” Student Demographic, the A2-1 Assignment, and
Large Class Size
Jesse was named in August as a top performing teacher with
a 4.35 student survey evaluation. For the period July 1 to Octo-
ber 24, Jesse had an evaluation of 4.04. On Tuesday, December
17, Freeny emailed all teachers announcing the four teachers
who had achieved the highest average student survey evalua-
tion scores for the year. Jesse’s name was not on the December
17 list.
By email of December 18, Jesse responded to Freeny only.
This was not a group email. Jesse noted that apparently her
evaluation score had fallen. She asked that her current score be
sent to her and then opined that any decrease in her score could
be due to three different factors:
1. I taught 2 terms of (young group) B1-3 in which the class
was more than 50% French speaking. The students com-
plained saying their agents had promised them something dif-
ferent.12 I didn’t have a good answer for them other than it

12 In other words, the optimal situation is that the students in each
class be so mixed in languages that the students are forced to speak
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
was up to them not to speak their language in class. This de-
mographic is very “complainy” about a lot of things. I am
sure everything about the school “took a hit” from these guys.
2. I had mastered the art of teaching A2-2. This class was
given to Logan. I was given A2-1 instead. A2-1 is really a
mixed class of A1-2, A1-3, A2-1 and there were at least two
students in there that could have been in A2-2; one student in
there was placed in B1-1 by Stephanie (unbeknownst by me).
3. Last week I was teaching three classes. One had 20 stu-
dents and the other two each had 18. Personally, I don’t mind
teaching these larger classes. Often the class with 20 (A2-1)
was scheduled to be in some of the smaller classes [class-
rooms] (e.g. Ghirardeli [sic] Square, Fisherman’s Wharf). The
students complained. I was puzzled considering the admin
was both aware of the student numbers and classroom size
and they are the ones doing the scheduling. A large number of
students in a class means students don’t get as much individu-
al attention during class time. It also means the teacher has to
do more homework, test and essay correction outside of class.
Freeny responded with Jesse’s student survey evaluation in-
formation for calendar year 2013 showing that Jesse had an
annual evaluation score of 4.02 with 166 students responding.
Freeny’s statistics also indicated that for weeks 41–50 of 2013,
Jesse’s score was 4.0
Like all statistics, Respondent’s student survey evaluation
scores are capable of various analyses. On December 20, in
responding to Jesse’s request for her evaluation score, Freeny
utilized 10-week periods to determine that Jesse’s average
score for 2013 was 4.02. At hearing, Parnes decried the use of
10-week periods as a result of Freeny’s lack of experience and
testified that the evaluations are based on class periods. Thus,
Parnes and Conway agreed that Jesse’s actual student survey
evaluation for July 1 to October 24 was 4.04 and for the period
October 27 to December 19 was 3.89. In any event, the evi-
dence overwhelmingly indicates that student evaluation scores
are not utilized to discharge teachers. Respondent does not
contend otherwise.
Decision to Discharge
Freeny forwarded Jesse’s December 18 email to Reilly and
Reilly forwarded the email to Conway. Freeny, Reilly, and
Conway subsequently discussed their concerns that Jesse con-
tinued to protest teaching a specific course after numerous prior
conversations on the subject and that Jesse placed responsibility
for her student evaluation scores on a particular demographic
which she characterized as “complainy.” These concerns were
shared by Freeny with Haviva Parnes, director of academic
management. Parnes recalled the discussion with Freeny as one
of frustration. “We couldn’t praise her and we couldn’t give her
constructive feedback.” Parnes and Conway spoke further and
determined that Jesse should be terminated due to her inflexi-
bility to teach assigned courses. Another reason for the termina-

English to communicate with each other. A class with 50 percent
speaking the same non-English language makes it more probable that
the second common language will be utilized rather than English, thus
failing to provide the student with immersion in English.
tion was a decline in Jesse’s ratings. Further, her blaming
“complainy” French-speaking students for the poor ratings was
troubling. Conway characterized this as a “slur against French
people, which is not something that we wanted of an employee
in an international school.”
Conway made the decision to discharge Jesse after consult-
ing with Parnes. The reasons for discharging Jesse, according to
Conway, were her refusal in November and December to teach
anything other than A2-2 level courses, the derogatory com-
ment in the December 18 email about a specific group of stu-
dents based on their national origin, and a falling teacher evalu-
ation of 3.85 for the last term.13 Conway told Reilly to dis-
charge Jesse because
[S]he only wanted to teach one specific class, that that was not
an expectation that we have of all the EF teachers. Again, that
she was calling the French students a very demographic
complainee group of people. And, you know, that in conjunc-
tion with at the same time her evaluation scores were drop-
ping and dropping and dropping, so it was sort of the combi-
nation of all of those things together.
Termination of Jesse
On December 20, Jesse was discharged during a meeting
with Reilly and Freeny. According to Jesse, Reilly told her,
“[Y]ou’re not a good fit, we didn’t like the group emails, you’re
not a corporate citizen.” Thus, according to Jesse, she was told
that she was discharged, at least in part, because of her group
emails. This testimony is credited for the reasons that follow.
According to Reilly, he told Jesse he appreciated her hard
work but it seemed like this was not the right fit because we
continued to discuss the same issues of being available to teach
the different levels that were assigned her. This was the totality
of the conversation according to Reilly.
Freeny recalled that Reilly did the speaking and said that
Jesse was terminated and he wished her the best of luck. Jesse
asked for details and Reilly responded it was because of “recent
events that had occurred.” When asked to explain what Riley
meant by “recent events,” Freeny responded “these series of
emails.” When asked for further clarification: “And just to be
clear for the record, when you say this series of emails you’re
referring to the emails in [General Counsel Exhibit16]?” Freeny
responded, “Yes, 16, yes.”
General Counsel Exhibit 16 contains an initial email from
Freeny to all teachers and administrators dated December 17
announcing teachers with the top scores for the past year pursu-
ant to student evaluation surveys. The exhibit also contains
Jesse’s reply, which was only to Freeny, dated December 18 in
which Jesse characterized French-speaking students as
“complainy,” requested her evaluation scores, and continued to
assert that she should not be assigned to teach A2-1. Jesse’s
December 18 response to Freeny was not a group email string
originated by Jesse to teachers and administrators.

13 The 3.85 score differs from the 4.02 annual score sent to Jesse by
Freeny. According to Parnes, Freeny utilized a 10-week average when
she sent the score to Jesse. Parnes explained that Respondent does not
utilize a 10-week basis for averaging evaluations.
EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC. 11
None of the versions of the discharge conversation mirror the
corporate reasons for discharge enunciated at the hearing. Fur-
ther, there is little agreement between the three witnesses at the
discharge conversation regarding what was said. On the whole I
find Jesse’s testimony to be more complete and more inherently
believable. Reilly’s testimony lacked detail and appeared ab-
breviated rather than drawn from his recollection. Freeny was a
hesitant witness whose demeanor exemplified an unwilling
witness carefully trying not to say the “wrong” thing. Strangely,
though, Jesse’s rendition is supported in part by Reilly and in
part by Freeny.
Thus, Reilly and Jesse agreed that Jesse was told that she
was terminated because she was not a good fit or not the right
fit. Freeny’s testimony indicates that Jesse was told she was
discharged due to “these recent events,” by which Freeny testi-
fied Reilly meant emails. Freeny’s conjecture is, of course,
notable only because Freeny appears to recall that emails were
a stated basis for the discharge. I find Freeny’s reference to
emails includes all emails including those which Respondent
had counseled Jesse about—the group emails of November 17
and December 7. Due to the leading nature of the questions, I
discredit the attempt to limit Freeny’s testimony that she
thought “these series of emails” was solely limited to Jesse’s
December 18 email to Freeny. Freeny was led to respond with
this limitation and I discredit it. Thus, I credit Jesse’s testimony
that she was told she was discharged because she was not a
good fit, Respondent did not like her group emails, and she was
not a good corporate citizen.
Analysis
Alleged Threats
The amended complaint alleges that on November 20, Reilly
threatened employees with unspecified reprisals by telling em-
ployees to focus on teaching and not get involved in helping co-
workers. Reilly’s testimony is that on the advice of Conway, he
met with Jesse on November 20 to clear up policies and proce-
dures. He advised Jesse “to be careful about speaking on behalf
of others” and his follow-up email of the same date provides, “I
would caution you from speaking on behalf of colleagues. . . .”
The amended complaint further alleges that on December 16
Reilly threatened employees with unspecified reprisals by stat-
ing that employees should not send out group emails discussing
employees’ terms and conditions of employment. Reilly’s De-
cember 16 email responded to a group email sent by Jesse re-
questing more computers. In his response, Reilly stated:
As we’ve discussed before, please come and speak with one
of us in person about any questions or concerns you may
have. Unfortunately, sending out a group email like this is not
a professional or effective way to resolve your concerns.
Please keep this in mind for the future, and our door is always
open if you do need to chat.
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act14 provides that it is an unfair labor

14 29 U.S.C. §158(a)(1).
practice “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 [of the Act]. Sec-
tion 7 protects the right of employees to engage in “concerted
activity” for, inter alia, their “mutual aid or protection.” The
Board assesses the objective tendency of statements to coerce
employees rather than utilizing employees’ actual subjective
reactions. Miller Electric Pump, 334 NLRB 824, 825 (2001).
Under this objective standard, the Board determines whether a
statement would reasonably tend to interfere with the free exer-
cise of employee rights. See, Miller Electric Pump, supra, 334
NLRB at 825 (rejecting judge’s finding based on employee’s
reaction to statement and finding statement, when considered
objectively, tended to interfere with protected right to discuss
union on nonworking time). Similarly, the Board does not con-
sider the motivation behind the remark. Joy Recovery Technol-
ogy Corp., 320 NLRB 356, 365 (1995), enfd. 134 F.3d 1307
(7th Cir. 1998) (“The test of interference, restraint, and coer-
cion does not turn on the employer’s motive or on whether the
coercion succeeded or failed . . . [t]he test is whether the em-
ployer engaged in conduct, which it may reasonably be said,
tends to interfere with the free exercise of employee rights un-
der the Act.’’) Thus, it is irrelevant that Reilly’s motivation in
telling Jesse to be careful about speaking on behalf of others
was that Eto told him that Teixeira did not want to be involved
with Jesse and Franklin in class swapping.
Respondent’s statements to Jesse warned her under threat of
unspecified reprisals that she should not attempt to assist her
coworkers and should not utilize group emails to discuss work-
related matters. A reasonable construction of Reilly’s state-
ments is as a warning to refrain from assisting coworkers and to
refrain from group emails to coworkers about terms and condi-
tions of employment. By virtue of these statements to Jesse,
Respondent threatened Jesse if she continued to engage in pro-
tected, concerted activity of speaking on behalf of others and
speaking to groups of employees about their terms and condi-
tions of employment. Thus I find the violations as alleged.
Alleged Discharge for Protected, Concerted Activity
The amended complaint alleges that Jesse was discharged on
December 20 because of her protected, concerted activity as
follows:
 Challenging Respondent’s eligibility policy for its
health insurance in group emails and at employee
meetings;
 Demanding a wage increase, a 401(k) program, and
opposing hiring of new teachers when current teach-
ers wanted more teaching hours at employee meet-
ings;
 Challenging Respondent’s decision to reduce the
hours of two teachers while simultaneously rehiring
another teacher with full-time hours in group emails
and employee meetings;
 Questioning Respondent’s policy of reducing teach-
ers’ hours based on low evaluation scores in group
emails and employee meetings; and
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD12
 Demanding more computers for teachers in group
emails and employee meetings.
An employee’s discharge independently violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act when it is motivated by employee activity
protected by Section 7. “[A] respondent violates Section 8(a)(1)
if, having knowledge of an employee’s concerted activity, it
takes adverse employment action motivated by employee’s
protected, concerted activity.” CGLM, Inc., 350 NLRB 974,
979 (2007), enfd. mem. 280 Fed.Appx. 366 (5th Cir. 2008),
quoting Meyers Industries (Meyers I), 268 NLRB 493, 497
(1984), revd. sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir.
1985), cert denied 474 U.S. 948 (1985), on remand Meyers
Industries (Meyers II), 281 NLRB 882 (1986), affd. sub nom.
Prill v. NLRB, 835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied 487
U.S. 1205 (1988).
Jesse was engaged in protected activity. Employees who
seek to improve wages, benefits, working hours, their physical
environment, dress codes, assignments, responsibilities, and
other similar employment-related items are dealing with condi-
tions of their employment as set forth in Section 7. New River
Industries v. NLRB, 945 F.2d 1290, 1294 (4th Cir. 1991); see
generally, Eastex v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 563–568 (1978);
CGLM, Inc., supra, 350 NLRB at 979.15
By sending group emails to her coworkers and speaking at
employer meetings about various terms and conditions of em-
ployment such as eligibility for health insurance, a wage in-
crease for “administrative” pay, a 401(k) program, hiring of
new teachers when existing teachers were willing to teach addi-
tional hours, utilization of the student survey evaluation method
to award classes, and requesting additional computers for
teachers, Jesse was engaged in protected, concerted activity
with 20 or more coworkers. Examples of this behavior are her
group emails of November 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 17; her questions
and comments at the November 13 meeting; and her insistence
on meeting Eto with Franklin rather than one-on-one on De-
cember 18 all with an object of inducing group action.
Although it is unnecessary to express the object of inducing
group action,16 Jesse’s statements clearly contain calls for
group action. On November 4, in response to Serangeli’s offer
to talk with Jesse one-on-one about healthcare, Jesse declined
by replying to all noting that half the teachers had emailed
agreement with her position and concluded, “It’s not about me.
It’s about us.” By email to 20 teachers on November 10 (later
forwarded to Serangeli), Jesse urged her coworkers that “stick-
ing up for what’s best for ALL teachers is the best avenue for

15 See also, Inova Health System, 360 NLRB No. 135, slip op. at 3
(2014) (employee engaged in protected activity when she emailed
fellow employees about terms and conditions of employment); Cibao
Meat Products, 338 NLRB 934, 934–935 (2003), enfd. 84 Fed.Appx.
155 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 543 U.S. 986 (2004) (activity of one em-
ployee, who speaks in the presence of other employees, regarding a
change in employment terms affecting all employees is protected, con-
certed activity).
16 See, e.g., U.S. Furniture Industries, 293 NLRB 159, 161 (1989)
(discussion about wage rates constituted concerted activity even though
there was no express object to induce group action).
success.” In seeking to resolve assignments so that Franklin and
Teixeira could increase their hours, by email of November 17,
Jesse urged solidarity among teachers and noted their success in
getting another computer and an administrative pay raise. All of
these actions were in response to matters which arose in the
workplace at staff meetings and in preparation for upcoming
staff meetings. Thus, by addressing these issues and possible
action on these issues, Jesse was seeking to initiate, induce, or
prepare for group action. Her actions thus consistute protected,
concerted activity for mutual aid or protection.
If the very conduct for which an employee is discharged is
the employee’s protected activity, the employer’s motivation is
not at issue. See, e.g., Phoenix Transit System, 337 NLRB 510
(2002), enfd. mem. 63 Fed.Appx. 524 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In
Burnup & Sims, 379 U.S. 21, 23-24 (1964), the Court held that
Section 8(a)(1) is violated if “the discharged employee was at
the time engaged in a protected activity, that the employer
knew it was such, that the basis of the discharge was an alleged
act of misconduct in the course of that activity, and that the
employee was not, in fact, guilty of that misconduct.” It is the
Respondent’s burden to show that it had an honest belief that
the employee engaged in misconduct. Akal Security, Inc., 354
NLRB 122, 124–125 (2009), reaffd. 355 NLRB 584 (2010);
Tracer Protection Service, 328 NLRB 734, fn. 2 (1999).
Here, as set forth above, the credible evidence indicates that
Jesse engaged in protected, concerted activity by speaking to
management on behalf of her coworkers and that Respondent
knew she was speaking about terms and conditions of employ-
ment on behalf of her coworkers. Indeed, Respondent specifi-
cally warned Jesse that she should be careful about speaking for
her coworkers and should refrain from sending group emails.
Four days after being warned by Reilly to refrain from sending
group emails, Jesse was discharged for sending group emails
and “not fitting in.” The only misconduct cited was her protect-
ed, concerted activity. Thus, under the Burnup & Sims analysis,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act in discharging
Jesse.
The parties have briefed this case utilizing the analysis set
forth in Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d
899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), approved
in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393,
395 (1983). This analysis yields the same result. Wright Line
applies to all 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations that turn on employer
motivation. Pursuant to Wright Line, the General Counsel must
persuade by a preponderance of the evidence that the employ-
ee’s protected conduct was a motivating factor (in whole or in
part) for the adverse employment action.
The General Counsel satisfies the Wright Line standard by
showing that the employee was engaged in protected activity,
the employer was aware of the activity, and the activity was a
substantial or motivating reason for the employer’s action.
Donaldson Bros. Ready Mix, 341 NLRB 958, 961 (2004). Here,
the General Counsel has shown that Jesse engaged in protected
activity with the employer’s full knowledge. Respondent’s
animus toward her activities is demonstrated by its threats on
November 20 cautioning her not to speak in support of her
colleagues and on December 16 not to send group emails about
terms and conditions of employment. Thus the General Counsel
EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC. 13
has shown not only the three requirements of Wright Line as set
forth in Donaldson Bros., supra, but has also shown particular-
ized motivating animus towards Jesse’s protected activity as a
nexus between Jesse’s protected activity and the adverse action
taken against her.17
The General Counsel’s showing proves a violation of the Act
subject to Respondent’s affirmative defense of demonstrating
by a preponderance of the evidence that the same adverse em-
ployment action would have taken place even in the absence of
the protected conduct. Wright Line, supra at 1088–1089. In this
regard, however, it is not sufficient for an employer to produce
a legitimate basis for the adverse employment action18 or to
show that legitimate factors for adverse action were a part of its
decision-making process.19 Rather, Wright Line requires an
employer to persuade by a preponderance of the evidence that it
would have taken the same action in any event.
Respondent asserts that it would have discharged Jesse in
any event because of her disparagement of French-speaking
students and her reluctance to teach an assigned course. Alt-
hough Respondent agrees that low student survey evaluation
scores alone are not a ground for discharge, Respondent notes
that both of the incidents above occurred in the context of Jes-
se’s falling student survey evaluation scores. I find these
grounds pretextual. Further, were these grounds not pretextual,
I would find them insufficient to prove that Jesse would have
been discharged for these reasons.
Thus, I note that there was no attempt to counsel or confront
Jesse about her remark about French-speaking students. Re-
spondent’s Teacher Handbook states that it utilizes a progres-
sive discipline system with at least one oral warning before a
written warning is issued. If a written warning is issued, correc-
tive action is set forth in the warning. “Some types of infrac-
tions [not enumerated] may result in immediate termination at
this time.” The handbook further provides that prior to termina-
tion, an employee is entitled to be informed of incorrect behav-
ior or substandard performance through oral and written warn-
ings unless the infraction is of a severe nature. Although Con-
way found Jesse’s remark “troubling,” she did not explain why
it constituted grounds for immediate termination without an
oral or written warning. Similarly, Jesse was told repeatedly
that Respondent would not change its class assignment. She
continued to complain but was given no warning that her com-
plaints could lead to termination. She was not informed that she
needed to correct this behavior or disciplinary action might be

17 See, e.g., Nichols Aluminum, LLC, 361 NLRB No. 22, slip op. at
6–8 (2014) (concurrence of Member Johnson stating particularized
motivating animus toward employee’s own protected activity is implicit
in Wright Line).
18 Carpenter Technology Corp., 346 NLRB 766, 773 (2006) (“The
issue is, thus, not simply whether the employer ‘could have’ disciplined
the employee, but whether it ‘would have’ done so regardless of his
union activities.”)
19 Weldun International, 321 NLRB 733, 747 (1996), enfd. in rele-
vant part 165 F.3d 28 (6th Cir. 1998) (employer cannot carry this bur-
den merely by showing it also had a legitimate reason for the action).
taken. Thus, because these reasons for discharge were not artic-
ulated at the time of discharge and because Respondent did not
counsel or warn Jesse about these behaviors, I find that they are
pretextual.
A finding of pretext necessarily means that the reasons ad-
vanced by the employer either did not exist or were not in fact
relied upon, thereby leaving intact the inference of wrongful
motive established by the General Counsel. Limestone Apparel
Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981), enfd. 705 F.2d 799 (6th Cir.
1982). Thus, if the evidence establishes that the reasons given
for the Respondent’s action are pretextual, the Respondent fails
by definition to show that it would have taken the same action
for those reasons, absent the protected conduct, and there is no
need to perform the second part of the Wright Line analysis.
Golden State Foods Corp., 340 NLRB 382, 385 (2003).
Moreover, even were these reasons not pretext, they would
not satisfy Respondent’s Wright Line burden. Substantively the
three reasons now asserted are low evaluation scores, character-
ization of a student demographic as “complainy,” and contin-
ued resentment about a teaching assignment. These three
grounds are insufficient to show that Respondent would have
discharged Jesse in any event.
Low evaluation scores are by Respondent’s admission not a
ground for discharge but rather an alert showing that perfor-
mance improvement is required. The record contains several
different student survey evaluation scores. The 2013 annual
score was 4.02 according to an email from Freeny. This score is
confirmed by an annual score survey prepared for hearing. A
third document indicates a score of 3.89 for the period October
24 through December 19. Before that time, Jesse was a top
performer with a 4.35 score. But numbers aside, Respondent’s
policy was to counsel a teacher with a low evaluation score in
order to raise the score. Respondent specifically awarded full-
time status to high scoring teachers but did not use the scores as
a reason for discharge. Thus, Respondent has not proven that it
would in any event have discharged Jesse for low student sur-
vey evaluation scores. In fact, her annual score met their crite-
ria if not their expectation.
The second reason given by corporate personnel for Jesse’s
discharge was that in an email sent to Freeny (but not to other
teachers or to students) she referred to the French-speaking
demographic of students in one of her classes as “complainy.”
This characterization was not shared with the students or teach-
ers. As Conway stated, the characterization was troubling and,
indeed, it is possible to categorize it as an ethnic slur.20 Howev-
er, absent broadcast of such a stereotypical characterization, it
is difficult to find that the single, isolated statement warranted
discharge. Moreover, Respondent called no attention to the
remark at the time it was made and did not counsel or attempt
remediation. Further, Respondent does not assert Title VII con-
cerns to maintain a workplace free of national origin harass-

20 Wikipedia defines an ethnic slur as a term designed to insult others
on the basis of race, ethnicity, or nationality. In other words, it is an
aspersion or disparaging remark about race or language.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD14
ment as a reason for Jesse’s discharge.21 Given Respondent’s
progressive disciplinary system and Jesse’s tenure at the school,
I am unconvinced that this remark proves that Jesse would have
been discharged in any event.
Finally, Respondent found fault with Jesse because she con-
tinued to complain about assignment of an A2-1 class because
she thought it would lower her evaluations and because she
believed she was much better at teaching A2-2. Jesse did in-
deed complain and complain about this assignment, but in the
end, she taught the class. Jesse was never warned to cease com-
plaining but she was told on numerous occasions that she must
keep the A2-1 class and she did. There was no failure to per-
form her assigned duties and this ground put forth by Respond-
ent does not support a finding that Jesse would have been dis-
charged in any event.
Thus, because the student survey evaluation scores were ad-
mittedly not grounds for discharge, because the “complainy”
disparagement was a single, isolated occurrence, and because
Jesse taught her assigned classes, and because none of these
perceived grounds for discharge were treated under the pro-
gressive discipline system, absent a finding of pretext, I would
find that Respondent has not satisfied its burden of showing
that Jesse would have been discharged absent her protected
activity by advancing these three reasons for discharge. Based
on the record as a whole, I find that Jesse was discharged be-
cause of her protected, concerted activity in violation of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threat-
ening unspecified reprisals to an employee because she was
involved in helping coworkers.
2. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threat-
ening unspecified reprisals to an employee because she sent
group emails discussing employees’ terms and conditions of
employment.
3. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by dis-
charging Andrea Jesse because she assisted coworkers and
concertedly discussed employees’ terms and conditions of em-
ployment in group meetings and group emails.
4. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, it shall be ordered to cease and desist and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act. Specifically, having found that the Respondent

21 Title VII requires an employer to maintain a workplace atmos-
phere free of national origin harassment. The EEOC defines such har-
assment as ethnic slurs or other verbal and physical abuse relating to an
employee’s national origin when such conduct has the purpose or the
effect of (1) creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work envi-
ronment, (2) unreasonably interfering with the employee’s work per-
formance, or (3) otherwise adversely affecting an employee’s employ-
ment opportunities. See 29 C.F.R. § 1606 8(b).
discriminatorily discharged Andrea Jesse, it must offer her
reinstatement and make her whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from the date of
discharge to the date of proper offer of reinstatement, less any
interim earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90
NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in
Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010). Fur-
ther, Respondent shall compensate Jesse for any adverse tax
consequences of receiving a lump-sum backpay award and file
a report with the Social Security Administration allocating the
backpay award to the appropriate calendar quarters. Don
Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB No. 10,
slip opinion at 4–5 (2014). Additionally, the customary notice
shall be posted and published in the usual manner.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended:22
ORDER
The Respondent, EF International Language Schools, Inc.,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall cease and
desist from threatening or discharging employees for their pro-
tected, concerted activities or in any like or related manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
Respondent shall take the following affirmative action nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Andrea
Jesse full reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no long-
er exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without preju-
dice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
(b) Make Andrea Jesse whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
her, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(c) Reimburse Andrea Jesse an amount, if any, equal to the
difference in taxes owed upon receipt of a lump-sum backpay
payment and taxes that would have been owed had there been
no discrimination against her.
(d) Submit the appropriate documentation to the Social Se-
curity Administration so that when backpay is paid to Andrea
Jesse it will be allocated to the appropriate calendar quarters.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from
its files any reference to the unlawful discharge of Andrea Jesse
and, within 3 days thereafter, notify her in writing that this has
been done and that the unlawful discrimination against her will
not be used against her in any way.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board

22 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, shall be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC. 15
or its agents, all payroll records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy
of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to ana-
lyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
facility in San Francisco, California, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”23 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director of Region 20, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical post-
ing of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employment by the Respondent
at its San Francisco facility at any time since November 20,
2013.
(h) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. September 15, 2014
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this No-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.

23 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
WE WILL NOT threaten employees because they get involved
in helping their coworkers or because they send out group
emails discussing employees’ terms and conditions of employ-
ment such as healthcare eligibility, wage increases, 401(k) pro-
grams, availability of computers, or hiring and scheduling of
employees.
WE WILL NOT discharge an employee for complaining at em-
ployee meetings and through group emails about employees’
terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
offer Andrea Jesse full reinstatement to her former job or, if
that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position,
without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privi-
leges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Andrea Jesse whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of her unlawful dis-
charge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL reimburse Andrea Jesse an amount, if any, equal to
the difference in taxes owed upon receipt of a lump-sum
backpay payment and taxes that would have been owed had
there been no discrimination against her.
WE WILL submit the appropriate documentation to the Social
Security Administration so that when backpay is paid to Andrea
Jesse, it will be allocated to the appropriate calendar quarters.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order,
remove from our files any reference to the unlawful discharge
of Andrea Jesse and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify
her in writing that this has been done and that the unlawful
discrimination will not be used against her in any way.
EF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE SCHOOLS, INC.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/20-CA-120999 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.