Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., (2022)

• Date: 13 April 2022

JD(SF)–10–22

Phoenix, Arizona

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

DIVISION OF JUDGES

CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC.

and Case 28–CA–260450

ERIC LEE HARRIS, an Individual

Noah Fowle, Esq., and

Stephen Pincus, Esq.,

for the General Counsel.

Jeffrey W. Toppel Esq.,

for the Respondent.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ELEANOR LAWS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried virtually using the Zoom

for Government platform on January 25–26, 2022. Eric Lee Harris (Harris or Charging Party)

filed the charge on May 14, 20201and the General Counsel issued the complaint on June 17,

2021. Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (CPLC or the Respondent) filed a timely answer denying all

material allegations and setting forth affirmative and other specified defenses.2

The complaint alleges the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor

Relations Act (the Act) by threatening employees by inviting them to quit their employment

because they engaged in protected concerted activity and by discharging employees Harris and

Caitlyn Polston for engaging in protected concerted activity.

Notably, the events comprising the complaint allegations occurred in March and April

2020, as the entire world was abruptly forced to pivot due to the onset and unpredictable path of

1All dates are 2020 unless otherwise indicated.

2The complaint was amended to allege Karen Martinez Paz, human resources generalist, was a

statutory supervisor. The Respondent filed an amended answer denying Martinez Paz was a supervisor.

The amended complaint also changed the name in complaint allegation 4(b) from Rolando Moreno to

Elisha Franklin. In its answer, the Respondent raiseddefenses under 10(b) of the Act. The Respondent did

not assert such a defense at trial and did not argue it in brief. In any event, I find all allegations are timely.

JD(SF)–10–22

2

the COVID-19 pandemic. Employers and employees alike faced uncharted waters, with ever-

changing guidance on how to continue forward while attempting to curb the spread of the virus

and save lives. Some workers and services, such as those here, were deemed “essential” by the

government, resulting in extremely difficult circumstances and decisions all around.3The context

of this unparalleled and highly challenging time cannot be ignored when assessing how 5

individuals acted and reacted in this case.

On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and

after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the

following10

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. JURISDICTION

15

The Respondent, a nonprofit corporation, provides behavioral health services at its

facility in Phoenix, Arizona. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in

commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.

II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES20

A. Background and the Respondent’s Operations

CPLC is a nonprofit organization that provides behavioral health services, social services, 25

and education. CPLC’s mission is to serve the underserved and provide equality for all. Its

services range from early Head Start education to senior living and community programs. CPLC

is located primarily in Arizona, but has programs in California, Texas, Nevada, and New

Mexico. David Adame was CEO during the relevant time period. Pedro Cons was CPLC’s vice

president of integrated health and human services from 2006 until June 2020, with oversight of 30

its behavioral health programs.4

1. The Corazon Program

Corazon, the program relevant here, is one of CPLC’s behavioral health programs. 35

Corazon’s substance abuse program is a 65-bed men’s residential treatment program. Most of the

men are homeless and their treatment is funded through Access, which is Arizona’s state

Medicaid program.

Corazon’s hospital step down program, which existed from 2015 to July 2020, served40

seriously mentally ill adults coming from psychiatric hospitalization and needing stabilization in

the community. The step down program had about 14 beds. The goal was to prevent re-

3This was established through testimony. See also https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-

19/categories-essential-workers.html.

4At the time of the hearing, Cons was the CEO of Adelante Healthcare.