[00:00:10] Speaker 01:
Good afternoon.

[00:00:18] Speaker 01:
I've reserved two minutes of rebuttal.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
I'm Elizabeth Sear on behalf of Flamingo Las Vegas.

[00:00:23] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court, this is an unfair labor practice case related to a union organizing effort among security employees at the Flamingo Las Vegas property.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
And this case may seem mundane at first blush, but I think it's anything but on closer inspection.

[00:00:40] Speaker 01:
I think that the board's decision is an open and unabashed assault on employer free speech rights.

[00:00:46] Speaker 01:
For decades this and other courts have been forced to police the NLRB and their excessive restriction of employer free speech.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
In other words, you're not even going to argue about the interrogation.

[00:00:58] Speaker 01:
Well, I was going to get there, Your Honor.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
I mean, I think that that's part of the entire sort of web that's been woven here, which is to say, in all these different ways, the board has twisted the conduct that occurred to achieve a desired result.

[00:01:16] Speaker 01:
When, in fact, if all of that is stripped away, the interrogation, for example, you have an instance of a supervisor asking one question to one employee in an isolated conversation.

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
The employee declines to answer, the supervisor accepts that and walks away.

[00:01:32] Speaker 01:
There's legal authority out there that that's not interrogation.

[00:01:36] Speaker 01:
A question in and of itself is not interrogation, absent coercion or intimidation.

[00:01:41] Speaker 01:
And that was completely devoid of that in that conversation, that conversation was completely devoid of that type of coercion.

[00:01:46] Speaker 04:
The question of do you support the union or what do you think of the union, that's not the typical question, right?

[00:01:53] Speaker 01:
That may be true, but that in and of itself doesn't make it unlawful.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
I mean, I think there has to be evidence that it coerced or intimidated the employees.

[00:02:03] Speaker 02:
I think there are hundreds of cases in which the board has held asking an employee, when a supervisor asking an employee, do you support the union or not, that is inherently a violation of 8A1, per se.

[00:02:21] Speaker 01:
Well, I would disagree, Your Honor.

[00:02:23] Speaker 01:
There are cases that hold the contrary, that that type of question is not, per se, interrogation.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
That it's the context in which the question occurs that determines whether or not it's interrogation.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
And don't we defer to the Board on that?

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
Well, I think you defer to the Board when the Board's findings are reasonable and based on substantial evidence, and I just don't think that's the case here.

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
Reasonableness goes to whether or not these employees in this situation, in this environment, would have viewed the conduct, would have reasonably viewed the conduct to be creating an unlawful impression of surveillance or being unlawful interrogation.

[00:03:01] Speaker 01:
And because the board's decision and the board's findings strips out all of this relevant context to when and how this is happening, I think the board's findings are not reasonable, and there's not a reasonable basis to defer to them.

[00:03:14] Speaker 02:
What's your best HC argument?

[00:03:18] Speaker 01:
My best HC argument?

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
Well, I think that the best HC argument is that speech that interferes with

[00:03:28] Speaker 02:
Well, it goes specifically to what speech you think was protected by HC and is not evidence of violation of employees' Section 7 rights.

[00:03:40] Speaker 01:
So for example, the authorization card flyer that's distributed on October 7th.

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
There the board finds that that flyer is creating an unlawful impression of surveillance because it didn't identify how it came about getting this authorization card.

[00:03:57] Speaker 02:
The flyer says what?

[00:03:59] Speaker 02:
Remind us.

[00:04:00] Speaker 01:
The flyer has a copy of an authorization card and it says something along the lines of, don't sign away your rights.

[00:04:07] Speaker 01:
Know what you're signing.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
And the board holds, well, because they didn't identify how they came about getting this card, that it created an unlawful impression of surveillance.

[00:04:16] Speaker 02:
And then there's also the bizarro.

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:04:20] Speaker 01:
And I would think that both of those go to the same point.

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
Explain the Bizarro.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
The flyer uses the word bizarre.

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
I think both of those go to the same point, which is none of this was a secret in this workplace.

[00:04:33] Speaker 02:
In other words, the board's theory is by using bizarre, it was an obvious reference to Bizarro, who was the union, chief union organizer.

[00:04:43] Speaker 02:
And therefore, that gave to the employees the notion that there was surveillance.

[00:04:49] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
Your response to that is everybody knew Bazzaro.

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
Everybody knew.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
And in fact, one of the violations that the ALJ found, the board reversed for that very reason, right?

[00:04:58] Speaker 01:
That referencing Mr. Bazzaro was not creating an unlawful impression of surveillance because everybody knew that he was the lead union supporter.

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
He was using the company's photocopier to make flyers.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
He was speaking to the company about this.

[00:05:11] Speaker 01:
There was emails flying around with company supervisors copied on them, you know, recipients of these emails.

[00:05:16] Speaker 04:
But that flyer came later, right?

[00:05:18] Speaker 01:
The bizarre flyer came, I think, like two weeks later.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:05:22] Speaker 04:
So, I mean, the situation could have been different with the October 7th flyer, as far as who knew what.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
Certainly, it could have been different, but I would take the position that it wasn't, that there was no covert organizing ever in this workplace, that everything was known and open from the jump.

[00:05:38] Speaker 01:
And again, you can download these authorization cards from the internet.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
The idea that you put one up on a bulletin board and somehow employees are going to think you're spying on them, I just think is a... Say you're right on that.

[00:05:49] Speaker 03:
What happens?

[00:05:53] Speaker 03:
Say you're right on that, but not on some of the others.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
Well, I think that it is important to first start with the ones that are sort of what I would say are the most extreme conclusions that are clearly not based on substantial evidence.

[00:06:08] Speaker 03:
And now the card and the bizarro are your two?

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
I would say both of the flyers.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
I would say the assertion that Mr. Golbyowski interrogated Mr. Evans.

[00:06:22] Speaker 01:
I think there are a number of them that I don't think come close to meeting the standard of substantial evidence.

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
And my point there would be

[00:06:28] Speaker 01:
The board's findings in these types of cases often have this downhill momentum.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
There's violations found, and as they consider the context of the next piece of, you know, employer conduct, they... But to be fair, they did distinguish a few that the ALJ had found.

[00:06:42] Speaker 03:
I mean, yeah, they did distinguish the wrong word, sorry, reverse.

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
They did not adopt those findings.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
But I think here for this court, what I would say is you have to, if you strip out those ones that I think are truly falling short, obviously falling short, then it halts that sort of downhill momentum, and it creates an entirely different context to which the ones that maybe are closer to the line need to be considered.

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
And so the board itself says-

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
Sorry to interrupt, but the problem on the closer-the-line ones is a lot of them are based on credibility of what was said in certain conversations, and that puts us in a tough, tough position.

[00:07:23] Speaker 01:
I certainly understand the skepticism when credibility, you know, defenses are raised in these proceedings.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
But I do think, and I understand that the credibility determinations are only going to be reversed

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
you know, when they are hopelessly unreliable.

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
But I think that is the case here.

[00:07:38] Speaker 01:
I mean, one of the reasons you overturn credibility decisions is because they are self-contradicting.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
And there is no better example than this case, where the judge says, the administrative law judge says, I find Mr. Bizarro to be a witness who will embellish, exaggerate.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
He accuses him of making up an event.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
He says, I don't even know if this event occurred that Mr. Bizarro testifies about.

[00:08:02] Speaker 01:
And so this is a man that he says will

[00:08:04] Speaker 01:
He has already determined we'll create details and facts to put himself in the best light possible.

[00:08:10] Speaker 01:
And then on the very next hand says, I credit his testimony because he provided more details over the two company witnesses.

[00:08:18] Speaker 02:
With respect to which issue?

[00:08:20] Speaker 01:
That's with respect to the incident in which it's claimed that the supervisor Mayotte threatened Mr. Bizarro when he pulled him aside after a pre-shift meeting.

[00:08:33] Speaker 01:
And I just think Mr. Bizarro is clearly identified as someone who is a non-credible witness, and he is nonetheless credited over

[00:08:44] Speaker 01:
company witnesses when the judge provides no demeanor analysis, no basis for why he's not crediting them.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
I think this is one of the rare cases.

[00:08:51] Speaker 04:
But the ALJ also found the head security guy, I'm forgetting his name, Golubowski, not credible in certain circumstances, but credible in other circumstances.

[00:09:06] Speaker 04:
I mean, that's what judges do, right?

[00:09:09] Speaker 01:
absolutely absolutely but I think when there is a debate you know when there's disputed evidence and I think that that's all the more reason to hold those credibility standards up to a very close you know under a very specific sort of microscope under a close lens and say you know is this good enough

[00:09:28] Speaker 01:
to overcome this dispute that exists in the factual recitation.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
I don't think Mr. Bizarro's testimony gets there, and I think the ALJ has to sort of contradict himself and bend himself, twist himself up into knots to get there.

[00:09:42] Speaker 01:
And I do think it's important to note that not only does he credit a witness

[00:09:46] Speaker 01:
that he has already said is prone to exaggeration and perhaps even lying.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
He does it against testimony that he doesn't go far enough in explaining why he's not crediting.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
No demeanor analysis, no description of why there's a company witness, Mr. Johnson.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
He just says, I believe Mr. Bazar over Mr. Johnson.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
Doesn't explain why.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
And I don't think you can do that in this circumstance.

[00:10:08] Speaker 01:
So I'm sorry, I've run into my rebuttal time.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
We'll give you two minutes back for rebuttal.

[00:10:12] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:10:21] Speaker 00:
Good morning my name is Valerie Collins and I represent the National Labor Relations Board.

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
I would agree with co-counsel that this case is not ordinary but for very different reasons.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
If anything it kind of read when I first got it like a law school exam of how many issues can you possibly spot and how many ways can you possibly

[00:10:42] Speaker 00:
violate the National Labor Relations Act.

[00:10:45] Speaker 00:
Ultimately, before the court, is obviously the kind of umbrella issue of whether substantial evidence supports all of those findings, that the company violated the act on numerous occasions in a somewhat wide variety of ways.

[00:10:59] Speaker 02:
What the court hinted at earlier... I must say, counsel, the two things that bothered me

[00:11:05] Speaker 02:
was the flyers, the one that emphasized bizarre and the copy of the authorization cards.

[00:11:18] Speaker 02:
The notion that either one of those reflected surveillance, as that term has been used by the board, struck me as a big stretch, even if everything else is right.

[00:11:30] Speaker 00:
But what the board did not hold that meant there was surveillance.

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
The holding here is that it left the impression of surveillance.

[00:11:39] Speaker 00:
And I think context is really key here.

[00:11:41] Speaker 00:
The first flyer with the blank authorization card was essentially the next day, right around the same time that the company learned that there was union activity going on amongst its employees.

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
And what's important is essentially what the company did not say.

[00:11:59] Speaker 00:
By handing out this flyer, and I can't remember if it was posted or not, the later one was, by disseminating this flyer that has this blank authorization card and kind of like an X through it,

[00:12:10] Speaker 00:
saying, you know, don't sign it.

[00:12:13] Speaker 00:
What the company is conveying is that we know this is going on, but what the company did not do was convey the fact of they got that completely legitimately.

[00:12:23] Speaker 00:
And there lies the violation because it's reasonable for employees to kind of come to the conclusion that they don't know, to fear.

[00:12:30] Speaker 00:
How did they get that card?

[00:12:33] Speaker 02:
Well, how would they get it illegitimately?

[00:12:35] Speaker 00:
Well, for example, well, I mean, here it would be by monitoring their activities.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
Somebody gave it to them, right?

[00:12:42] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:12:43] Speaker 00:
But they didn't know that.

[00:12:44] Speaker 00:
The employees didn't know that.

[00:12:46] Speaker 02:
I don't understand how else.

[00:12:47] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's sort of obvious, isn't it, that somebody would have given them the card.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
I mean, it wasn't obvious because they didn't say it.

[00:12:53] Speaker 02:
Where else would it have come from?

[00:12:54] Speaker 00:
From a satellite?

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
Well, I mean, this is a casino.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
Maybe they saw somebody having a card.

[00:13:01] Speaker 00:
I mean, I don't know.

[00:13:02] Speaker 00:
And that's where the problem is.

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
It's because they were left to wonder where they got that card.

[00:13:08] Speaker 04:
What if a supervisor, this Mr. Kolobowski, had said to one of the security guards,

[00:13:19] Speaker 04:
I hear that this guy's passing out cards, give me your card, I want it.

[00:13:26] Speaker 04:
And that's how they got it.

[00:13:27] Speaker 00:
Well, I mean, I think that that might bring up some other issues.

[00:13:32] Speaker 04:
What I guess I'm saying is that if that's one way that they could have gotten the card improperly, right?

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
Yes, it is.

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
It is.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
But I mean, the key here is that they were left to wonder, and they were left to fear.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
And there lies the violation.

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
And when I kind of explain... Suppose the employer were to give a speech to the employee saying, I understand

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
that the primary union argument refers to the wage rates that I'm paying compared to other casinos.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
And that argument is false.

[00:14:10] Speaker 02:
Indeed, I'm paying more than other casinos.

[00:14:13] Speaker 02:
Would the board conclude, uh-oh,

[00:14:15] Speaker 02:
he, in making that statement, is making reference to what the union says, therefore giving the impression that somehow he's surveilling the union?

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
If there's no explanation given, and it's reasonable for employees to wonder that, then yes.

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
When you don't tell how you got the information, that's the problem.

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
You're just left wondering and feeling paranoid that they mean... Oh, I should have to tell that one of the employees who's anti-union

[00:14:42] Speaker 02:
has told me that, and if I disclose who it is, he may get punched in the nose.

[00:14:47] Speaker 02:
You know, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
This impression of surveillance, I mean, surveillance can be a problem.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
And when Kobiowski, is that his name?

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
Well, yeah.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
When Kobiowski asks somebody, are you a member of the union, or do you sympathetically union?

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
That's classic stuff.

[00:15:07] Speaker 02:
The board seems to be on sound ground.

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
putting out a copy of an authorization card giving the impression they're surveillance is a big stretch.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
I would have to respectfully disagree.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
When I kind of explain the impression.

[00:15:24] Speaker 02:
In the hypothetical I just gave you, the board has for 50 years never regarded that as an impression of surveillance.

[00:15:34] Speaker 02:
I am, as an employer, I understand the union is arguing X. And that is wrong.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
The board has never said that that is illegal.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
I don't know.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
If you say so.

[00:15:48] Speaker 00:
I don't know that the board has never held that.

[00:15:51] Speaker 00:
I don't know the depth of the case law.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
But there are plenty of situations where it's very similar, and we cite cases very similar, to this situation here in our brief.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
I would liken it to, and this is somewhat of a gendered hypothetical,

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
But if someone came up to me and said, oh, Ms.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
Collins, I really loved your outfit that you were wearing this weekend and then walked away and didn't say anything else, it would be reasonable for me, kind of not in legal terms, but to think that was a little creepy and to wonder how that person got that information.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
If he went on to say,

[00:16:26] Speaker 00:
I liked what you were wearing this weekend because, you know, your mom showed me your picture.

[00:16:30] Speaker 00:
There, it would be unreasonable for me to think that I have a stalker.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
I mean, and you can kind of transfer that easily to the situation here.

[00:16:39] Speaker 00:
When you say to employees, we know what you're doing, and you leave it at that, it's not unreasonable for employees to be a little afraid and to be into fear that management is kind of peeking over their shoulder.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
Email conversation, sure, but it just seems the authorization card and use of the term bizarre seems a bit of a reach, but you've made a good argument.

[00:17:07] Speaker 00:
Well, and I think that with the bizarre flyer, opposing counsel kind of mentioned the fact that the word bizarre was used.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
It wasn't just that the word bizarre was used.

[00:17:19] Speaker 00:
It was highlighted.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
I mean, not with a highlighter, but it was in all capital letters.

[00:17:24] Speaker 02:
Certainly it indicated the company knew that Lazzaro was the chief organizer, but that was hardly a secret.

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
Well, I mean, and I also want to distinguish what the company said earlier that the board, and the board did hear, disagree with the ALJ determination that there was a later impression of surveillance because by that point, everybody did know.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
What's key with that kind of distinction, that was in January.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
We're talking about activities in October, and October is the very first month that there was any union activity going on that the company knew about.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
So later on, yes, it makes sense to say everybody knew by that point.

[00:18:04] Speaker 00:
But the point of when the company was disseminating these flyers, there's no evidence that everybody knew.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
There's evidence that employees knew.

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
There's also evidence that the company knew, but there's no evidence that employees knew the company knew.

[00:18:20] Speaker 00:
So that's where they're left wondering, oh, I didn't know they knew that.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
How did they know that?

[00:18:24] Speaker 00:
How did they figure this out?

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
And there lies the violation.

[00:18:27] Speaker 00:
One of the things I did want to highlight here, because the company makes, you know, kind of woven throughout their brief and their argument, is this 8C claim that the board here kind of trampled upon their free speech rights and their right to say their opinions about unionization.

[00:18:45] Speaker 00:
And here, this case is kind of interesting because the facts of this case on itself show that that contention is just incorrect.

[00:18:55] Speaker 00:
The company here mounted a very vigorous anti-union campaign.

[00:19:00] Speaker 00:
There's tons of evidence in the record that most of what they did was completely legitimate.

[00:19:05] Speaker 00:
And I think it's highlighted with the bizarro flyer, the bizarre flyer, which is on 209 of the appendix.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
That flyer is sandwiched in between two other flyers that are completely legitimate.

[00:19:19] Speaker 00:
They have the same message.

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
So in essence, the company was free and in fact did lawfully, legitimately state its opinions on unionization.

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
But there are findings here that are amply supported by their evidence that there were specific instances that it kind of stepped over that line.

[00:19:39] Speaker 02:
You see how broad the arguments you're making.

[00:19:41] Speaker 02:
You're really making an argument that any time an employer gets up and say, I understand the union is arguing X and that's not right or this is my, you're saying in those circumstances there's a violation of 8A1 because the employer is giving the impression that he's surveilling

[00:20:00] Speaker 02:
the employees, because he knows what argument the union is making, and he doesn't tell them how he knows.

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
That's not what I'm arguing.

[00:20:09] Speaker 00:
Well, I don't see any distinction between that and... Well, I think the flyers itself and the records show that that's not what the board held here.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
They can absolutely say, these are the union's contentions and these are why, these are the reasons why we think the union's wrong.

[00:20:22] Speaker 02:
But if the employer says these are the union's contentions, the question is, well, how does he know?

[00:20:26] Speaker 02:
How does he know what the union contention is?

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
In the board considers the totality of the circumstances, and in the totality, if there's kind of a hint or a suggestion that the employees are left to wonder and kind of be paranoid and fear where the information came from, that's where it crosses the line.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
And sometimes the line is, you know, it's debatable and it's close.

[00:20:45] Speaker 02:
And there are other times where... In your view, we should protect paranoid employees.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
I wouldn't call them paranoid.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
I would say they were reasonably fearful that management is peering over their shoulders.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
I see that my time is up, but for the foregoing reasons we ask that the board's order be enforced in its entirety.

[00:21:03] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:21:03] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:21:04] Speaker 03:
Two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:21:09] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
So just to sort of put a bow on the questions related to the flyer, I think there's a couple important points.

[00:21:20] Speaker 01:
First of all, this notion that perhaps the organizing activity was sort of unknown or secret in the beginning and later became revealed.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
I don't think the record supports that.

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
Mr. Bizarro was allowed to engage in this organizing activity on working time.

[00:21:34] Speaker 01:
He was doing it in the property, on working time, openly in front of his... At what point?

[00:21:39] Speaker 02:
Did the evidence show at what point was that apparent?

[00:21:42] Speaker 01:
From the beginning, I believe.

[00:21:43] Speaker 02:
Well, what does beginning mean?

[00:21:44] Speaker 01:
September was when it began.

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
In other words, a month before the Bizarro flyer went out.

[00:21:51] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:21:52] Speaker 01:
The organizing activity began in September.

[00:21:55] Speaker 04:
But what's the evidence in the record that the company, he was aware that the company was aware of what he was doing?

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
Well, I don't know that the standard is, does Mr. Bizarro need to be aware that the company is aware, but I think the employees would not have viewed it as a secret that would have not been available to the company but for some sort of unlawful surveillance, particularly with the authorization card flyer, right?

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
What is evidence on the Bazaar?

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
What evidence is there that it was well known that he was the organizer?

[00:22:30] Speaker 01:
I believe that Mr. Bizarro testified that he was walking around during his regular rounds as a security officer, meeting up with other employees, handing out cards, speaking to them openly.

[00:22:40] Speaker 01:
This was not discreet.

[00:22:41] Speaker 01:
It was not covert.

[00:22:43] Speaker 01:
This is entirely different from a case where all the organizing is happening offsite, out of the view.

[00:22:49] Speaker 01:
It is a casino.

[00:22:50] Speaker 01:
Nothing goes unseen in a casino.

[00:22:53] Speaker 01:
Not to say that there's surveillance, but the point is there are supervisors.

[00:22:56] Speaker 01:
We're all around them.

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
And it's a very open environment.

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
You don't do anything in a casino that you don't expect is going to be observed.

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
They were not trying to hide this.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
There was never any indication that they were trying to hide this, which is, again, I think goes to the point that the unlawful impression of surveillance isn't reasonable.

[00:23:16] Speaker 01:
I would also say that context, you know, opposing counsel noted that context is critical, and that would be our argument as to why so many of these ones fall short, because this really was an open environment, such that you couldn't reasonably view that there were violations of the act.

[00:23:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:23:33] Speaker 03:
The case is submitted.