SOS INTERNATIONAL, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Mar 12, 2018

21-CA-178096 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 12, 2018)

JD–18–18
Reston, VA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SOS INTERNATIONAL, LLC
and Cases 21-CA-178096
21-CA-185345
PACIFIC MEDIA WORKERS GUILD 21-CA-187995
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 39521,
AFL-CIO
Lara Haddad, Bryan Lopez, and Lindsay Parker, Esqs.,
for the General Counsel
Charles P. Roberts, III, Esq. (Constangy, Brooks,
Smith & Prophete, LLP), Winston-Salem, N.C.,
for the Respondent
Lorrie E. Bradley, Esq. (Beeson, Taylor & Bodine),
Oakland, CA, for the Charging Party
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MICHAEL A. ROSAS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Los Angeles,
California and Washington, D.C. over the course of 9 days between September 25 and October
13, 2017. The threshold issue in this case is whether or not non-staff interpreters in the United
States immigration courts are employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the National
Labor Relations Act (the Act)1 or exempt from the Act as independent contractors. If they are
employees, it is essentially undisputed that SOS International, LLC (SOSi or Respondent),
terminated or reduced the work assignments of several interpreters and reassigned others in
August 20162 in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act because they engaged in protected
concerted and pro-union conduct. SOSi is also charged with violating Section 8(a)(1) by
interrogating and surveilling interpreters, giving interpreters the impression that they were under
surveillance, making coercive statements to employees, maintaining unlawful rules and
misclassifying employees as independent contractors.3

1 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169.
2 All dates are in 2016 unless otherwise indicated.
3 The General Counsel withdrew, without objection, the allegations at paragraphs 16 and 18 of the
complaint (maintenance of a confidentiality agreement and code of professional responsibility).
JD–18–18
2
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, SOSi and the Pacific Media Workers
Guild Communications Workers of America, Local 39521, AFL-CIO (the Union), I make the
following5
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
10
SOSi, a corporation, is engaged in the business of contracting services to the United
States government from its operational headquarters in Reston, Virginia, where it annually
provides services valued in excess of $50,000 to the Executive Office of Immigration Review
(EOIR), an agency within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), which is directly
involved in interstate commerce. SOSi admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in 15
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
20
A. The Company’s Operations
SOSi provides linguistics, logistics, construction, training, intelligence and information
technology services in the government contract industry throughout the United States and
internationally. After prevailing on its bid, SOSi entered into a contract with EOIR on July 13, 25
2015, to provide the “management and supervision, labor, and supplies necessary to perform on-
site and scheduled telephone interpreter services in multiple foreign languages” at immigration
courts and hearing locations throughout the United States “on an indefinite delivery, indefinite
quantity task order basis.” (EOIR contract) SOSi did not commence work immediately,
however, as there was a transition of the work from its predecessor, Lionbridge, through 30
November 30, 2015. During that period, SOSi performed work in the Baltimore, Maryland and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania immigration courts. SOSi began performing work at immigration
courts nationwide on December 1, 2015.
SOSi’s administration of the EOIR contract falls under the Intel Solutions Group, a 35
division headed by Stephen Iwicki, a senior vice president. The EOIR group is overseen by a
senior program manager who supervises various functions, including recruiting, testing,
procurement, regional coordinators, quality management, and financial business operations. At
the outset of the EOIR contract, interpreter operations were overseen by two senior program
managers, Claudia Thornton and Martin Valencia. They were succeeded by the current senior 40
program manager, Charles O’Brien, on October 31, 2016.
While regional coordinators schedule assignments in various regions throughout the
country, all but one of SOSi’s 17 regional coordinators work out of its Virginia headquarters; one
works remotely from Oregon. None are based at EOIR facilities. They communicate directly 45
with interpreters by email and mobile phone, and are primarily responsible to ensure that all
EOIR work orders are assigned to interpreters.
JD–18–18
3
SOSi also utilizes EOIR contract interpreters to function as liaisons between EOIR court
personnel and interpreters. Liaisons explain the check-in process and courthouse security
procedures to new interpreters and train them in the use of courtroom equipment. In addition,
liaisons switch assignments whenever necessary to ensure that hearings are covered and conduct
on-site evaluations of other interpreters.5
B. The Discriminatees
The discriminatees are all experienced Spanish language interpreters who worked for
SOSi under the EOIR contract. All were tested, mentored, EOIR-certified and qualified to work 10
as interpreters and translators in immigration court proceedings by Lionbridge. Although some
did business and/or were registered as sole proprietors, all worked for SOSi in their individual
capacities. While working for SOSi, the discriminatees accepted a majority of cases assigned to
them and some declined to take travel cases.4
15
(1) Hilda Estrada
Estrada worked for Lionbridge at the Los Angeles immigration courts. She was court-
certified with a vocational degree in interpreting and translation. Estrada is registered as a sole
proprietor and has, on occasion, employed other individuals. However, while working for 20
Lionbridge and then SOSi, she was always employed in her individual capacity. Estrada worked
for SOSi from December 2015 through August 2016. During that time, she worked for SOSi at
least 3-4 days per week. Estrada worked for other entities the rest of the week.
(2) Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar25
Gutierrez-Bejar also worked for Lionbridge at the Los Angeles immigration courts. She
was a court-certified interpreter and registered under a business name. Gutierrez-Bejar worked
for SOSi, however, in her individual capacity from January to August 2016. During the time she
worked for SOSi, Gutierrez-Bejar also worked 1-2 days per week for other interpreting agencies 30
under her business name.
(3) Maria Portillo
Portillo worked for Lionbridge at the Los Angeles immigration courts. She was a court-35
certified court reporter and registered under a business name. From January to August 2016,
however, Portillo worked 4-5 days per week exclusively for SOSi in her individual capacity.
(4) Stephany Magaña
40
Magaña also worked for Lionbridge at the Los Angeles immigration courts. She has a
business license but never employed anyone under that name. Magaña worked for SOSi from

4 The testimony of Gutierrez-Bejar, Estrada, Magaña, Portillo, Morris, Rivandeneira and Rosas was
credible and virtually undisputed. As indicated below, the pertinent testimony of Espinosa regarding the
circumstances relating to the rescission of her contract was less than credible and contrary to the weight
of the evidence.
JD–18–18
4
December 2015 through August 2016. During that time, she worked most weekdays on SOSi
assignments. Magaña worked the rest of the week for other interpreting agencies.
(5) Patricia Rivandeneira 5
Rivandeneira worked for Lionbridge at the Adelanto Detention Center in Adelanto,
California. She received vocational training as an interpreter. Rivandeneira worked for SOSi
from December 2015 through August 2016. During that time, she did not work for any other
interpreting agencies. In July 2016, she was disqualified by EOIR from taking Adelanto cases 10
due to a perceived potential conflict of interest with one of the immigration judges at that
facility. Thereafter, Rivandeneira was assigned only cases at the Los Angeles facilities.
(6) Kathleen Morris
15
Morris, a court-certified interpreter, worked for Lionbridge at the immigration courts in
Chicago, Illinois. She worked for SOSi in her individual capacity about 3-4 days per week from
December 2015 through August 2016. During that time, she also worked for the United States
district court and state courts about 1 to 2 days per week.
20
(7) Irma Rosas
Rosas also worked for Lionbridge at Adelanto and, occasionally, at the Los Angeles and
San Diego immigration courts. She has an associate college degree and certifications in
language interpretation. Rosas was registered, performed services for other entities as a sole 25
proprietor and employs interpreters from time to time. However, she worked in her individual
capacity for SOSi about 4-5 days per week from December 2015 through September 2016.
(8) Rosario Espinosa
30
Espinosa worked for Lionbridge at the immigration court in San Francisco. She was an
attorney in Argentina, received vocational training in interpreting and is a court-certified
interpreter. Espinosa worked for SOSi from March through September 27, 2016. During that
time, she worked for SOSi 3-4 days per week. In addition to occasional work with other clients,
Espinosa also worked for worked for Stanford University during weekends.35
C. The EOIR Contract
(1) Immigration Proceedings
40
EOIR’s immigration proceedings are carried out in immigration courts, which are
overseen by the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge. As of 2017, there were approximately
325 immigration judges located in 58 immigration court facilities. Immigration courts vary in
size from 1 to 33 judges, depending on the caseload. Approximately 300,000 immigration cases
are heard annually. The majority of hearings are removal proceedings, which consist of brief 45
master calendar hearings and merit hearings, which last between one and three hours. Morning
and afternoon sessions each last about 3 1/2 to 4 hours with a one hour lunch break in between.
JD–18–18
5
Immigration hearings are conducted in English with EOIR providing either staff or
contract interpreters as needed. EOIR employs approximately 63 staff interpreters, primarily
Spanish language, but relies substantially on contract interpreter services to augment staff 5
interpreters and interpret in proceedings involving other languages. The Chief of the Language
Services Unit (LSU) oversees in-house interpreters and contract interpreters.
(2) Administrative Requirements
10
The 2015 EOIR contract is a five year contract which provided for a base period of
September 1, 2015, through August 31, 2016, with four additional option years. After the base
year, EOIR has the option of extending for each option year. In addition, the EOIR contract
enables EOIR to unilaterally modify the terms of the contract. Since July 2015, EOIR has
modified the contract five times. The modifications related to the exercise of options for contract 15
extensions or protocols for security background checks of individuals employed by SOSi.
Under the EOIR contract, SOSi is required to “provide all management and supervision,
labor, and supplies necessary to perform on-site and scheduled telephonic interpreter services in
multiple foreign languages for the EOIR.” Individuals assigned must be “qualified contract 20
interpreters as required by the Government” and provided in the languages, times and locations
required by the EOIR. Interpreters must remain at hearing locations until dismissed by EOIR.
Nothing in the contract requires that SOSi interpreters be designated as independent contractors.
The EOIR contract requires that SOSi interpreters appear on time at assigned hearings25
and remain until released, with lunch and other breaks not guaranteed. SOSi is required to
provide interpreters with identification cards and Certificate of Interpretation (COI) forms for all
assignments, which interpreters must have stamped upon arrival and returned to an EOIR clerk
after each assignment. Interpreters are also required to sign EOIR confidentiality agreements.
30
EOIR also reserves the right to disqualify interpreters for poor performance, appearance,
conduct, security concerns or any other behavior. After a complaint from an attorney, judge or
other EOIR staff, the complaint is reviewed by the LSU and SOSi is notified. Once an
interpreter is disqualified, LSU determines the conditions for reinstatement, which may include
additional training and retesting. SOSi is required to submit a monthly report to EOIR on any 35
disqualifications listing remedial measures taken towards reinstating the interpreter.
The EOIR contract lists the unit price for each work order on an hourly, half day, daily,
weekly and monthly basis. These provisions, however, do not cap or otherwise restrict SOSi’s
ability to pay interpreters any rate. Nor is SOSi required to provide copies of ICAs to EOIR for 40
review or approval. The contract also entitles SOSi to reimburse air and train fare incurred by
interpreters of uncommon languages. SOSi is responsible for all other travel related costs.
Certain performance pay premiums, penalties and deductions are included in the EOIR
contract. Pay premiums issue whenever SOSi covers assignments on short notice, while 45
penalties issue whenever interpreters fail to appear for assignments. In either instance, however,
SOSi is not required to pass down the premium pay, penalties or deductions to interpreters.
JD–18–18
6
(3) Interpreter Qualifications and Training
The EOIR contract sets forth certain interpreter qualifications. They include United 5
States citizenship, residency, security background checks, and knowledge of the EOIR
Immigration Court Interpreter Handbook, Code of Professional Responsibility for Interpreters
and Immigration Court Operating Guidelines for Contract Interpreters. SOSi must also ensure
that interpreters, prior to their first assignment, view two immigration court proceedings and an
immigration court orientation video, sign EOIR’s confidentiality agreement, are provided with 10
the Immigration Court Terminology list, have language dictionaries, and meet specific language
proficiency requirements. Language proficiency is defined as follows:
(1) Either certified or have one year of experience interpreting in a judicial environment.
Federal, State or the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators 15
(NAJIT) Judiciary Interpreters and Translators Certification Examination (JITCE)
certification will be accepted. Contractor may request a waiver of this requirement.
(2) Highly proficient in both English and the foreign language vocabularies typically used in
formal, consultative, and casual modes of communication in justice system contexts, 20
including colloquial slang, idiosyncratic slang, and regionalisms.
(3) Knowledgeable of specialized vocabulary (terminology) in both English and the foreign
language related to legal and criminal justice system terminology and immigration
procedures, particularly with regard to terminology typically used in immigration court 25
hearings.
(4) Able to speak English and the foreign language fluently, including high to low levels of
language register, regional colloquialisms and slang expressions, and do so with clear and
intelligible pronunciation. 30
(5) Adept at simultaneous and consecutive interpretation, and sight translation.
(6) Able to perform and complete interpretation (everything is interpreted using a
combination of consecutive and simultaneous modes of interpretation) that is factually 35
and conceptually accurate without changes, omissions or additions. For a specific
language that, as a result of a its grammatical structure, simultaneous interpretation is not
feasible, the Contractor shall immediately, to the extent he/she wishes to accept an order
in such language, submit a written waiver request, via email, of the requirement for
simultaneous interpretation with the appropriate justification for such language. SOSi 40
will respond in writing via email.
(7) Able to preserve the tone and emotional level of the speaker, as well as manage the
delivery, speed and length of the statement (projection, pace and pausing) of the speaker.
45
(8) Able to maintain appropriate speed and projection while rendering interpretation, and
request and incorporate clarification of speaker’s statements only when justified.
JD–18–18
7
With EOIR’s approval, SOSi’s initial recruitment focused on interpreters contracted by
Lionbridge under the predecessor contract since they were already qualified and familiar with
EOIR requirements and procedures. As such, no additional screening, training or approval was
required of incumbent interpreters. Many non-incumbent interpreters, however, did not have the 5
one year judicial experience or certification required by EOIR. Thus, SOSi, over time,
developed, with EOIR’s approval, a process for testing and qualifying new interpreters.
SOSi’s training program was implemented in May 2016. It involved an initial screening
test developed and administered by the Southern California School of Interpretation (SCSI), and 10
approved by SOSi. Interpreters who passed the test were eligible to receive EOIR training and
take a final test to ensure familiarity with EOIR protocol and terminology, and sufficient
language skills to meet EOIR standards. The program requires a certain number of training hours
depending upon whether interpreters have (1) state, federal or NAJIT certified or returning
interpreters (i.e. Lionbridge incumbents); (2) non-certified but with 1 year judiciary experience;15
or (3) no judiciary experience. With EOIR approval, SOSi set a minimum passing score of 70%
requirement for the final test. Candidates who score between 60-69% can retake the test after 30
days. Those scoring lower than 60% must wait up to 6 months before retaking it. SOSi pays for
the program’s costs, but if interpreters fail, requires them to pay for the retraining and testing.
20
In the case of interpreters who have not performed work in immigration courts, the EOIR
contract requires SOSi to produce a written evaluation of an interpreter’s first court assignment
to certify that his/her interpretation skills are sufficiently proficient. EOIR provides SOSi with a
recording of the interpreter’s first case, which SOSi must have evaluated by a qualified
interpreter. SOSi currently contracts out that function nationwide to the SCSI.25
With respect to annual evaluations, SOSi initially designated certain interpreters to
evaluate interpreter compliance with procedural aspects such as dress, checking in with clerks,
and use of courtroom equipment. More recently, SOSi has used its quality assurance personnel
to perform those functions. Annual evaluations of interpreters’ skill levels, however, are 30
performed by the SCSI based on tape recordings of hearings. In accordance with EOIR
requirements, SOSi’s personnel also maintain master files of interpreters’ current qualifications,
which must be furnished to the LSU upon request.
D. The Initial Independent Contractor Agreement
35
The first ICA version, running from September 21, 2015 through August 31, 2016, was
the lengthiest version:
1. Scope of Work: The Company hereby retains the Contractor to provide language
interpretation and translation services in connection with SOSi’s prime contract DJJ15-C-40
2610 (“Prime Contract”) with the United States (“U.S.”) Department of Justice (“DOJ”)
Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”). The DOJ EOIR is referred to herein
as the “Government” or the “Customer.” Services provided by the Contractor are
required for immigration court proceedings on an as needed basis.
45
JD–18–18
8
The Contractor shall only be authorized to work under this Agreement pursuant to
issuance by the Company of one or more Interpretation Service Requirements (ISR’s) or
Translation Service Requirements (TSR’s). A detailed description of the work (“Work”)
to be performed by the Contractor under this Agreement, as well as prerequisites for 5
performance of such Work, are set forth in Attachment A – Statement of Work (SOW).5
2. Place of Performance: Interpretation services shall be provided either telephonically or at
Government sites located throughout the fifty (50) United States, the District of
Columbia, and U.S. Territories including, but not limited to, the Commonwealth of 10
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Mariana Islands and Guam. The specific place of
performance shall be specified in each ISR. If translation services require performance at
a specified location, such information will be included in the relevant TSR at time of
issuance.
15
3. Period of Performance: This Agreement shall commence on 21 September 2015 and
terminate, subject to the provisions in Section 4 (Conditions for Termination) below, on
31 August 2016. Prior to termination, the Company and the Contractor may negotiate to
extend the term of this Agreement and the terms and conditions under which the
relationship will continue. 20
4. Conditions for Termination: The Company shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement at any time for its convenience upon written notification to the Contractor,
with such advance notice as the Company deems appropriate under the circumstances.
Without limiting the foregoing, the Company shall have the right to terminate this 25
Agreement at any time, without advance notice to the Contractor, upon the occurrence of
any of the following: 1) breach by the Contractor of any provision of this Agreement,
including any provision contained in the SOW, 2) commitment by the Contractor of any
act that is injurious to the business or reputation of the Company, 3) conviction of the
Contractor with respect to a felony, 4) possession and/or use by the Contractor of alcohol, 30
narcotics, illicit drugs or weapons in violation of SOSi policy or the laws of any country
in which the Contractor is performing services for SOSi, or 5) the death or incapacity of
the Contractor. Upon termination for any reason, the Company’s liability to the
Contractor shall be limited to payment for services provided by the Contractor and
approved by the Company through the effective date of termination. The Contractor shall 35
not be permitted to terminate this Agreement or discontinue the services provided in
connection with any active ISR or TSR issued hereunder except with the Company’s
advance written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, and with such
advance notice as the Company deems appropriate under the circumstances.
40

5 The Statement of Work requires, in pertinent part, that interpreters be on-time and bring personal
identification, a COI form, a bilingual dictionary and a copy of an Immigration Court Terminology List,
and follow steps to obtain a DOJ-issued badge.
JD–18–18
9
5. Ordering Procedures
SOSi will place ISRs and TSRs against this Agreement electronically, primarily via its
Integrated Case Management System (“ICMS”), a web based portal. In the event that the
ICMS is not available, ISRs and TSRs will be placed via email, facsimile, or telephone. 5
When SOSi receives a court interpretation or translation assignment from the Customer,
it will release a notice in IMCS targeted to all SOSi independent contractors who possess
the qualifications, language skills/certifications and proximity to the hearing location, if
applicable, asking them to accept the assignment.10
In the case of interpretation services, SOSi, in coordination with the Customer, will make
every attempt whenever possible to issue notices of requirements (e.g., language, hearing
location, hearing date/time) at least five (5) working days prior to the scheduled
interpretation delivery start time. However, notices of requirements for interpretation 15
services may be issued at any time prior to an assignment, including the day of the
assignment. Interpretation services can be required up to the hearing start time. All
assignments accepted by the Contractor are expected to be filled, regardless of the order
timing; however, pursuant to Section 6 (Premium for Requirements with Short Lead
Times), SOSi will pay a ten percent (10%) premium fee for short order lead times for on-20
site requirements.
In the case of translation services, SOSi will issue notices of requirements as it receives
them from the Customer. Requirements will be for written certified translation of
documents of varying lengths for different components at EOIR headquarters. 25
If the Contractor accepts an assignment by replying back to a notice of an interpretation
or translation requirement, a message shall be generated and sent to him/her. The
Contractor shall confirm acceptance of the interpretation or translation requirement,
subsequent to which ICMS will generate an ISR or TSR (as applicable) which 30
summarizes pertinent Work details, and will forward it to the Contractor.
6. Premium for Requirements with Short Lead Times: A requirement with a short lead time
is defined as a requirement for on-site (i.e., not telephonic) service issued on the day of
the assignment, the working day prior to the assignment or the second working day prior 35
to the assignment. If the Contractor provides satisfactory services under an ISR issued
with a short lead time, the Contractor will be entitled to a ten percent (10%) premium
rounded to the nearest dollar . . . For example, if an ISR is placed anytime on Monday for
an assignment anytime on Thursday, no premium would be paid. However, if a
requirement is placed Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday for a Thursday assignment, the 40
Contractor would be entitled to the 10% premium fee.
7. SOSi will make every attempt to notify the Contractor of requirement cancellations as
soon as that information is made available by the Government. However, there will
JD–18–18
10
likely be cases where a requirement is cancelled on very short notice. Payment for
cancelled requirements shall be specified in Table 7 below. . . . (Table omitted)6
8. Delivery Times: The Work required under this Agreement shall be delivered in
accordance with the scheduled date and time of the EOIR hearing specified in an 5
individual ISR or per instructions contained in a TSR, as applicable. Since hearings vary
in length, SOSi cannot predict at the time an ISR is placed how long the Contractor will
be required. The Contractor shall remain at the hearing location until dismissed by the
EOIR. The Contractor shall fulfill each and every requirement for interpretation services
issued under this Agreement on time as required or be subject to payment deductions as 10
specified under Section 12 (Payment Deductions).
The term “working days” as used herein is defined as Monday through Friday excluding
the U.S. Federal Government holidays listed below. The holidays listed below are the
only holidays that are recognized under this Agreement. . . .15
In addition to the aforementioned holidays, there may certain types of irregularly
occurring circumstances (e.g., bomb threats, inclement weather, power outages, death of
a national figure, funding lapses, or other similar circumstances) that prompt the
Government to close one or more of its office(s); such closures are not counted as 20
working days.
9. Deliverables: It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to perform each ISR or TSR
strictly in accordance with the terms thereof. The Contractor shall take all actions
necessary to ensure that he/she fulfills the requirements of an ISR or TSR assigned to 25
him/her.
If the Contractor is unable to meet all of the requirements in an ISR or TSR, he/she shall
notify SOSi immediately via a designated program email address. In the case of inability
to meet the requirements of an ISR for an EOIR hearing, such notice shall be received by 30
SOSi not later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the hearing. Notification shall be
considered informational only and shall not be construed as a waiver by SOSi of any
delivery schedule or date, or any rights or remedies provided by law under this
Agreement. . . .
35
Each physical deliverable shall be accompanied by a cover letter from the Contractor.
Multiple deliverables may be delivered with a single cover letter describing the contents
of the complete package.
10. Postage, Fees, Preservation and Packaging: All postage and fees relating to submitting 40
information or Work to SOSi shall be paid by the Contractor. Unless otherwise specified,
all material sent to SOSi or the Customer shall be preserved and packed in accordance

6 Table 7 specified “two (2) times the hourly rate for the language required” in instances where SOSi
provided a cancellation notice after 6 p.m. on the day prior to the scheduled hearing date. In instances
where SOSi cancelled prior to 6 p.m. on the day before the hearing or where court personnel instructed
the interpreter not to return for additional assignments on the same day, there was no additional payment.
JD–18–18
11
with normal commercial practices to ensure acceptance by common carrier and safe
arrival at destination.
11. Inspection and Acceptance of Work: Inspection and acceptance of Work performed in
connection with each ISR will be performed at the place of performance or destination, 5
by an immigration judge acting on behalf of the Government, in accordance with Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.246-4. Inspection will consist of an examination
of the Work for compliance with the SOW which shall serve as the basis for completion
by the immigration judge of the bottom portion of a Certification of Interpretation
(“COI”) Form and the “Interpreter Performance” sections of the Contract Interpreter 10
Performance (CIP) Form (see Exhibits 5 and 6 of the SOW, respectively).
Inspection and acceptance of Work under each TSR will be performed at the place and by
the person designated by the Government.
15
12. Payment Deductions: This Section 12 describes the circumstances under which
Contractor’s compensation, as computed from the actual start time of the interpretation
requirement to the end time of the requirement and multiplied by a unit price, is assessed
a deduction. “Deductions” will be made from the Contractor’s compensation when
performance is completed by the Contractor (e.g., an interpretation is performed) but 20
performance fails to conform with SOW requirements in any of the ways described in the
Payment Deduction Table below.7
Notwithstanding any monetary deductions made for deficiencies, nothing in this Section
12 shall be construed to abrogate the performance requirements of this Agreement or to 25
permit the Contractor to fail to perform or to delay in performing services. Failure to
perform or delay performance may subject the Contractor to the termination provisions of
this Agreement.
13. Force Majeure: Neither party to this Agreement shall be responsible for any failure to 30
perform for any delay in performance of the terms of this Agreement where the failure or
delay is due to acts of God or the public enemy, war, riot, embargo, fire, explosion,
sabotage, flood, accident, strikes, lockouts or other labor disturbances, from whatever
cause arising; enactment, promulgation or issuance of any laws, regulations, orders or
decrees of any competent governmental, regulatory or judicial authority. . . 35
14. Recording of Work Time and Compensation: The Contractor is required to enter his/her
time in SOSi’s timekeeping system within twelve (12) hours after completion of an
interpretation or translation assignment.
40
The unit prices the Contractor will receive for Work performed under this Agreement are
set forth in Attachment B – Compensation. . .

7 The Payment Deduction Table authorizes SOSi to deduct “one (1) time the hourly rate for the
language required per occurrence” in instances where the Contactor is late, delays a hearing or fails to
perform in conformity with the SOW.
JD–18–18
12
The amount payable by the Company to the Contractor for a given ISR for which Work
was completed shall be based on a combination of the following:
a) Entry of Contractor’s time, as computed from the start time of the interpretation
requirement to the end time of the requirement, in SOSi’s timekeeping system and 5
verified by a COI Form . . . completed by an immigration judge.
b) Selection by the Customer of the applicable unit price contained in the Unit Price
Table set forth in Attachment B – Compensation. . . and
c) Deduction taken by the Government, if any, based on evaluation of the Contractor by
the immigration judge on a CIP Form . . . 10
The amount payable by the Company to the Contractor for a given TSR for which Work
was completed shall be based on the per word price included in Attachment B –
Compensation.
15
In the event the Company incurs unplanned costs for the direct benefit of the Contractor,
including but not limited to costs of medical care, evacuation, and/or travel, the
Contractor shall reimburse the Company for all such costs.
The Contractor authorizes SOSi at any time to withhold from any compensation owed to 20
Contractor by SOSi (including but not limited to payment for Work and expense
requirements, if any) for any amounts owed by the Contractor to the Company.
15. Travel: Local travel expenses will not be reimbursed under this Agreement. The only
allowable travel cost, which must be approved in advance by the Customer and SOSi, is 25
airfare, or train fare, if it is less expensive than airfare, for “Uncommon languages” . . .
Travel requirements under this Agreement shall be met using the most economical form
of transportation available. All travel must be requested, approved and scheduled
sufficiently in advance to be able to take advantage of offered discount rates, but in any
event no later than six (6) full working days prior to the hearing date, or as soon as 30
possible if the scheduled hearing is within six (6) working days of issuance of the ISR. In
addition, all reservations shall be routed through SOSi to the Government’s travel
agency, whereby all approved travel costs shall be borne directly by the Government.
The Contractor shall coordinate his/her airfare or train fare with SOSi via email or by
calling the SOSi toll-free Call Center number to be provided under separate cover. 35
SOSi will set off against amounts payable to the Contractor under this Agreement for any
travel costs incurred as a result of failure of the Contractor to appear at a designated
hearing at no fault of the Government. Should setoff not be an option because amounts
payable to the Contractor fall short of the travel costs, the Contractor shall reimburse 40
SOSi within fifteen (15) days of written notice.
Even in cases where airfare or train fare has been approved, the Contractor is responsible
for all other travel related costs associated with performance of Work at the designated
location (e.g., per diem to include lodging and meals, any other form of transportation, 45
parking, mileage, etc.) . . .
JD–18–18
13
16. Independent Contractor: The Contractor is not an employee of the Company. The
manner in which the Contractor’s language interpretation and translation services are
rendered shall be within the Contractor’s sole control and discretion, provided the work is 5
provided in accordance with the SOW.
The Contractor shall be responsible for all taxes arising from compensation and other
amounts paid under the Agreement. Neither federal nor state nor local income tax, nor
payroll tax of any kind (including, but not limited to Social Security, Medicare and any 10
state unemployment taxes) shall be withheld or paid by the Company on behalf of the
Contractor. The Contractor understands that he/she is responsible to pay, according to
law, his/her taxes, and agrees to indemnify and hold SOSi harmless from and against all
liability (financial or otherwise) for liabilities associated with taxes, filing fees, late
charges, penalties, attorneys’ fees, consulting and court fees that may be incurred in 15
connection with compensation for Work performed under this Agreement.
The Contractor will not be eligible for, and shall not participate in, any employee benefit
plan of the Company. No unemployment, disability or U.S. domestic workers’
compensation insurance shall be obtained by the Company to cover the Contractor.20
17. Relationship of Parties: This Agreement shall neither be construed to form a partnership
between the parties nor create any form of employment relationship or any legal
association that would impose liability upon one party for the act or failure to act of the
other party. It is also expressly understood that neither the Contractor nor the 25
Contractor’s employees and agents, if any, are agents or employees of, or have authority
whatsoever to bind the Company by contract or otherwise.
18. No Outside Services: The Contractor shall not use the service of any other person, entity
or organization in the performance of the Contractor’s duties under this Agreement. 30
19. Citizenship and Residency Requirements: The Contractor must meet a DOJ “Residency
Requirement” to ensure an adequate background investigation can be completed. . .
20. Security: The Work to be performed under this Agreement will involve access to 35
unclassified information. Duplication or disclosure of the data and other information to
which the Contractor may have access as a result of this Agreement is prohibited by law
and is subject to criminal penalties.
The Contractor will be subject to a Public Trust Investigation (PTI). Except where 40
specifically noted otherwise, the Government will be responsible for conducting the
investigation and the cost of the investigation. . . .
SOSi’s security representative (SSR), in coordination with the Government Contracting
Officer’s Security Representative (COSR), is responsible for certifying that Customer 45
security policies and procedures are met . . . The SSR and COSR are not authorized to
alter the terms of this Agreement.
JD–18–18
14
This Agreement shall be subject to immediate termination when it has been determined
by SOSi that the Contractor has failed to fully comply with the security requirements of
this Agreement.5
21. Limitation of Liability: At no time will SOSi’s liability to the Contractor exceed the
value of Work already performed and accepted by the Customer under the ISR or TSR
under which the liability arose. . . .
10
22. Indemnification/Insurance: The Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
the Company and its affiliates, and all directors, officers, employees and agents thereof,
from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, liability, costs and fees
(including attorneys’ fees) threatened or incurred as a result of the Contractor’s acts or
omissions . . . except to the extent that any such damage or injury is due solely and 15
directly to the gross negligence of the Company.
In the event that the Contractor’s failure to maintain commercially reasonable medical
insurance results in any claim, demand, liability, cost, fee (including attorneys’ fees) or
assessment against the Company of any amount that was reasonably likely to have been 20
included in such coverage had it been maintained, the Contractor shall indemnify, defend
and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates, and all directors, officers, employees
and agents thereof . . .
23. Compliance With Laws and Regulations: The Contractor must comply with all relevant 25
U.S. and foreign, federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and all applicable orders
and regulations of the executive and other departments, agencies and instrumentalities of
the U.S. and foreign countries . . .
24. Compliance with Customer and Government Policies: The Contractor must comply with 30
all Customer policies and procedures described in the SOW, including but not limited to
those included in the following:
a) DOJ Code of Professional Responsibility for Interpreters . . .
b) Immigration Court Operating Guidelines for Contract Interpreters . . . 35
c) DOJ Confidentiality Agreement for Contract Employees
d) Executive Office for Immigration Review Court Interpreter Handbook . . .
Prior to commencement of Work, the Contractor must provide SOSi with signed copies
of the forms referenced in a), b) and c) above. In addition, the Contractor acknowledges 40
that he/she has received a copy of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Court
Interpreter Handbook and as well as the SOSi Code of Business Ethics and Conduct . . .
and agrees to adhere to the policies and procedures contained therein. In rendering
interpretation or translation services under this Agreement, the Contractor shall confirm
to high professional standards of work and business ethics.45
JD–18–18
15
25. Facilities: In the course of performing work under this Agreement, the Contractor may
be given access to SOSi and/or U.S. Government work facilities and computer networks.
While at any SOSi or U.S. Government facility, or connected to any SOSi or U.S.
Government computer network, the Contractor shall observe and follow SOSi or U.S.
Government site rules, policies, and standards, including, without limitation, those rules, 5
policies, and standards relating to security of and access to the facility and its telephone
systems, electronic mail systems, and computer systems. In addition, the Contractor shall
take all necessary precautions to prevent the occurrence of any injury to persons or
property during the progress of such Work.
10
While performing Work at any SOSi or U.S. Government facility, the Contractor shall be
subject to the standards of conduct applicable to U.S. Government employees. Special
site specific regulations regarding access to classified or sensitive materials, access to
computer facilities, issuance of security badges, etc., shall be provided by either SOSi or
the U.S. Government. 15
SOSi reserves the right to expel the Contractor from any of the premises or facilities
under SOSi’s control for any reasonable cause.
26. Property: All property used by the Contractor in connection with this Agreement which 20
is owned, furnished, charged to or paid for by SOSi/Customer including, but not limited
to, materials, equipment, drawings and other technical information, specifications, and
any replacement thereof (SOSi/Customer Property), shall be and remain the property of
SOSi/Customer, as applicable, subject to removal and inspection by SOSi/Customer at
any time without cost or expense to SOSi/Customer, and SOSi/Customer shall have free 25
access to the Contractor’s premises for the purpose of inspecting or removing such
property. All such property shall be . . . used only for this Agreement and adequately
insured by the Contractor at its expense for SOSi/Customer’s protection. . . The
Contractor shall be liable for loss, damage, destruction or theft to the extent allowed by
FAR 52.245-1 and FAR 45-104. The Contractor shall return all property to 30
SOSi/Customer in its original condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted. When such
property is no longer required under this Agreement, the Contractor shall furnish SOSi
with a list of such property and shall comply with any disposition instructions provided
by the SOSi Human Resources Representative.
35
27. Publicity: The Contractor shall not disclose information concerning Work under this
Agreement to any third party unless such disclosure is necessary for the performance of
the Work required by this Agreement. . . . without the prior written consent of SOSi. . . .
28. Confidentiality; Non-Solicitation: Duplication or disclosure of the data and other 40
information to which the Contractor may have access as a result of this Agreement is
prohibited. . . . The Contractor agrees to maintain the confidentiality of all data to which
access may be gained throughout the period of performance of this Agreement. . .
The Contractor agrees that upon termination of this Agreement, he/she shall have no 45
property or possessory right to any of the correspondence, files or materials, of whatever
kind or description . . . whether developed/prepared by himself/herself or furnished by the
JD–18–18
16
Customer . . . in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and that, upon
demand, the Contractor will surrender immediately to the Customer such items, matters,
materials, and copies.
The Contractor will be asked to sign U.S. DOJ Confidentiality Agreement for Contract 5
Employees . . .
Except as required in the performance of Work under this Agreement, or as authorized by
SOSi in writing, the Contractor will not during the performance of this Agreement or any
other time thereafter, use, disclose, transfer to others, or remove from the premises of 10
SOSi, any SOSi Confidential Information. . . . This Agreement constitutes SOSi
Confidential Information. . . .
During the period of performance of this Agreement and for a period of one year
thereafter, the Contractor will not knowingly solicit or recruit SOSi’s employees or 15
consultants to terminate their employment relationship.
29. Exclusivity: During the period of performance of this Agreement, except as authorized
by SOSi in writing, the Contractor shall not accept work from, or perform work for, any
company other than SOSi in connection with SOSi’s prime contract. 20
The initial ICA also included several attachments and exhibits. Attachment A
encompassed the detailed scope of work, including qualifications and language proficiency
requirements required by the EOIR contract. Attachment B listed a unit pricing table with
hourly, half day or full day rates.8 The exhibits included: (1) Language list; (2) the Code of 25
Professional Responsibility for Interpreters; (3) Immigration Court Operating Guidelines for
Contract Interpreters; (4) Immigration Court Terminology; (5) COI Form; (6) Contract
Interpreter Performance Form; (7) Confidentiality Agreement for Contract Interpreters; (8) EOIR
Court Interpreter Handbook; and the (9) SOSi Code of Business Ethic and Conduct.
30
Interpreters were required to sign and acknowledge receipt of the Code of Business
Ethics and Conduct and were subject to a warning or termination if they failed to comply with it:
Protection of Personal Information
35
SOSi personnel must protect their colleagues' personal information and adhere to all
applicable data privacy laws. Confidential and/or sensitive information such as a person's
contact details, identification numbers, health status, or compensation data should only be
used for legitimate business purposes and be accessed by, and communicated to, only
those individuals who have a need to know such information.40
Use of Company Assets
Except as indicated below, SOSi personnel are not permitted to use Company assets

8 The initial pricing table varied depending on the languages, with Spanish interpreters receiving $55
per hour with a two hour minimum, and other languages, e.g., Burmese, affording a half day rate of $130
and full day rate of $260.
JD–18–18
17
including, but not limited to phones, computers, copy machines, fax machines, software,
logos, photos or videos, email accounts, office supplies, or vehicles for other than
legitimate business purposes. Occasional use of Company equipment or resources for
personal reasons is permitted as long as such use is reasonable, does not interfere with the
accomplishments of work assignments, is not in support of a personal business, and does5
not constitute an immoral or illegal activity. All Company-issued tools and equipment
must be returned upon separation from SOSi. SOSi reserves the right, subject to
applicable laws, to access, review, monitor and disclose any information transmitted,
received or stored using Company equipment, with or without an individual's knowledge
or consent.10
Use of Social Media
Social media should never be used to discuss any information concerning SOSi business
or to disclose confidential or proprietary information of the Company or any third party15
with whom the Company has a relationship. When communicating via social media,
SOSi personnel should make clear that any views expressed are their own and not those
of the Company. Also, individuals who use social media must refrain from sending any
messages that are offensive or embarrassing to the Company or to other people.
20
Communication with News Media
SOSi personnel may occasionally be contacted by media representatives who wish to
obtain information about the Company's people, business or other matters. All such
inquiries must be directed to SOSi's Media Department. SOSi personnel are not permitted25
to communicate directly with the media unless explicitly authorized to do so. Public
statements about SOSi should only be made by designated Company spokespersons.
E. SOSi’s Initial Implementation of the EOIR Contract
30
Chaos reigned during the early months of the EOIR contract, as SOSi experienced
challenges putting the organizational pieces in place and recruiting former Lionbridge
interpreters to cover all of the immigration court hearings. Initially, SOSi sought to subcontract
with interpretation companies to supply interpreters, but abandoned that strategy when many
interpreters refused to work with those companies. Initial recruitment fell flat as most incumbent 35
interpreters were unimpressed by the terms of the proposed ICAs, particularly the hourly rates.
As a result, there was a shortage of interpreters to cover all of the hearings, double-booking of
assignments, and the issuance of incorrect and late payments to interpreters.
F. SOSi Negotiates With Interpreters40
SOSi’s initial recruitment fell short as most incumbent interpreters balked at the terms of
the proposed ICAs, particularly the hourly rates. In August, in response to SOSi’s proposed rates
and other terms, a group of Lionbridge incumbents in Los Angeles talked amongst themselves
regarding the proposed contract terms. The group of approximately 30 interpreters based out of 45
Southern California, including Estrada, Portillo, Magaña, Gutierrez-Bejar and Rivandeneira,
reached out to other interpreters throughout California by telephone, electronic communications,
including the WhatsApp messaging services. The interpreters agreed not to accept the $35 wage
JD–18–18
18
offered and agreed on the rates they would demand. In September, Estrada contacted the Union,
and began attending and soliciting participation in Union organizational meetings. At these
meetings, Southern California interpreters sought advice and assistance in negotiating with SOSi,
and signed membership cards.
5
The Southern California group formed committees to deal with specific areas such as
contracts, media, social media, negotiations, and food and beverages. Estrada, Diana Illaraza
and Angel Garay were chosen by the group to engage in direct negotiations with SOSi on behalf
the group. Magaña, Gutierrez-Behar and Rivandeneira constituted the social media committee.
Estrada was the most active, issuing frequent emails and press releases. On August 29, 2015, she 10
emailed the group’s California interpreters:
I am reaching out to all of you because at some point we personally discussed the attack
on our jobs.
15
Please assist me in providing me with emails and/or phone numbers of all of our
colleagues interested in a collaborative, factually based effort to assist each other. I have
a very limited amount of emails and contact information for our team. As you all may
have noticed over the years, I am not one to spend much time on the 15th floor.
However, this is a very dear and near issue to me as I know it is for many of you.20
A special THANK YOU to those of you who have recently reached out, you know who
you are.
All language providers [are] welcomed and needed, from all regions. Please do not 25
hesitate to reach out to me and share my contact information with other colleagues.
Please do not reveal my effort to any press related group or social media at this time. I
prefer email and texts.
On September 3, 2015, Estrada began sending nearly daily emails to interpreters 30
nationally. On that day she reported the progress made with SOSi:
Dear Heroes and Heroines (LA, San Diego, Adelanto, San Bernardino and Beyond)
Every lunch meeting is incredibly meaningful and helpful. THANK YOU. Here is our 35
latest:
SOSi is increasing their outreach and FINALLY contacting (more) current [Lionbridge]
interpreters.
40
Changes (and improvements) in negotiations are occurring daily. Please share.
Some colleagues are getting the rates they have requested. There is still resistance
towards a cancellation fee. We can teach SOSi what they need to learn.
45
We do not have any updates on special, travel rates.
JD–18–18
19
All languages continue to have set hourly rates with a minimum, half day and full day
and cancellation fee. Be ready with your answers, THEY WILL PLAY RATE GAMES.
Follow up with your language team. Remember, they are asking about “rate per language
per area.”
5
Everyone has agreed to share contracts via screen shots, e mails or hard copies at
gatherings.
WE ALL AGREE TO CAREFULLY READ AND NOT SIGN ANY CONTRACTS
until we have shared information with our language teams and have read the fine print!10
We still face a new model of case assignments. SECTION 5, part two, describes a web
portal where assignments will be listed daily and assigned on a first come basis. Most of
you agree this is OPPOSITE from our predictable and reliable weekly assignment
schedule. 15
WE MUST REJECT THIS WHEN ADDRESSING REPRESENTATIVES.
****
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SET AN INDUSTRY STANDARD.20
All we have is each other to protect our rates, our profession and our futures.
I will be available again tomorrow Friday after my AM assignment across the street.
Pershing Square. Please bring updates so that we may share. Please text me at xxx-xxx-25
xxxx if you would like to meet in person. All languages are welcomed!
Respectfully, Your Colleague, Hilda
A short while later, Estrada followed up by apprising the email group that she submitted
her “resume and rates as discussed in our language team to our current SOSi representative. I 30
will share my . . . whole experience with all of you. Stay strong and remember you specialized in
this field. We can teach employers how we should be treated.”
The following day, September 4, 2015, Estrada emailed the “LA Team (Adelanto, San
Bernardino, San Diego, WE STILL NEED SAN FRANCISCO):”35
Our colleagues in Texas, led by Jesus Alberto have confirmed that indeed, this is our
opportunity to create a change and improve our working conditions and of course rates!
Following the Texas Team, we will choose ONE NEGOTIATOR PER LANGUAGE 40
TEAM.
The goal is for everyone to have the same rate. There is PROVEN strength in unity.
Moving forward, all communication during negotiations will be carried out by each 45
language team representative.
JD–18–18
20
Our colleagues, Diana and Angel will conduct research regarding cost of living,
transportation expenses, 24 hour cancellation policies, per diem compensation, and
special travel rates.
You can field your questions to Diana . . . [or] Angel . . . 5
Please continue to email and submit your resumes to kaila.northcutt@sosi.com.
If you are called on the phone by any SOSi representative, kindly direct them to your
language team representative.10
All contracts must be shared, read carefully and DO NOT SIGN until each language team
reaches a consensus.
If you have any reservations or questions regarding our next step, please reply on this 15
thread.
I, your colleague Hilda will continue to represent our California team in our National Ad
Hoc Committee.
20
Please continue to be cautious, our incredible momentum and strides have made us a
target for other groups that may or may not align themselves with our goals.
PLEASE SHARE THIS EMAIL WITH ALL OF OUR CALIFORNIA COLLEAGUES.
25
Our unity, professionalism and friendship has been exemplary during these times of
uncertainty. Our commitment to each other, our goals and professionalism IS PAYING
OFF!
On September 8, 2015, Rosas sent a mass email objecting to several clauses in SOSi’s 30
proposed ICA. Rosas disagreed with the proposed terms of one year, while SOSi’s EOIR
contract was for 5 ½ years. She also objected to a provision permitting SOSi to cancel an
assignment the night before a hearing:
Where do I begin?? They will notify us by 6:00 p.m.??? Where are we going to 35
find another job to cover for this cancelled assignment?? They must think we are idiots or
that we are crazy...
With respect to an “exclusivity” clause stating that the “Contractor shall not accept work
from, or perform work for, any company other than SOSI in connection with SOSI’S Prime 40
Contract,” Rosas queried: “ARE WE NOW BEING CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES??? They
cannot tell us who to work for or not.” Rosas characterized SOSi’s proposed rates as “stupid”
and objected to the absence of any provision describing payment terms.
On September 12, 2015, Estrada sent SOSi recruiter Kaila Northcutt an email with the 45
subject “Fwd: Revise Draft.” To this email, Estrada attached a one-page document containing
actual draft terms, including the following:
JD–18–18
21
Compensation and Payment. Company agrees to pay Contractor the fee(s) set
forth in each project assignment for Services.
a. Contractor is entitled to reimbursement of agreed upon expenses, such as 5
mileage, airfare, parking, tolls, ground transportation, lodging, per diem allowance, and
compensation for travel time, as applicable, except for any expenses which are pre-paid
by Company.
b. In the event an assignment is cancelled after being confirmed, where 10
Contractor is expected to reserve the scheduled time, or while assignment is in progress,
then Contractor’s fee is payable in whole or in part according to terms agreed upon in
advance for each assignment, unless Company offers another similar work assignment
and schedule.
15
c. Payment in full of interpreting fees must be made by Company to
Contractor bi-weekly, but no later than 1st and 15th days of each month. Contractor shall
not be subject to any additional fees or charges for the processing of the bi-weekly
payments.
20
d. In no event should payment to Contractor be contingent upon payment to
Company by the party who commissioned the work.
Term. This Agreement remains in effect for the duration of Company’s contract
with EOIR. Contractor understands and agrees that Company will be utilizing 25
Contractor’s Services only on an as needed basis and at Company’s discretion.
Contractor may, without penalty, decline to accept any offered assignment from
Company.
Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to 30
the other Party 30 days prior to the expiration of the Term of this Agreement. In the event
of termination of this Agreement, Contractor must provide Company, and Company must
pay Contractor for all Services performed and expenses incurred through the date of
termination; Company is not obligated to pay Contractor any other compensation,
severance, or other benefit whatsoever.35
Non-Exclusivity. Company acknowledges that Contractor may perform services
for other customers, persons, or companies during the term of this Agreement except
while on assignment for Contractor.
40
In her email, Estrada laid out the additional terms that “[o]ur contracts will describe.” The
included half-day and full-day rates, less than 24-hour cancellations resulting in full pay, an
hour of additional pay if a case exceeded a scheduled half-day or full-day by any amount of time,
travel per diems, and a provision prohibiting the de-assignment of any case unless “cancelled by
EOIR or mutual agreement.” Northcutt replied on September 16, 2015, stating that she 45
forwarded Estrada’s email to management for consideration and would get back to her.
JD–18–18
22
In October 2015, SOSi reached out and negotiated with the leaders of the Southern
California interpreters. Three sessions took place in October 2015 via emails and conference
calls. Thornton and Valencia represented SOSi. Estrada, Garay and Illaraza, as lead negotiators
for the interpreters, communicated with SOSi from a rented office across the street from the Los
Angeles immigration court. They were accompanied by or in touch with 20-30 Southern 5
California interpreters, including Rosas, who kept about 100 other interpreters throughout the
country updated by email, text, WhatsApp messaging and telephone calls.
The final negotiation took place on October 31 via conference call. The half day and full
day rates were the main topic of discussion. The California group expressed concerned over the 10
“exclusivity” clause set forth in the initially proposed ICA due to the impression of some who
interpreted it mean that they could not perform work for other agencies while under contract with
SOSi. They reached agreement on rates of $225 for a half day and $425 for a full day. SOSi
also agreed to interpreters’ demand for full payment for cases cancelled on less than 24-hours’
notice. For travel cases, the parties agreed that SOSi and interpreters would negotiate on a case-15
by-case basis. The ICA also contained additional language confirming that interpreters could
work for other entities when not working for SOSi.9 Otherwise, the ICA included terms required
by EOIR, as well as additional terms demanded by SOSi. It was also agreed that the term of the
agreements would run through August 2016.
20
While the California interpreters negotiated the terms of the ICA, SOSi was also
negotiating with interpreters elsewhere throughout the country. Morris, the Chicago-based
interpreter, negotiated a half-day rate of $201, a full-day rate of $320, and a provision
guaranteeing her full pay for cases cancelled on less than 24 hours’ notice. She was given the
right to work for other entities during periods when she was not working for SOSi.10 Other 25
interpreters negotiated a range of hourly rates and/or half-day, full-day and flat rates, as well as
cancellation notices and fees. For example, Marlar Swe, a California Burmese interpreter
initially accepted a half day rate of $130 and full day rate of $260. She eventually learned of the
discrepancy between her rates and those paid others, negotiated with SOSi and her contract was
amended in March to compensate her at a rate of $225 for a half day and $425 for a full day.30
By the end of February 2016, SOSi was finally able to fully staff all Immigration Court
hearings and resolve most payment problems.
G. The Subsequent ICAs35
The agreed upon ICA sent to California interpreters included several attachments: EOIR
Code of Professional Responsibility; Immigration Court Operating Guidelines for Contract
Interpreters; Office of Chief Immigration Judge Confidentiality Agreement for Contractor
Employees; Office of the Chief Immigration Judge Interpreters Handbook and other resources; 40
Immigration Court Terminology; COI Form; and SOSi Code of Business Ethics and Conduct,

9 Claudia Thornton testified, without contradiction, that the interpreters “wanted to be independent
contractors because just about all of them had other jobs. So they didn’t want to be tied strictly to the
contract. They wanted the ability to work at other places” (Tr. 1369-1370.)
10 Morris conceded that during her discussion with the SOSi negotiator “there was an understanding”
that she “would be deemed an independent contractor.” (Tr. 1026-1027; GC Exh. 222.)
JD–18–18
23
Declaration for Federal Employment, and bank payment information.
Despite the numerous ICA versions that followed, there are continuing similarities with
respect to the major terms, with the exception of discretionary provisions that are not the result
of flow-down requirements under the EOIR contract. Those provisions include wage rates, 5
terms of payment for canceled assignments, pay deductions due to deficient performance or
lateness, and the terms of travel cost reimbursement
The ICA version for the period of October 26, 2015 to August 31, 2016 was a
streamlined version and became the model for most ICAs throughout the country. The scope of 10
work stated, in pertinent part, that SOSi retained the right “to terminate this Agreement at any
time for its convenience upon written notification to the Contractor, with such advance notice as
the Company deems appropriate under the circumstances. . . . The Contractor shall not be
permitted to terminate this Agreement or discontinue the services provided in connection with an
active ISR or TSR issued hereunder except with the Company’s advance written consent, which 15
shall not be unreasonably withheld, and with such advance notice as the Company deems
appropriate under the circumstances.” Local travel expenses would not be reimbursed and,
where required, travel cost reimbursement would be negotiated “on a case-by-case basis.”
Section 5 reiterated SOSi’s declaration that the interpreter was retained as an independent 20
contractor and not an employee. This was identical to the same provision in the initial ICA,
except for the deletion of a provision requiring interpreters to pay all taxes and indemnify SOSi
for any liability resulting from their failure to pay taxes.
Section 6 stated that the ICA does not create a partnership or employment relationship 25
“that would impose liability upon one party for the act or failure to act of the other party . . .
Contractor shall not use the service of any other person, entity or organization in the performance
of the Contractor’s duties under this Agreement.”
Section 7, referencing interpreters’ access to “unclassified information” and 30
responsibility to undergo a “Public Trust Investigation,” stated:
Duplication or disclosure of the data and other information to which the Contractor may
have access as a result of this Agreement is prohibited. This includes, without limitation,
any information which is identified by SOSi at the time of disclosure as being proprietary 35
or confidential or that due to its character and nature, or the circumstances of its
disclosure, a reasonable person would recognize as being confidential or competitively
sensitive. “Data” in this context includes any information about the cases or
investigations the Contractor is working on, including the names and subject matters of
the cases or investigations. The Contractor agrees not to disclose or divulge any such 40
data, any interpretations and/or translations thereof, or data derivative therefrom, to
unauthorized parties in contravention of these provisions.
Section 8 stated that SOSi’s liability to the interpreter will not “exceed the value of the
Work already performed and accepted by the Customer” and “neither party to this Agreement 45
shall be liable to the other for indirect, special, incidental, or punitive damages in connection
with, performance of any obligations under this Agreement, regardless of whether the parties
JD–18–18
24
have been advised of the possibility of such damages.”
Section 9 requires interpreters to “comply with all relevant U.S. and foreign, federal,
state, and local laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Drug-Free Workplace
Regulations and applicable anti-corruption requirements.” Further, interpreters “shall indemnify, 5
defend and hold harmless the Company from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits,
liability, costs and fees (including attorneys’ fees) threatened or incurred as a result of
Contractor’s breach of or failure to perform his/her obligations under this Agreement.”
Section 10 required interpreters to “comply with all Company and Customer policies and 10
procedures described in the SOW, including the EOIR Court Interpreter Handbook and the SOSi
Code of Business Ethics and Conduct. In rendering . . . services under this Agreement, the
Contractor shall conform to high professional standards of work and business ethics.”
Section 11 provided that while “at any SOSi or U.S. Government facility, or connected to 15
any SOSi or U.S. Government network, the Contractor shall observe and follow SOSi or U.S.
Government site rules, policies, and standards, including, without limitation, those rules,
policies, and standards relating to security of and access to the facility and its telephone systems,
electronic mail systems, and computer systems.”
20
Section 12 prohibited interpreters from making any “news release or other public
announcement shall be made about this Agreement without the prior written consent of SOSi.
Contractor shall direct to SOSi (without further response) any media inquiries concerning SOSi,
this Agreement or the Contractor’s Work for or engagement by SOSi.”
25
Section 13 provided that “Contractor shall not accept work under the Prime Contract
from any company other than SOSi unless previously approved in writing by SOSi, but clarified
(as requested by interpreters) that this “restriction relates only to work to be performed by
Contractor under the Prime Contract with DOJ EOIR,” and that nothing in the ICA would
“preclude Contractor from performing work under any other DOJ program or under any federal, 30
state or local agency contract.”
The October 14 version of the ICA, expiring March 31, 2017, included a pay rate for
Spanish at $35 per hour and a $75 stipend for travel cases. Travel rates consisted of 8 hours of
pay on the first and last travels days, a regular hourly rate for a 2-hour minimum plus a $50 35
stipend for in-between days, and a minimum distance of 50 miles required for reimbursement. It
included conditions for payment deductions and assessed penalties for lateness and non-
performance. Interpreters were also prohibited from issuing “any news release or other public
announcement about this Agreement or the Work performed hereunder without the prior written
consent of SOSi. Contractor shall direct to SOSi (without further response) any media inquiries 40
concerning SOSi, this Agreement, or Contractor's performance of the work for or engagement by
SOSi.” This version no longer included the Code of Business Ethics and Conduct. It did
include, for the first time, an EOIR-required Annual Compliance Representations and
Certifications (CRC) form. The CRC forms included statements that interpreters needed to
certify themselves as small businesses and woman-owned small businesses, if applicable, 45
regardless of whether they were sole proprietors acting as independent contractors.
JD–18–18
25
The November 29 version, expiring August 31, 2017, included the same publicity clause.
The attachments were identical and included the same CRC form and cancellation payment, and
the penalty deductions of $250 and $750. The travel rates were virtually identical to earlier
versions. The most significant difference in was in Attachment B: “Compensation, Cancellation
and Deductions” setting “maximum rates possible” of $35 for Spanish, $44 for Common 5
languages and $50 for Uncommon languages. An accompanying note stated: “Do not propose
rates over maximum rates. Contractors will only be compensated up to the maximum rates.”
Similarly, the December 23 version, expiring August 31, 2017, provided identical rates but
changed the reference from “Proposed Hourly Rate” to ““Max Rate possible.”
10
The August 22, 2017 version, expiring August 31, 2018, was similar, including the same
publicity clause, attachments and CRC forms. This ICA, however, offers interpreters additional
option years beyond the first year, through 2020. The pay structure, which is not negotiable,11
also establishes a 3-hour minimum and maximum hourly rates based on whether an interpreter is
“certified” (possessing certifications in interpretations), “qualified” (at least 12 months 15
experience working in a judicial setting) or “skilled” (competent interpreter who has met the
pertinent testing and qualification requirements), as well as a daily commuting stipend based on
distance. The minimum distance for reimbursement is 25 miles. Payment for assignments
cancelled on less than 24 hours’ notice was increased to a rate of 3 times the hourly rate.
Penalties charged for no-shows, last minute cancellations or leaving early without dismissal from 20
EOIR was reduced to a rate of 3-times the hourly rate. Finally, a referral incentive of $250 was
offered to interpreters who referred experienced interpreters and/or worked at least 20 cases.
H. Interpreters Duties and Responsibilities
25
(1) Scheduling
SOSi interpreters are required to send regional coordinators their availability one month
in advance. Based on EOIR orders, coordinators typically offer weekly or monthly assignments
based on availability. If an interpreter declines an assignment, the coordinator will offer it to 30
another interpreter who is also free to accept or decline. Once an interpreter accepts an
assignment, the coordinator sends email confirmation.12 If travel is involved, depending on the
terms of the ICA, the rate will either be established or negotiated with the coordinator.
Confirmation would be followed by automatic reminders sent to interpreters about cases
assigned to them along with notes or messages from program managers.35
Occasionally, coordinators offered last minute assignments, changed, reassigned or
cancelled assignments after they have been accepted by interpreters. If an assignment was
cancelled or reassigned within 24 hours prior to the scheduled hearing, the interpreter is still

11 As evidenced by SOSi emails rejecting proposed counteroffered pay and travel rates and
cancellation notifications in August 2017, the rates were not negotiable for Spanish and common
language interpreters. (GC Exh. 235-265.) With respect to rare language interpreters, however, a high
demand for and low supply of those individuals led SOSi to negotiate over their pay and travel rates.
12 Interpreters could not schedule to work with another client on a day that they scheduled to work for
SOSi because they did not know what time the hearing would finish. Essentially this meant that
accepting even a half day assignment meant that the interpreter’s entire day was dedicated to SOSi. Most
clients who needed interpreting services typically required services in the morning.
JD–18–18
26
supposed to be paid for the cancelled sessions. However, while paid for cancelled morning
sessions, interpreters have not always been paid for scheduled afternoon sessions.
Interpreters are permitted to swap cases, but must first get the approval of their regional
coordinator in order to ensure that case and payment information are updated. Approval was 5
routinely granted, but there were occasions when coordinators would deny the requests.13
Interpreters are also free to communicate their scheduling preferences, including locations and
judges, to regional coordinators. Coordinators retained control over the assignment process and
expressed displeasure with interpreters who were unavailable during certain periods, declined
travel assignments or cancelled assignments on relatively short notice.10
(2) Initial Administrative Requirements
SOSi instructs interpreters to arrive at the EOIR facilities 30 to 45 minutes prior to
assigned hearings in order to clear building security, check in with the EOIR clerk to get their 15
COIs stamped and sign the EOIR’s interpreters log book. SOSi also instructs interpreters to
dress professionally and provides them with SOSi badges that they must wear while in the
courtroom. The badge bears the SOSi logo and phrase, “Challenge Accepted,” along with the
interpreter’s photograph, name, and title, “EOIR COURT INTERPRETER.” In instances where
EOIR complains to SOSi about inappropriate dress or failure to wear badges by interpreters at 20
hearing locations, program managers have warned that they risked being released by court
personnel if not dressed appropriately.
Pursuant to the EOIR contract, SOSi interpreters are prohibited from speaking to “aliens
or attorneys awaiting hearings,” using telephones while in the court office area without the 25
approval of court personnel and from soliciting employment during their assignments.
Interpreters who violate these conditions risk disqualification from present and future
assignments. In addition, the ICA’s exclusivity provisions prohibit interpreters, while
performing for SOSi, from working for any other immigration-related entities without SOSi’s
prior written approval of SOSi.30
(3) Performance
Once in EOIR courtrooms, SOSi interpreters work until their case assignments conclude,
with lunch and other breaks at the sole discretion of the judge. Interpretation is performed in one 35
of two ways – consecutive (interprets after the speaker pauses) or simultaneous (interprets at the
same time as the speaker). The mode of interpretation is left to the discretion of the judge.
Many immigration judges require simultaneous interpretation, which is more intense and
mentally exhausting. As a result, EOIR staff interpreters periodically relieve each other and, in
some instances, EOIR interpreters have SOSi interpreters relieve them. However, SOSi’s EOIR 40
contract does not permit a team interpreting arrangement for the benefit of its interpreters.
Interpreters are required to use EOIR’s digital audio recording system, which consists of
a transmitter, receiver and microphone, during the course of hearings. A SOSi interpreter liaison
trains each interpreter in the use of the equipment, which is secured by courtroom personnel at 45

13 GC Exh. 10, 60-61.
JD–18–18
27
the end of each day and charged for use the next hearing day. Any other supplies or equipment
required by interpreters, including pens, notebooks and dictionaries, are the cost and
responsibility of the interpreters. SOSi program managers routinely pass along EOIR complaints
about the inappropriate handling of EOIR equipment by interpreters.
5
In some cases, interpreters of an uncommon indigenous language speak a common
language, such as Spanish or French, but not English. Referred to as relay cases, these cases
require an additional interpreter to interpret the indigenous language interpreter’s common
language into English, and vice versa. This process takes additional time and is more stressful
for the interpreters. At times, the indigenous interpreter is not able to interpret every single word 10
and has to stop and ask the respondent to explain the word used to assist the indigenous
interpreter with the translation to Spanish. The whole process is more intense, longer and there
are many more pauses.
In the case of telephonic interpretation, the interpreter is required to use his/her land-line 15
based telephone connection and may not use a wireless telephone. The interpreter is released
from the assignment if he/she has not been contacted by the EOIR for more than one hour from
the scheduled start time and paid for one hour of service.
(4) Additional Administrative Requirements and Payment20
After completing an assignment, an interpreter must return to the EOIR clerk to verify
whether his/her services are still required. If an interpreter’s services are no longer required,
he/she must have court staff note the departure time on the COI. One COI is retained by EOIR,
another is forwarded to SOSi and the interpreter retains a copy. In addition, the judge comments 25
on the interpreter’s performance on a Contract Interpreter Performance Form that is provided to
SOSi. SOSi, in turn, submits any EOIR requests for further review and action to the interpreter.
After leaving EOIR facilities, interpreter are required to send a copy of the COI, along
with a SOSi spreadsheet listing the cases and amounts owed for each, to SOSi for payment. 30
Interpreters should be paid within 30 days of submitting their paperwork. SOSi’s preferred
method of payment is by direct bank deposit. Interpreters are not paid more or less based on the
number of cases that they work during half-day or full-day sessions. SOSi does not withhold
taxes or provide interpreters with benefits. Interpreters complete 1099 forms for tax purposes.
35
I. Discriminatees Are Denied Contract Renewal
(1) SOSi’s Reasons For Not Renewing Contracts
When it came time to renew the interpreter contracts after August 31, SOSi decided to 40
sever its relationship with Estrada, Portillo, Rivandeneira, Bejar, Magaña and Morris. Thornton,
clearly agitated by the fact that these interpreters “were constantly working against the interest of
the company” by making “public statements” and “rallying interpreters across the country with
allegations” felt that they should not “continue to be rewarded with more work when they were
pretty much trying to sabotage what [SOSi was] doing.”14 The performance of the work under 45

14 This finding is based on Thornton’s testimony. (Tr. 1393-1394.)
JD–18–18
28
their respective ICAs was not a factor in SOSi’s decision.15
(2) Hilda Estrada
Estrada was the most active interpreter in advocating with SOSi. She became involved 5
with the Union in August 2015, and thereafter began attending Union meetings and reaching out
to her fellow interpreters about getting involved with the Union. In addition to speaking with
fellow interpreters, in-person by phone and by email, Estrada was active on the WhatsApp
messaging group. Estrada sent out press releases to media contacts in the United States and the
United Kingdom regarding the interpreter’s problems with SOSi.10
Estrada was chosen by her fellow interpreters to be one of the leaders to engage in
negotiations with SOSi along with colleagues Illarraza and Garay. After negotiations concluded,
Estrada continued organizing and advocating on behalf of the interpreters. She helped organize
an event for interpreters in mid-January 2016, to work on proposals to present to SOSi regarding 15
entrance exams; recruitment, evaluations, hiring, orientation and other matters. Estrada also
reached out to Siddiqi on behalf of herself and other interpreters to inquire about missing
payments. He apologized and asked her to have interpreters resubmit their direct deposit and
invoice forms. Estrada complied and communicated his request to affected interpreters.
20
On February 21, Estrada emailed a group of interpreters providing designated
representatives for different Union committees, and announcing Estrada and Illarraza as the
spokespersons and an upcoming Union meeting in April.
Estrada also helped draft, signed and collected signatures for petitions presented to SOSi 25
and EOIR concerning quality control issues, including entrance exams, orientation, evaluation,
wrongdoing by another interpreter, and the interpreters’ objection to SOSi’s affiliation with the
Southern California School of Interpretation. On February 16, Estrada sent a letter to human
resource manager Anderson in support of the petitions previously submitted by the interpreters.
On February 23, Anderson responded to Estrada, Illarraza and Garay:30
Thank you for providing the contractor statements last week in support of your letter
dated January 14, 2016, which raised concerns regarding Maria Elena Walker. Please
know that we take the allegations that you raised very seriously, and will be conducting a
full, fair, and impartial investigation. Should our investigation reveal any wrongdoing, 35
the company will take prompt and appropriate remedial action. Thank you for bringing
this matter to the company’s attention.
Estrada filed an unfair labor practice charge (21-CA-173402) on April 6 and amended it
on May 3 alleging that SOSi constructively suspended her and Illarraza, subcontracted out the 40

15 Thornton’s testimony on cross-examination – that the interpreter’s unsatisfactory performance was
the reason for non-renewal – was unsupported by any credible evidence and evidently contrived as part of
the subsequent litigation strategy regarding the “Group of 7.” (Tr. 1401-1403; GC Exh. 8, 49, 292, 295.)
JD–18–18
29
hiring of new interpreters and hired them at lower rates, and reduced certain interpreters’ hours
during certain periods, all because they engaged in protected concerted and union activities.16
On April 14, Anderson sent a follow up email to Estrada, Illarraza and Garay, stating that
SOSi investigated the issues raised in their petitions and that the claims regarding Walker
occurred prior to SOSi’s contract or were unsubstantiated. She added, however, that Walker 5
would no longer perform interpreter evaluations. Anderson concluded with a warning that
retaliation against participants in the investigation would not be tolerated.
In June, Estrada engaged in an email exchange with Thornton regarding interpreters’
concerns about assignments and pay rates for the more grueling relay cases. During a follow-up 10
telephone call about these and some quality control issues, Thornton expressed dismay at the
numerous letters and petitions, adding that while she appreciated Estrada’s help during the
transition, she noted that Estrada’s concerted actions would increase SOSi’s costs.17
On August 24, Estrada received an email from Thornton informing her that SOSi would 15
not extend her ICA, which expired on August 31. The next day, she participated in a two-day
demonstration outside of the Los Angeles EOIR courts. Photographs of the event were posted
on the WhatsApp site depicting interpreters, including Estrada, holding signs stating: “Shame on
the DOJ for hiring SOSi” and “Shame on the DOJ for turning a blind eye to injustice.”
20
(3) Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar
Gutierrez-Bejar joined the Union in January. Thereafter, she attended union meetings
and joined the social media committee and issued press releases that appeared in publications.
Gutierrez-Bejar spoke frequently with other interpreters about work conditions and efforts to get 25
reclassified as employees. Through group emails, WhatsApp and other modes of
communication, Gutierrez-Bejar and Estrada and kept other interpreters informed of their efforts.
In January, Gutierrez-Bejar began discussing the payment issues experienced by many
interpreters. She personally experienced late payments in February, March and April. On 30
January 21, Gutierrez-Bejar drafted a press release, which was sent to media sources and
referenced in an article published BuzzFeed, an internet publication, entitled: “Hundreds of
Immigration Court Interpreters say they Haven’t Been Paid Since Last Year.” In addition,
Estrada and Gutierrez-Bejar drafted a notice regarding unfair labor practice charges filed against
SOSi. These notices were posted on various social media, union and interpreter group sites.35
Gutierrez-Bejar also signed several petitions. One set of petitions related to complaints
about interpreter Maria Elena Walker’s conduct towards other interpreters and conflicts of
interest between her, SCSI and SOSi. Gutierrez-Bejar also expressed these concerns in emails to
Anderson. She also signed another petition in March complaining about disqualification of 40

16 On September 30, the Regional Director dismissed charge 21-CA-173402 on the grounds that the
suspensions resulted from temporary disqualifications directed by EOIR, the lower rates were offered by
SOSi prior to the interpreters’ union and/or protected concerted activities, and the reduction in hours
during certain periods coincided with a reduction in business.
17 Estrada’s credible testimony regarding this conversation with Thornton was not disputed. (Tr. 644-
645, 1389-1394.)
JD–18–18
30
Illarraza and demanding her reinstatement. In July, Gutierrez-Bejar sent a group email to
interpreters soliciting funds for the training of the group’s union leadership.
On August 24, Behar received an email from Thornton informing her that SOSi would
not renew her contract, without further explanation.5
(4) Maria Portillo
Portillo assisted group leaders during negotiations leading to the first ICA. She called
interpreters, met with the leaders, sent emails, researched and lent other assistance. Portillo also 10
assisted in preparing and signed petitions critical of SOSi’s recruitment process and the
disqualification of certain interpreters in February. She also declined to take relay cases unless
the pay rates were increased.
Portillo communicated with other interpreters and complained to SOSi about missing 15
payments. In January, she assisted in preparing and signed the petition complaining about
Walker’s conduct towards other interpreters and the conflict of interest resulting from her
relationship with the SCSI. Portillo reiterated those concerns in a February 16 letter to SOSi.
On August 23, about a week before her ICA expired, Portillo inquired about her contract 20
extension. The following day, without explanation, Thornton replied that Portillo’s contract
would not be extended. Portillo protested that decision along with other interpreters by
demonstrating outside the Los Angeles Immigration Court on August 25 and 26.
25
On September 14, Portillo received an email from Siddiqi offering assignments for the
week of September 19. Portillo responded that her contract had not been renewed. Siddiqi was
under the impression that her contract had been renewed and said he would investigate. On
September 15, Portillo received a contract extension, which she executed and returned. Siddiqi
followed with a travel assignment to Tucson, Arizona on September 16 and local cases for the 30
week of September 19.
On the same day that Portillo received her contract extension, Valencia called to explain
that she was not offered a contract extension earlier for numerous reasons: her refusal to take a
relay case, complaints about the pay rate, breach of SOSi data, membership in the Union, 35
photographs of her participation in the protests and critical statements about SOSi to the press.
He explained that his ability to address the pay rate was hamstrung due to the litigious nature of
the interpreters and the involvement of the Board, and asked why she participated in the
demonstration. Portillo defended all of her actions, including the alleged data breach, which she
denied, and asked Valencia to address the lack of respect that some coordinators showed 40
interpreters. Valencia declined to address the respect issue, mentioning that the interpreters gave
SOSi a hard time during the 2015 contract negotiations. The call concluded with Valencia
welcoming Portillo back and Portillo informing Valencia that she confirmed her assignments and
was preparing to leave for her travel assignment.
45
A short while later, just before leaving for the airport, Valencia called Portillo back and
regretfully informed her that SOSi was cancelling her contract extension because she was one of
eight interpreters that Iwicki’s section did not want working for SOSi.
JD–18–18
31
(5) Stephany Magaña
After communicating with a SOSi recruiter regarding proposed compensation in August
2015, Magaña reached out to other Lionbridge interpreters, including Estrada, Illaraza, and 5
Gutierrez-Bejar. Magaña became involved by providing logistical support to the interpreters’
negotiating committee at their rented office space across from the Los Angeles immigration
courts and assisted in the issuance of press releases that ended up in publications. She joined the
Union, attended organizing and strategy meetings, and recruited Union members.
10
Magaña, along with Rivandeneira, volunteered to assist other interpreters reach out to
SOSi personnel regarding their missing payments. On January 19, she emailed numerous
interpreters scheduling a meeting to discuss various issues that interpreters were experiencing,
including late payments. On February 2, Magaña emailed a SOSi payroll specialist and
characterized the late payments as disrespectful of interpreters. The next day, Magaña shared 15
those sentiments on internet media:
"It's not just about us but the people who are going to suffer are the respondents, the
immigrants in these proceedings. Magaña said. "What's going to happen when they don't
have an interpreter there or don't have a qualified interpreter in court?"20
"When I ask them when they're going to pay me the rest of the money they owe me
there's no answer," Magaña said. "Then they'll ask me if I can tell them what days I
worked and which cases. Why do I have to provide that information when they're the
ones giving us work?"25
Magaña and other interpreters believe the issues they've had are a concerted effort by
SOSi to remove qualified and senior interpreters from their roster in order to replace them
with inexperienced and lower paid workers.
30
"We definitely feel that they're trying to undermine us and get us out of the picture so
they can hire cheaper interpreters," Magaña said.
In addition to the above, Magaña signed the petition regarding interpreter concerns about
Walker. Magaña also signed the petition regarding quality control and opposing SOSi’s 35
relationship with the SCSI as a conflict of interest Finally she signed a petition protesting the
disqualifications of several interpreters.
Magaña entered into her initial ICA with SOSi in November 2015 and it set to expire on
August 31. On August 24, Thornton emailed Magaña informing her that SOSi would not be 40
extending her ICA and thanking her for her support.
Magaña canceled her scheduled assignments for August 25 and 26 in order to participate
in the Los Angeles demonstration concerning SOSi’s decision not to renew her contract and that
of other interpreters.45
JD–18–18
32
(6) Patricia Rivandeneira
After being contacted by a SOSi recruiter, Rivandeneira communicated with Estrada
about the negotiations and provided her with the rates desired by Adelanto interpreters. On
August 31, 2015, Rivandeneira emailed Estrada their laundry list of demands, including pay rates 5
of $350.00 for a full day, $200 for a half day, and full payment for cases cancelled on less than.
As justification for their demands, Rivandeneira explained that Adelanto interpreters worked
under “horrible” working conditions, oftentimes with no breaks and only very brief lunch breaks.
On October 7, 2015, during contract negotiations, Rivandeneira was quoted in a local 10
Spanish language newspaper complaining about the pay and working conditions of Adelanto
interpreters. She joined the Union in December 2015, attended union meetings, became a
member of the Union’s media committee, recruited members in California and other states, and
joined Magaña in pestering SOSi about the payroll issues experienced by many interpreters.
15
On January 11, Rivandeneira complained about Walker in a letter to interpreter liaison
Angel Garay. On February 16, she forwarded that letter to Anderson and expressed concern that
the letter had not been kept confidential and possible retaliation by Walker.
On August 23, Rivandeneira emailed Thornton inquiring about her contract extension. 20
On August 24, Thornton sent an email response to Rivandeneira informing her that SOSi would
not extend her contract beyond August 31.
(7) Kathleen Morris
25
During the time she worked for SOSi, and especially in the initial transitional period,
Morris began discussing the various issues that she and other interpreters were experiencing.
Morris also communicated with SOSi interpreters around the country through the WhatsApp
messaging site. After consultations with other Chicago-based interpreters, Morris took the lead
in writing to EOIR on February 4, about their problems in working for SOSi. The letter, which 30
was copied to Thornton and Valencia, and posted on the interpreters’ WhatsApp site, complained
about non-payment for services, an erratic payment process, frequent miscommunications and
mass confusion over assignments. Morris warned that the Chicago interpreters could not
guarantee their continued services unless they were paid by February 19.
35
On February 19, Morris received an email from Jessica Bailey, an Accounts Payable
Specialist within SOSi, which responded to Morris’s letter. This letter was addressed to both
Estrada and Morris and stated as follows:
You both have been paid for all of your COIs, we currently have nothing outstanding for 40
both of you. So I don’t understand the reason for this letter, and the constantly going to
social media to tarnish the name of the company. SOSi has been nothing but grateful for
your services. Just as an FYI it is a breach of contract to be discussing your rates and
financial agreements that you have made with SOSi with other interpreters. Correct me if
I am wrong but didn’t you all sign a non-disclosure agreement? If you both no longer 45
want to do business with SOSi we understand but please refrain from defamation. It is
very unprofessional. I am forwarding our email to our HR legal department for review.
JD–18–18
33
Following her receipt of this letter, Morris continued to be involved in discussing
workplace terms and conditions with other interpreters. Morris joined the Union in about the
spring of 2016. In the summer of 2016, Morris drafted and distributed a flyer advertising a
WhatsApp contract issues forum – a Union event – to discuss the various issues experienced by 5
the interpreters nationwide. The flyer ended with the sentences: “One easy phone call, instant
solidarity with colleagues nationwide. End the isolation. Fellow forum colleagues work
TOGETHER for improved compensation, work, and travel job conditions.”
From about March through June, Morris also engaged in several email exchanges with 10
SOSi personnel, including Thornton, on behalf of herself and other interpreters about various
issues, including the difficulty in obtaining access to particular courtrooms and interpreting
equipment not being charged properly.
In late August, before her ICA expired, Morris reached out to Thornton, who informed 15
her that SOSi would not renew her contract. Thornton told Morris that SOSi had to spend an
inordinate amount of time investigating, and resolving the simultaneous equipment and lack of
courtroom access issues. She also told Morris that when the latter corresponded with EOIR
personnel, she indicated incorrectly that she was an EOIR interpreter, rather than a SOSI
interpreter. Morris asked Thornton to reconsider, but Thornton responded that SOSi was busy 20
sending out the RFQs and could not deal with that request until completing that process. Morris
spoke with Thornton again at some point later and asked whether SOSi reconsidered her status.
Thornton informed Morris that the decision had been made not to renew her contract.
(8) State Unemployment Compensation Awards25
After SOSi refused to renew their contracts, Portillo, Estrada, Rivandeneira, Morris, and
another interpreter, Waracely Weiherer, applied for State unemployment compensation. All
were determined by their respective State agencies to be common law employees.1830
J. The August 25-26, 2016 Demonstrations
(1) Interpreters Protest The Non-Renewal of Discriminatees’ Contracts35
On August 25 and 26, about 15 interpreters, including Gutierrez-Bejar, Estrada, Rosas,
Rivandeneira and Magaña, demonstrated outside the Los Angeles immigration court. They held
signs and complained about their terminations and working conditions. The demonstration
received televised media coverage. 40
(2) Siddiqi’s Conversation With Weiherer
Siddiqi contacted Weiherer, a Spanish language interpreter, on August 25 inquiring
whether she could work at one of the downtown Los Angeles courts. Weiherer usually worked 45
in the Lancaster and Adelanto courts, but sometimes covered the Los Angeles EOIR locations.
She was not in Los Angeles at the time, but had been sent a text photograph of the interpreters

18 SOSi contested only the applications submitted by Rivandeneira and Weiherer.
JD–18–18
34
demonstrating. Weiherer responded to Siddiqi by forwarding to him the photograph with the
comment that she would “be [eaten] alive if [she went] to Los Angeles. Sad!!!” Siddiqi
followed up 40 minutes later:
Hi Aracely thanks [sic] you so much for sharing the info. Can you please find out who 5
participated in this and if you can recognize the faces.
Weiherer responded to Siddiqi about 30 minutes later with two text messages and a
photograph of the demonstrators holding a banner, which read: “Shame on DOJ for turning a
blind eye on justice.”10
There are more signs, but the majority are encrypted on what’s up chat. On this pic is
Diana Illaraza and Irma rosas.
On the first sign I can only recognized [sic] odaliz, Diana, hilda. I only know a few 15
people from Los Angeles Court.
The following morning, Siddiqi acknowledged Weiherer’s message from the previous
day, stating “Ok. That’s helpful.” Weiherer followed up about 30 minutes, stating that she “also
recognized Stephany Magaña.” Siddiqi replied by asking, “Which one is Hilda?” One minute 20
later, he asked if Weiherer had “a clearer picture of her?” Weiherer responded one minute later:
“Hilda is the one with the baseball cap and sunglasses” and “I can get some more pics from the
whats up later today.” A few minutes later, Weiherer added, “You can see her on television.
They came out last night on [Telemundo]. I’ll find the link later. I am at work right now.”
Almost immediately, Siddiqi replied: “Thank you Aracely. Please send me the link.” Weiherer 25
replied by sending Siddiqi a photograph of three women sitting at a lunch counter in a restaurant.
The one in blue is [Hilda]. The one across is odaliz and the lady in glasses is Paola. I took
this pic a couple weeks ago when we took the prep for an interpreters’ exam. Paola and I
didn’t know that they were going to be there, and she asked to sit with them.30
A short while later, Siddiqi told Weiherer that Rosas “was being difficult with me. If you
hear anything out there let me know.” Weiherer responded, “[w]ill do my friend. I know she is
very involved against SOSi and she had a lot of issues with Lionbridge previously because she
didn’t follow the rules and her and patricia wanted to [sic] whatever they wanted. Ask francis she 35
will be able to confirm it.” Siddiqi replied, “Yeah that’s right.”19
(3) SOSi’s Treatment of Rosas After the Demonstrations
Adelanto, Rosas’ preferred location, was 25 miles closer than Los Angeles to her home. 40
Although she often insisted on the higher travel rate whenever she was assigned Los Angeles
cases, she regularly accepted them whenever she was not assigned Adelanto cases. Although her
desired rate was the same rate paid to Los Angeles interpreters who traveled to Adelanto, Rosas’
stance eventually incurred the ire of operations manager Sergey Romanov. On December 30,

19 Siddiqi asserted that he never asked Weiherer to text him information about the August
demonstrations, but it is undisputed that she brought up the subject and he then asked for her to identify
the interpreters involved. (Tr. 1462-1464; GC Exh. 191).
JD–18–18
35
2015, he warned that she was “shooting [herself] in the foot” and would fall to the bottom of the
assignment list. Rosas’ assignments fell by half in January, but she backpedaled, agreed to take
Los Angeles cases at the negotiated rate and her caseload returned to normal in February.
Rosas was very involved early on in the organizing efforts with other interpreters who 5
were concerned about the terms of the initial ICA. She was present during the October 2015
contract negotiations with SOSi. Rosas attended union meetings and remained involved with
other interpreters relating to the terms and conditions of her employment, including signing
petitions complaining about SOSi’s relationship with the SCSI and Illaraza’s disqualification.
10
After receiving a contract extension, Rosas participated in the August 25-26
demonstrations in support of the non-renewed interpreters. In a photograph of the event shared
on the WhatsApp messaging site, Rosas could be seen wearing a sign which read “SOSi charges
the DOJ a $1,000 markup and wants to [hire] underqualified interpreters paying them peanuts.”
15
Rosas, who was not scheduled to work on August 25 and 26. However, a substantial
number of Los Angeles interpreters suddenly cancelled their assignments and SOSi took steps to
ensure that Los Angeles cases were covered during those days and the following week. Aware
that Rosas was available to cover Los Angeles cases, Siddiqi switched Rosas’ Adelanto cases to
another interpreter who only covered Adelanto. He called her on the morning of August 26 and 20
asked if she would be working for SOSi the following week and Rosas confirmed that she would
cover any assigned cases.
Later that day, Siddiqi emailed her a schedule for the following week and Los Angeles.
Except for one Adelanto assignment, the rest were in Los Angeles. Rosas, still at the 25
demonstration, called Siddiqi for an explanation. Siddiqi responded that he knew she was
participating in the demonstration based on photographs someone sent him. Rosas confirmed
she was at the event. Siddiqi told her that he sent her assignments but she rejected them. Rosas
explained he had not initially assigned her anything so by the time he tried to assign her
something she had already accepted work from another agency. Siddiqi asked Rosas why she 30
resisted Los Angeles assignments when she covered cases in Los Angeles assignments for other
clients. Rosas told Siddiqi that she accepted Los Angeles cases one or two days a week but not
an entire week due to child care issues. The conversation concluded without Rosas confirming
the Los Angeles assignments, but Siddiqi called Rosas a short while later to say he would try to
find her some Adelanto cases.20 35
Later that evening, Rosas had an email exchange with Siddiqi in which she informed him
that she would only cover Los Angeles cases if she were going to be paid the $550 travel rate in
light of the 140 mile round trip commute from her home to Los Angeles. She said that she
would not accept any more Los Angeles cases unless she was paid the travel rate. Siddiqi replied 40
that Rosas “covered the same cases at your regular rate over the past 10-odd months and now all
of a sudden you are asking for $550 for a case that you covered for $225, I will reassign the LA
cases. I will just keep you assigned for the [Adelanto] cases. Thank you.”

20 I credit Rosas’ testimony regarding her conversation with Siddiqi, who had no recollection of the
telephone call. (Tr. 785, 832, 834-840, 1459-1460.)
JD–18–18
36
The next day, Siddiqi sent Rosas two contentious emails with information showing that
she worked at the Los Angeles locations on numerous occasions at her regular rate, and
questioning why she suddenly resisted these assignments. Following this exchange, Rosas was
assigned 20 cases during September and, contrary to Siddiqi’s usual practice of assigning her
cases the prior month, Siddiqi assigned Rosas cases sporadically.5
On September 8, Rosas was sent an email from SOSi directing her to submit a completed
Annual Compliance Form. On September 12, she received SOSi’s email giving her until
September 19 to return her RFQ. On September 19, Rosas emailed Iwicki and informed him that
SOSi’s rates were unacceptable and she would only accept the same rate that she had been 10
receiving (half and full day rates previously negotiated by the California interpreters). She also
demanded a higher mileage reimbursement. On September 27, Rosas received an email response
informing her that her proposed rates were not hourly, exceeded the $35 maximum hourly rate
allowed and needed to be revised. Rosas’ last day of work with SOSi was September 29.
15
K. SOSi’s ICA Modifications After August 31, 2016
(1) Requests for Quotation
SOSi lost a lot of money during the first year of the EOIR contract due to the fact that the 20
pay rates and travel costs for interpreter services significantly exceeded the amounts it estimated
when bidding on the contract and could bill to EOIR. As a result, SOSi emailed interpreters that
it was eliminating half and full day rates and would only accept hourly rate proposals.
In August 2016, SOSi began offering interpreters the option to enter into a new contract 25
or accept an extension of their old contract with a shorter contract term after many of the initial
ICAs expired on August 31. SOSi issued an “RFQ” – a request for quotations or proposals. The
RFQ and related compliance documentation was transmitted through a secured shared file
system on the internet cloud that could only be accessed through a link sent to the recipient. The
system enabled interpreters to download the RFQ and related documents on their own computers 30
and return them completed to SOSi through the shared file system.
SOSi’s distributed the RFQs in stages to four groups: California Spanish; California non-
Spanish; the rest of the United States; and a group of interpreters in the SCSI testing and training
program. The ICA terms were the same for all four groups. On August 19, SOSi sent the first 35
RFQs to the California Spanish group. SOSi also issued proposed 30-day extensions to allow
enough time for interpreters to provide quotes. The RFQ stated, in pertinent part:
All independent contractors officers submitting a quote in response to this solicitation
will be considered for a subcontract award. Independent Contractors are considered 40
subcontractors consistent with the definition of subcontractor in the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) Part 44.
There are three significant changes if your organization currently has an Independent
Contractor Agreement with SOSi supporting this effort. First, SOSi has eliminated 1/2 45
day and full day fee rates from the program and will only accept hourly for services
provided.
JD–18–18
37
Second, SOSi has provided a not to exceed hourly rate maximum. Any response that
exceeds that maximum rate will be considered technically unacceptable and ineligible for
subcontract award. The hourly rate bid will establish the subcontractor’s rate for the
entire period of performance and will serve as the basis for priority case assignments in 5
the future. All bidders are encouraged to bid lower than the not to exceed rate to ensure
maximum competitiveness for future case assignments throughout the period of
performance.
Third, travel reimbursement is now standardized across the program and will not be 10
individually negotiated.
… Only hourly rate quotes will be considered for award. This hourly rate will apply to all
cases assigned to you during the Period of Performance of the Agreement awarded as a
result of your quote.15
The fillable PDF form of the ICA allowed interpreters to select a rate from a pull down
menu. However, the form did not allow one to select an hourly rate in excess of $35 for Spanish,
$44 for common languages, and $50 for uncommon languages.
20
(2) Negotiations between SOSi and Interpreters
SOSi’s proposal did not go over well with many interpreters and some expressed their
disagreement. Interpreters who failed to provide a compliant response received a letter
informing that their proposal was unacceptable for one of three reasons: (1) the rates quoted not 25
hourly; (2) the rates proposed were significantly higher than the maximum rate; or (3) that other
mandatory documents were not provided. SOSi’s concluded by asking them for their best and
final offer. Incumbent interpreters who wished to keep their previous wage rates in their previous
ICA had the option to extend their contracts. SOSi eventually agreed to a series of extensions
lasting through August 31, 2017.30
With many interpreters resisting SOSi’s ultimatum, negotiations continued with
individual interpreters. Some refused to accept SOSi’s hourly rates and continued working for
SOSi on contract extensions of their initial ICAs, including the half day and full day rates
previously negotiated. Over time, however, SOSi weeded out interpreters who stuck with their 35
initial ICAs because of the ample supply of other interpreters. Others agreed to hourly rates, but
negotiated rates higher than the maximum rate offered. Over the next year, SOSi entered into
ICAs that included a wide range of pay rates. Most interpreters agreed to hourly rates, including
SOSi’s proposed maximums, but some obtained slightly higher hourly rates. About one-third of
interpreters negotiated forms of compensation other than hourly pay rates, including payment for 40
a half-day, full-day, flat amount for travel, weekly, monthly or other basis.21

21 SOSi’s current list of interpreters reveals a variance in their pay rates, with approximately 2/3 of
interpreters paid based on a range of hourly rates and the rest compensated on the basis of half day, full
day, flat, weekly, monthly or other rates. (Jt. Exh. 1(ggg); GC Exh. 269-291.)
JD–18–18
38
(3) The Rescission of Rosario Espinosa’s ICA
Beginning in September 2015, Espinosa, a San Francisco-based interpreter,
communicated and coordinated with the Southern California group regarding their efforts to
negotiate collectively with SOSi over rates and other contract terms. Ultimately, Espinosa 5
entered into an ICA on the same terms and conditions as those agreed to by the Southern
California group. Subsequently, she entered into several extensions of her ICA through
September 31, 2016. Prior to that expiration date, on September 12, Espinosa received an email
from SOSi with a message that “I’ve shared a folder with you.” The email requested a quotation
for EOIR interpreter services and stated as follows:10
Dear Potential Subcontractor,
[SOSi] invites you to submit a quote for subcontract Spanish interpreter support on the
above-referenced opportunity. Quotation procedures and instructions are included in the 15
download folder link below marked “DOJ EOIR RFQ.”
All Independent Contractors/Offerors submitting a quote in response to this solicitation
will be considered for a subcontract award. Independent Contractors are considered
subcontractors consistent with the definition of subcontractor in the [FAR] Part 44.20
There are three significant changes if your organization currently has an Independent
Contractor Agreement (ICA) with SOSi supporting this effort. First, SOSi has eliminated
1/2 day and full day fee rates from the program and will only accept hourly rates for
services provided.25
Second, SOSi has provided a not to exceed hourly rate maximum. Any response that
exceeds the maximum rate will be considered technically unacceptable and ineligible for
subcontract award. The hourly rate bid will establish the subcontractor’s rate for the
entire period of performance and will serve as the basis for priority of case assignments 30
in the future. All bidders are encouraged to bid lower than the not to exceed rate to
ensure maximum competitiveness for future case assignments throughout the period of
performance.
Third, travel reimbursement is now standardized across the program and will not be 35
individually negotiated.
Your quote must be received no later than 5 PM EDT, Monday, September 19, 2016.
Only hourly rate quotes will be considered for award. This hourly rate will apply to all
cases assigned to you during the Period of Performance of the Agreement awarded as a 40
result of your quote. Please submit your hourly price quote in Attachment B and all other
documents by uploading your documents in our secure Egnyte portal here:
https://globalcloud.sosi.com/ul/75cHr36ouR
45
Also, we have created training slides to guide you through the process. It was sent to you
in a previous email and is available to download at the link below.
JD–18–18
39
If after you view that tutorial you have questions, please email them to
DOJIC@SOSi.com, or leave a message on our help line at 703-774-1831.22
At the bottom of the email was a link to an attachment from SOSi’s file sharing system.
Espinosa opened the link, which contained the proposed pay rates and other contractual terms, 5
including steep penalties for the late arrival or failure to appear for an assignment, as well certain
personal information. On September 14, Espinosa contacted Hatchette and expressed her
concerns over the maximum pay rate of $35 per hour and advised that she would submit a
counteroffer. Espinosa also contacted Estrada and other interpreters to discuss her response. On
September 19, after emailing Hatchette about the difficulty encountered in uploading and editing 10
the RFQ, Espinosa simply responded by attaching a counterproposal of the same half and full
day rates that she had under her initial ICA.
In the meantime, a SOSi employee erroneously forwarded the RFQ links and personal
information of another interpreter to Espinosa and other interpreters. On September 18 and 19, 15
Espinosa forwarded that interpreter’s RFQ and personal information to at least 129 other SOSi
interpreters. SOSi learned of the errant email on September 20 when interpreters posted the
information on the WhatsApp Messenger site. Hatchette took immediate measures to ensure that
the information was no longer accessible, informed interpreters of this development and
instructed them not to share or download the information:20
We have discovered that some SOSi independent contractors received a link to an Egnyte
folder with contract documents from other independent contractors. Upon learning of
this, SOSi promptly took action to ensure the information is no longer accessible. We are
currently investigating this incident and are taking action to remediate. If you received 25
such a link, either from SOSi or from another independent contractor, please do not
access it, do not share it with anyone else, and do not use it to download any documents.
Further, if you already downloaded any documents using this link that contain
information about any other independent contractor, please delete the downloaded
materials immediately. 30
As a reminder, links provided during the contract renewal process connect to each
contractor's online folder and are not to be shared or forwarded. We are working quickly
to evaluate the situation and will be in direct contact with any independent contractors
whose personal information may have been compromised in this incident. In the 35
meantime, please work with us to help maintain the confidentiality of your colleagues'
information.
Later that day, SOSi’s IT department informed Hatchette that Espinosa downloaded and
shared the errant link with others. Hatchette then called Espinosa and accused her of 40
unauthorized disclosure. Espinosa gave inconsistent, shifting denials and concessions with
explanations. On September 27, Hatchette emailed Espinosa with a detailed indictment of
Espinosa’s actions:

22 Contrary to the assertions by SOSi counsel on October 6, 2016, the September 12th email to
Espinosa did not contain a statement prohibiting the documents from being shared. (GC Exh. 99, 104.)
A statement to that effect, however, did appear in Hatchette’s September 20th email. (GC Exh. 102.)
JD–18–18
40
SOSi’s IT department has been tracing your unique Request for Quote email link and we
have determined that you improperly forwarded and shared this link with other third
parties despite clear instructions not to do so. When SOSi questioned you about your
actions, you were not forthcoming or truthful. Initially, you denied sharing the link. 5
Then, you claimed that you could not recall whether you shared the link. Then, you
stated that you shared it with a friend to help you, and later admitted that you shared it
with another interpreter. However, SOSi’s computer tracing records show that you, in
fact, shared the link repeatedly with others the previous day.
10
Your conduct and, particularly your lack of candor, are not acceptable and violate your
obligations to SOSi under your Independent Contractor Agreement. Accordingly, SOSi
has made the decision to terminate your Independent Contractor Agreement, effective
immediately. SOSi also will be considering possible legal proceedings for improper
disclosure and downloading of information that is clearly confidential and proprietary in 15
nature.23
On October 6, SOSi counsel sent Espinosa the following letter regarding the security
breach resulting from her mass distribution of another interpreter’s personal information.
20
We represent [SOSi] . . . As you may be aware, SOSi has been investigating an incident
where links sent to contractors to facilitate the transmission of their own contracting
documents (which contain personal information) were improperly forwarded. We write to
advise you that forensic analysis has determined that you are one of the contractors who
engaged in this wrongful conduct. By doing so, you either exposed or accessed personal 25
information in contract documents that did not pertain to you.
Specific instructions that accompanied the contract extension links that were sent to you
stated: "Please do not share the link with anyone." Not only did you violate this
instruction, you also violated your obligations in paragraph 7 of your [ICA], which30
provides in pertinent part "Duplication or disclosure of the data and information to which
the contractor may have access as a result of this Agreement is prohibited," including,
"without limitation," information that "due to its character and nature, or the
circumstances of the disclosure, a reasonable person would recognize as being
confidential." Your conduct also breached your contractual obligation in paragraph 10 of35
your ICA to "conform to high professional standards of work and business ethics," and
paragraph 9 of your ICA, which obligates you to comply with "federal, state, and local
laws and regulations," which include laws that prohibit the public communication of
social security numbers, among other prohibitions.
40
SOSi is taking this matter very seriously and its investigation is ongoing. No final
conclusions have been reached, or decisions made about what action, if any, may be
taken. At this time, we ask that you cooperate fully with the company's investigation, as

23 I credit Hatchette’s factual assertions in the September 27 email, which was consistent with her
testimony, and SOSi’s IT records, as well as Espinosa’s concession that she forwarded links to Estrada
and another individual. (R. Exh. 17; GC Exh. 100, 103; Tr. 531, 555, 1352-1354.)
JD–18–18
41
you are obligated to do under your ICA. Please provide to us by no later than 5 p.m. EST
on October 10 (1) a list of individuals (including email addresses) to whom you
forwarded any SOSi links for uploading or downloading contract documents; (2) a list of
individuals (including email addresses) who sent to you any SOSi links for uploading or
downloading contract documents; and (3) written confirmation that you have deleted5
and/or destroyed any confidential or proprietary documents about other contractors that
you may have accessed or downloaded from SOSi links. You may provide the requested
information to us either by letter or by email to apierce@akingump.com.
SOSi expects your full cooperation with its investigation. This letter is not intended to be a10
complete statement of SOSi's rights or the facts. Additionally, this letter shall not be
construed as a waiver of any legal or equitable rights or remedies, all of which are
expressly reserved.
Notwithstanding the acrimony over Espinosa’s distribution of another interpreter’s RFQ,15
her regional coordinator, Ashley Ferro, reached out to her on October 11 with an offer to pay her
an hourly rate of $35 for either 4-hour or 8-hour minimum assignments, with lower travel rates
than those in the expired ICA, and the steep penalties for no shows. After consulting with other
San Francisco-based interpreters who received the same offers, Espinosa and the others
counteroffered $50 an hour with a 4-hour minimum, eliminating the late/no show penalty 20
provision and rejecting the proposed travel rates. After receiving no response, Espinosa
contacted Ferro, who informed her that the counterproposal was unacceptable.
L. SOSi’s ICA Modifications After August 31, 2017
25
On July 10, 2017, SOSi emailed interpreters announcing upcoming changes in the new
contracts, including offers to renew their contracts for the period of September 1, 2017 through
August 31, 2018, followed by two option years running through the end of SOSi’s EOIR contract
on August 31, 2020. SOSi also announced that there would be rate variations based on the
following interpreter skill levels: (1) certified (under federal, state, and/or NAJIT court 30
interpreter certification); (2) qualified (minimum of one year of judicial interpreting experience
but not certified); or (3) language skilled (less than one year of formal judicial interpreting
experience but not certified, but meets all other competencies required by the contract). In
addition, SOSi announced that there would be a three hour minimum for hourly work orders, and
an assurance that morning assignments would end by noon and afternoon assignments would end 35
by 5:00 p.m. Finally SOSi announced it would be conducting annual evaluations of interpreters.
On July 20, 2017, SOSi emailed interpreters the sixth modification of the ICA. In this
email, interpreters were invited to submit a quote for a new ICA or sign a modification to their
agreement incorporating the key changes identified on July 10. SOSi gave the interpreters two 40
options. Option A was to sign a new ICA at an hourly rate assigned to the interpreter based on
his/her skill level and the terms set forth in the July 10 email. Option B enabled interpreters to
stay at their current rates and extend their contract through August 31, 2018.
In addition to the standardized travel rates set forth in the new ICA, SOSi booked and 45
paid for airfare, hotel, and car rentals. However, incidentals costs such as parking, tolls,
gasoline, mileage, meals were not covered. For travel cases, SOSi sends the traveling interpreter
JD–18–18
42
the itinerary via email once the travel arrangements have been made. Typically SOSi sends the
interpreter to the case location a day in advance of the assignment. Interpreters are not paid for
travel time to and from the destination or idle days in between assignments.
Interpreters who sought to negotiate the rates and other terms for travel cases were 5
denied. Burmese interpreter Marlar Swe, after opting to renew her current ICA through August
2018, submitted a proposal for flat rates for travel cases. SOSi initially rejected her proposal on
August 3 and again on August 25, when SOSi informed her that she could either opt to extend
her contract with travel to be arranged on a case-by-case basis or enter into a new ICA and
accept an hourly rate of $58 with a travel rate equivalent to $539 per day for the first and last day 10
(which was based on SOSi’s standardized travel rate of the hourly rate multiplied by 8 and added
to the standard stipend of $75 (i.e. $58 times 8= $464 + $75=$539). Swe’s contract was thus
extended based on Option B without any standardization of the travel rates.
LEGAL ANALYSIS15
I. EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF INTERPRETERS
The overriding issue in this case is whether SOSi interpreters are employees or
independent contractors. If they work as employees as defined at Section 2(3) of the Act, they 20
are entitled to the protections of the Act. If determined to be independent contractors, the
interpreters are without recourse under the Act with respect to SOSi’s adverse actions.
Although it is admittedly a close question, based on extant Board precedent and
longstanding interpretive principles in the area of worker classification, SOSi interpreters are 25
employees as defined in Section 2(3) of the Act.
A. Applicable Legal Principles
SOSi, as the party contesting the classification of its workers and asserting that they are 30
independent contractors, bears the burden of proof. FedEx Home Delivery, 361 NLRB 610, 610-
611 (2014), enf. denied, No. 14-1196 (D.C. Cir. 2017); see also BKN, Inc., 333 NLRB 143, 144
(2001); NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, 532 U.S. 706, 710–712 (2001).
In determining whether a worker is properly classified as an employee or independent 35
contractor, the Board traditionally applies general agency principles. FedEx, 361 NLRB at 611;
N.L.R.B. v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S. 254, 256 (1968). In identifying the relevant
common-law agency principles, “the Board must also conform to the Supreme Court decisions
that have applied the same common-law test under other Federal statutes. In those cases, the
Court has cited with approval the nonexhaustive, multifactor test articulated in the Restatement 40
(Second) of Agency § 220 (1958).” FedEx, 361 NLRB at 611. The relevant factors from § 220
of the Restatement are as follows:
(a) the extent of control which, by the agreement, the master may exercise over the
details of the work;45
(b) whether or not the one employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business;
JD–18–18
43
(c) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is
usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without
supervision;
5
(d) the skill required in the particular occupation;
(e) whether the employer or the workman supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and
the place of work for the person doing the work;
10
(f) the length of time for which the person is employed;
(g) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job;
(h) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the employer;15
(i) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and
servant; and
(j) whether the principal is or is not in the business.20
The Supreme Court has emphasized that in analyzing whether a worker is an employee
under common-law agency principles, there is “no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can
be applied… all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one
factor being decisive.” United Insurance, 390 U.S. at 258. In accordance with this standard, the 25
Board adheres to the following principles in assessing whether a worker is properly classified as
an employee or as an independent contractor: “(1) all factors must be assessed and weighed; (2)
no one factor is decisive; (3) other relevant factors may be considered, depending on the
circumstances; and (4) the weight to be given a particular factor or group of factors depends on
the factual circumstances of each case.” FedEx, 361 NLRB at 611. 30
The ultimate determination depends upon the combined weight of all of the relevant
factors, and the inquiry “requires more than simply tallying factors on each side and selecting the
winner on the basis of a point score.” Lancaster Symphony Orchestra, 357 NLRB 1761, 1763
(2011) (quoting Schwieger v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co. of NE, 207 F.3d 480, 487 (8th Cir. 35
2000)). Consequently, “the same set of factors that was decisive in one case may be
unpersuasive when balanced against a different set of opposing factors in another case.”
Lancaster Symphony, 357 NLRB at 1763; see also Roadway Package 326 NLRB 842, 850
(1998); Austin Tupler Trucking, 261 NLRB 183, 184 (1982).
40
In addition to the Restatement factors, the Board has also considered whether a worker
has “significant entrepreneurial opportunity for gain or loss.” Roadway Package, 326 NLRB at
851 (1998). Related to that issue is whether the workers “have ability to work for other
companies, can hire their own employees, and have a proprietary interest in their work.” Fedex,
361 NLRB at 612. In this regard, only “actual opportunities” for entrepreneurial independence 45
will weigh in favor of independent contractors status. Id. In other words, “if a company offers its
workers entrepreneurial opportunities that they cannot realistically take, then that does not add
JD–18–18
44
any weight to the company’s claim that the workers are independent contractors.” Id. (quoting
C.C. Eastern, Inc. v. NLRB, 60 F.3d 855, 860 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). In considering the worker’s
actual entrepreneurial opportunities, the ultimate question is “whether the putative independent
contractor is, in fact, rendering services as part of an independent business.” Id.
5
B. Application of the Restatement Factors to Interpreters
(1) Extent of Control over the Details of the Work
The General Counsel contends that SOSi maintained greater control than the interpreters
did over the details of their work, but acknowledges that much of that control derived from EOIR 10
requirements. In such instances, control cannot be imputed to SOSi if it emanates from
government regulatory or contractual requirements. See Air Transit, 271 NLRB 1108, 1111
(when analyzing company’s degree of control over cab drivers, Board refused to consider
requirements imposed on drivers stemming from company’s contract with the Federal Aviation
Administration); Cardinal Mccloskey Servs., 298 NLRB 434, 435 (1990) (“Enforcement of laws 15
or government regulations… is not considered control over the manner and means by which
results are accomplished, because such enforcement is, in reality, supervision by the government,
not by the employer”) (internal quotations omitted).
Nevertheless, the General Counsel contends that the control factor favors employee status20
because SOSi asserted additional controls over the details of interpreters’ work beyond those
required under the EOIR contract. Relying on People Care, Inc., 311 NLRB 1075, 1077 (1993),
the General Counsel argues that “where the government requirements are general in form and
allow the employer to retain flexibility to assert meaningful control according to the employer’s
needs and requirements, control so asserted is attributable to the employer.” The General 25
Counsel further asserts that SOSi exercises control by deciding when and where interpreters will
be offered assignments, citing Minn. Timberwolves, 365 NLRB No. 124, slip. op. at 6 (2017) and
Sisters’ Camelot, 363 NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 2 (2015), and by threatening to withhold future
assignments if interpreters are unavailable or unwilling to accept an assignment offered, citing
Lancaster Symphony, 357 NLRB at 1763.30
SOSi maintains that essentially all supervision of interpreters is exercised by EOIR and
the immigration courts. The consequence of such control, in SOSi’s view, is that control
exercised by the government cannot be attributed to the company, citing Don Bass Trucking,
Inc., 275 NLRB 1172, 1174 (1985) and Air Transit, Inc., 271 NLRB 1108, 1110 (1984). In 35
support, the company emphasizes that SOSi’s managerial and administrative personnel neither
speak the interpreters’ foreign languages nor have experience in courtroom interpreting. The
company also notes that only EOIR’s Language Services Unit can disqualify an interpreter, and
that nearly all instructions given to interpreters come from immigration judges, not SOSi. With
respect to control over assignments, the company explains that all assignment dates and times are 40
determined by EOIR, and that the company only offers assignments to interpreters, who are
always free to reject them. The company also argues that a worker may be required to perform
work within a certain time frame, while still remaining an independent contractor, citing The
Comedy Store, 265 NLRB 1422, 1422, 1449-1450 (1982), and Community for Creative Non-
Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 752-753 (1989).45
JD–18–18
45
The very nature of courtroom interpreting requires interpreters to exercise instantaneous
skilled, ethical and independent judgment. See Standard Oil Co., 230 NLRB 967, 972 (1977)
(suggesting that worker’s regular exercise of independent judgment indicates independent
contractor status). See also, Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 521 (1926) (consulting
engineers were independent contractors because their work “involved the use of judgment and 5
discretion on their part… This permitted to them liberty of action which excludes the idea that
control or right of control by the employer which characterizes the relation of employer and
employee and differentiates the employee or servant from the independent contractor”).
Interpreters must make quick, difficult and critical choices, such as how to properly 10
phrase an idiomatic expression or capture a speaker’s tone and emotion. These are not “minor
facets” of interpreting. See FedEx, 361 NLRB at 622. Such decisions, given to the interpreters’
discretion, are at the core of what they are required to do essential to ensure that immigration
hearings are conducted fairly. SOSi does not provide any direction to the interpreters as they
carry out their core functions, nor would it be practicable for the company to do so. 15
On the other hand, the General Counsel correctly notes that SOSi exercised control
beyond what was required under its contract with EOIR, and that such control asserted should be
attributed to the company. People Care, Inc., 311 NLRB 1075, 1077–78 (1993). See also
Stamford Taxi, 332 NLRB 1372, 1385 (2000) (stating that employer control exceeding 20
government regulations favors employee status). The Code of Business Ethics contained
significant restrictions on interpreters’ use of social and media and ability to talk to the media
about SOSi business. The more recent ICAs continue prohibiting interpreters from transferring
assignments without SOSi approval, and from performing additional work for EOIR beyond the
scope of the ICAs. All of these requirements exceed SOSi’s legal obligations. The General 25
Counsel also notes that employer retaliation for a worker’s refusal to accept an assignment
suggests employee status. Cf. The Comedy Store, 265 NLRB at 1428-1429, 1450 (comedians
found to be independent contractors in part because record did not support finding that employer
deliberately denied future performances to comedians who refused offers to perform).
30
In addition, over time SOSi has begun to take a more active role in ensuring that
interpreters meet EOIR’s requirements. SOSi first employed interpreters as liaisons to evaluate
interpreters’ dress, professionalism and use of equipment, but now has its employees conduct
annual on-site evaluations of interpreters’ compliance with EOIR’s procedural requirements.
SOSi also uses SCSI to evaluate interpreters’ performance. Although SOSi’s EOIR contract 35
requires it to provide “qualified contract interpreters,” these supervisory measures go beyond
what is mandated by the contract, and thus may be imputed to SOSi.
This factor slightly favors independent contractor status. The interpreters work in the
courtroom independently and without direction from SOSi. The extensive skills, certification, 40
and ethics required of interpreters all flow-down from EOIR. In addition, while in the
courtroom, interpreters are subject to the instruction, supervision, and evaluation of immigration
judges, not SOSi. As previously stated, such incidents of control cannot be attributed to SOSi
because they are exclusively the result of governmental requirements. See, e.g., Air Transit, 271
NLRB 1108, 1111; Cardinal Mccloskey Servs., 298 NLRB 434, 435 (1990).45
JD–18–18
46
Distinguishing Minnesota Timberwolves, Sisters’ Camelot, and Lancaster Symphony, the
Board found the workers in those cases to be employees, even though all of them had the
freedom to choose which work assignments they accepted, as is the case with the interpreters.
Importantly, however, in those cases the dates and times of assignments were determined by the
employer, rather than the government, and none of the workers were subject strictly to 5
government control while working.
In conclusion, the evidence reveals that SOSi exercised a certain degree of control over
the administrative aspects of interpreters’ work by retaliating against those who refused
assignments, through its Code of Business Ethics, and through its limitations on interpreters’ 10
rights to pursue other assignments for EOIR. However, the fact that interpreters are given
significant independence and discretion in performing their core functions ultimately favors a
finding of independent contractor status. See Pennsylvania Acad. of the Fine Arts, 343 NLRB
846, 847 (2004) (“the models retain significant discretion over how they perform their work,
which strongly supports independent contractor status”). 15
(2) Whether Interpreters are Engaged in a Distinct Occupation or Business
The General Counsel emphasizes that interpreters must wear an SOSi-branded
identification badge and are not allowed to solicit work for themselves while on an SOSi
assignment or compete with SOSi for EOIR interpretation work. Relying on Sisters’ Camelot, 20
363 NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 3, and FedEx, 361 NLRB at 618, the General Counsel argues that
these facts support a finding of employee status. The General Counsel also argues that
interpreters received significant on-the-job assistance from SOSi, including ongoing training,
scheduling assistance, and periodic guidance as to EOIR’s requirements relating courtroom
demeanor, dress code, setting up equipment and completing COI forms. In the General 25
Counsel’s view, this establishes that interpreters are “fully integrated into SOSi’s organization,”
and are therefore not engaged in a distinct occupation or business.
Asserting that “[c]ertain factors often overlap and are best discussed together,” SOSi
groups this factor with the skill required in courtroom interpretation and the nature of the 30
interpretation occupation. SOSi essentially argues that interpreters are engaged in a distinct
business because they are skilled, many operate as sole proprietors, and it is common for
interpreters to act as independent contractors. The company also notes that while under contract
with SOSi, several interpreters performed interpretation services for other entities, maintained
business licenses in their states of residence, made business cards, and filed tax returns as sole 35
proprietors. SOSi also argues that even if some interpreters received a significant portion of their
income from SOSi assignments, this does not necessarily favor employee status.
The fact that interpreters were prevented from passing out business cards or otherwise
soliciting business for themselves while working for SOSi evidences employee status. Sisters’ 40
Camelot, 363 NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 2-3 (canvassers found to be employees when they could
not solicit for any other organization while canvassing for employer). The General Counsel is
also correct that the interpreters’ ability to work for other organizations when not on SOSi
assignments is not dispositive of independent contractor status. Id. at 3 (“the ability to work for
multiple employers does not make an individual an independent contractor”).45
JD–18–18
47
In addition, interpreters were at least relatively integrated into SOSi’s operation. Their
work was important; indeed, it was essential to SOSi’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations
with EOIR. See id. (importance of canvassers’ fundraising activities was evidence of integration
into employer’s operation). The interpreters also rely on SOSi personnel for guidance on EOIR
requirements, and use SOSi resources to schedule assignments, submit COI forms, and complete 5
training. FedEx, 361 NLRB at 622 (drivers were integrated into employer’s operation because
they relied on employer’s scanner system and package handlers, and received “considerable
assistance and guidance from the company”) (quoting United Insurance, 390 U.S. at 259).
This factor favors employee status. SOSi’s argument is based largely on the interpreters’ 10
outside business registrations and tax filings. While interpreting in the courtroom, interpreters
wear SOSi-branded badges with a company motto.24 In so doing, the interpreters effectively
operate in SOSi’s name, rather than their own. FedEx, 361 NLRB at 611. This is true even
though some interpreters operated as sole proprietors when not working for SOSi. See id. (even
drivers who operated as incorporated businesses were found to be employees in part because 15
they did business in company’s name); cf. Argix Direct, Inc., 343 NLRB 1017, 1020-21 (finding
independent-contractor status where drivers could place their own names or logos on trucks).
(3) Kind of Occupation and Extent to which Work is Done Under Direction of the Employer
20
As evidence of employee status, the General Counsel repeats examples of control
exercised by SOSi, including requirements interpreters faced under the company’s Code of
Business Ethics, SOSi’s monitoring of interpreters’ compliance with EOIR requirements, and
SOSI’s inquiries with EOIR regarding interpreters’ performance. In support, the General
Counsel again relies on Sisters’ Camelot and FedEx. 25
SOSi, on the other hand, relies on its continuation of Lionbridge’s longstanding practice
of treating interpreters as independent contractors.25 SOSi also reiterates that essentially all
supervision and direction of interpreters is conducted by the immigration courts, not SOSi.
30
SOSi is in the business of government contracting. It monitors and appraises
performance through recorded observations by interpreter liaisons, annual performance
evaluations conducted by company personnel, and by sending recordings of interpreters’
courtroom performances to SCSI for evaluation. See FedEx, 361 NLRB at 622 (company’s
periodic audits and appraisals of drivers’ performance indicated employee status). However, this 35
case is distinguishable from the cases cited by the General Counsel because SOSi does not direct
interpreters to the same degree that employers directed the employees in those cases. In Sisters’
Camelot, for example, canvassers were required to record each house they visited, indicate the
location of each house on a map, and compile statistics on the total number of houses visited and
total amount of donations collected. They were subject to discipline and required to redo their40
recording form if they made errors in completing it. That interpreters are required to submit a
COI form for each case, as required by EOIR, is neither attributable to or indicative of a

24 Although the EOIR contract states that “Interpreters shall have a Contractor-issued photo,” the
badges given to interpreters do more to identify interpreters with SOSi than is required.
25 In its brief, SOSi also referenced a survey of linguists indicating that a majority of interpreters work
as independent contractors. Because the survey was entered into evidence, I decline to consider it.
JD–18–18
48
comparable level of direction by SOSi. See Don Bass Trucking, 275 NLRB at 1172, 1174
(1985) (government regulations requiring compliance with administrative requirements afford
less opportunity for control by the company).
As stated previously, interpreters are ultimately given significant discretion and 5
independence when interpreting. Pennsylvania Acad. of the Fine Arts, 343 NLRB at 846;
Century Broadcasting Corp., 198 NLRB 923, 924 (1972) (radio announcers were independent
contractors where the “inflections, pauses, idiom, and mood projected” when making
announcements was left entirely to their discretion). Certainly, interpreters still face many
substantive requirements and guidelines regarding proper interpretation practices. Again, 10
however, these come from the government, not SOSi, which distinguishes this this case from
those cited by the General Counsel.
This factor favors independent contractor status for reasons similar to those stated in the
control factor. Interpreters are given significant independence and discretion in carrying out 15
their work. To the extent that they are directed and supervised, nearly all direction and
supervision is carried out by the immigration courts, rather than SOSi.
(4) The Skill Required in the Particular Occupation
Both parties acknowledge that courtroom interpretation is a skilled profession, and that 20
this factor weighs in favor of independent contractor status. The skill required is only one
consideration, however. It should also be noted that there are numerous professions, such as
engineering, computer science, medicine, and performance arts, where workers are incredibly
skilled, yet often still practice their craft as employees. Accord, Metropolitan Opera Ass’n., 327
NLRB 740, 740-742 (1999) (members of bargaining unit included solo singers, principal 25
dancers, members of the corps de ballet, and choristers for “one of the grandest, if not the
preeminent opera company in the world”). Thus, although this factor favors independent
contractor status, it is not entitled to significant weight.
(5) Whether Employer Supplies the Instrumentalities, Tools and Place of Work30
The General Counsel, citing Lancaster Symphony, 357 NLRB at 1766, argues that this
factor is neutral because both interpreters and SOSi provide roughly the same amount of
supplies, and the amount of supplies each provides is negligible regardless. See also, FedEx, 361
NLRB at 623 (“Because aspects of the instrumentalities factor cut both ways, we find it to be 35
neutral”). SOSi does not, however, concede that it provides any instrumentalities to the
interpreters. The company notes that interpreters never come to its Reston, Virginia
headquarters, but rather, work exclusively in the immigration courts or from their homes.
This factor is neutral and not overly significant. Neither party provides the most 40
important instrumentalities of the work—courtrooms and the electronic recording systems.
These are provided by EOIR and the immigration courts. The interpreters provide some
relatively minor instrumentalities, such as pens, note pads and language dictionaries. Further,
when conducting telephonic interpretation, interpreters interpret from their homes using their
own landline telephone connections. However, SOSi provides the interpreters with scheduling 45
and administrative support, pays for training and certification opportunities with SCSI, and
JD–18–18
49
provides guidance on EOIR requirements and instruction on the use of courtroom equipment.
See Adderley Indus., Inc., 322 NLRB 1016, 1023 (1997) (paid training provided to cable
installers supported finding of employee status); FedEx, 361 NLRB at 622-23 (employee status
finding supported where drivers received assistance from company employees during shifts, and
company helped facilitate drivers’ purchase of their trucks). 5
(6) Length of Time for Which the Person is Employed
The General Counsel argues that this factor favors employee status because the parties
demonstrated an expectation that their relationship would be of indefinite duration. Relying on 10
FedEx, 361 NLRB at 623, the General Counsel contends that this favors employee status. The
General Counsel notes that many of the interpreters performed under contracts with SOSi’s
predecessors for more than a decade, and that SOSi’s actions showed the company intended to
have a continuing relationship with many of the interpreters, even though the agreed upon terms
in the initial contract were less than a year. The General Counsel argues that the initial contracts 15
were relatively short only because SOSi needed to ensure that its own contract with EOIR would
be renewed, and notes that many of the interpreters continue to operate on one-year extensions of
their initial contracts, mirroring the renewal time frame of SOSi’s contracts with EOIR.
SOSi argues that this factor is neutral, and “largely uninformative one way or the other.” 20
SOSi notes that interpreters work primarily on one-year contracts which in many cases are
renewed, but that there is significant disparity among interpreters in terms of how often they
complete EOIR assignments. SOSi also points to the fact that no interpreter is guaranteed any
number of assignments as favoring independent contractor status.
25
When SOSi first won the EOIR contract, it decided to enlist the same interpreters as had
been used by Lionbridge. The company was well aware that many of the interpreters worked for
Lionbridge in the immigration courts for several years, which was precisely why the company
sought them out. Although the initial ICAs lasted only as long as SOSi’s initial term with EOIR,
the company has continued to use most of the original Lionbridge interpreters in lockstep with its 30
own EOIR contract renewals. Thus, interpreters essentially “have a permanent working
arrangement with the company under which they may continue as long as their performance is
satisfactory.” FedEx, 361 NLRB at 623 (quoting United Insurance, 390 U.S. at 259); see also
Sisters’ Camelot, 363 NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 5 (stating that even a potentially long-term
working relationship favors employee status).26 The noteworthy exception to the company’s 35
general practice of allowing interpreters to continue working so long as they perform
satisfactorily is its treatment of the alleged discriminatees, discussed below.

26 It should be noted that where workers work for a purported employer only intermittently, as is the
case with some of the interpreters, this can favor a finding of independent contractor status. Sisters’
Camelot, 363 NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 5. However, that case is distinguishable from the current one
because some of the canvassers had “gaps in their working relationship” with the employer. While some
interpreters work only “sporadically,” there is no gap in their working relationship with SOSi in that they
remain under contract with the company even if they do not work regularly. In addition, the canvassers in
that case were found to be employees, notwithstanding their ability to work whatever schedule they
wished without retaliation, which is not the case with the interpreters.
JD–18–18
50
Because interpreters almost universally have an indefinite relationship with SOSi, which
continues so long as their performance is satisfactory, this factor favors employee status.
(7) Method of Payment
5
The parties sharply disagree over this factor. The General Counsel argues that the method
of payment favors employee status because interpreters are essentially paid by the hour, rather
than by the job. Although interpreters operating under the initial contracts with SOSi were paid
half-day and full-day rates for non-travel assignments, the General Counsel notes that the half
day rate of $225, and full-day rate of $425, are roughly equal in terms of compensation per hour, 10
so long as the assignments go the full four hours or eight hours, respectively. The General
Counsel also asserts that interpreters are rarely released early from assignments, and further
claims that “due to reassignment by court staff, interpreters generally continue working through
the scheduled end of a session, or longer.”
15
Relying on FedEx, 361 NLRB at 623, the General Counsel notes that interpreters had
very little ability to negotiate rates of pay on their own and were forced to resort to concerted
action to convince SOSi to back off on its compensation demands. The General Counsel also
argues that SOSi’s control over compensation has only increased since SOSi instituted its RFQ
process, which has led to an overall standardization of payment rates to interpreters, and an 20
increase in the number of interpreters being paid by the hour, rather than on a half-day/full-day
basis. The General Counsel contends that once the RFQ process began, SOSi set maximum
standard hourly rates and informed interpreters who requested higher rates that their requests
were not in compliance with SOSi’s standard rates.
25
SOSi strongly disagrees with the General Counsel’s assertion that half-day and full-day
assignments typically run long, claiming that “the overwhelming majority of morning and
afternoon assignments end long before noon or 5:00 p.m.” In support of this argument, SOSi
points to the fact that under the half-day/full-day structure, several interpreters’ average hourly
pay ranged from $83.75 per hour to $134.43 per hour, a significant difference influenced by how 30
long the interpreters’ “half-day” and “full-day” assignments actually lasted. SOSi contends that
these varying hourly compensation rates show that the interpreters were effectively paid by the
job, earning $225 for completing a morning assignment and $200 for an afternoon assignment,
whether an assignment lasted 30 minutes or 4 hours. As for the increase in the number of
interpreters being paid on an hourly rate after the RFQ process began, SOSi argues that this was 35
always the result of bilateral negotiations between SOSi and each individual interpreter.
The compensation factor favors employee status. To be sure, the half-day/full-day
structure in the initial ICAs somewhat approximated a “by the job” payment structure, in that
interpreters were paid the same amount regardless of how long an assignment lasted. However, 40
the effect of this was significantly muted because the unpredictability of how long an assignment
would last forced the interpreters to block off the entire day for a SOSi assignment, even if the
assignment was only in the morning. The result was that interpreters could precisely predict
what their earnings per hour would be for the entire day of an assignment. A half-day
assignment would provide a rate of $28.13 per hour ($225/8), and a full-day assignment would 45
provide a rate of $53.13 ($425/8). Even on days when they were released early, the interpreters
effectively had no ability to increase their earnings, Fedex, 361 NLRB at 623, because
JD–18–18
51
interpretation assignments are booked in advance. That the interpreters on some days got a few
extra hours of unexpected free time did not affect what was ultimately a precisely predictable
hourly earnings structure when the entire day they blocked off is taken into account.
In addition, after the initial ICA, SOSi moved steadily toward a standardized, hourly rate 5
structure for most interpreters. Despite its contention that all payment rights were strictly the
result of individualized, bilateral negotiations with each interpreter, the spreadsheets indicate that
the company almost universally held to its maximum rate structure for travel. For non-travel
assignments, hourly earnings hovered below the company’s maximum target of $32 for “skilled”
California Spanish interpreters; for “certified” California Spanish interpreters, most were right at 10
the company’s maximum target of $48, with a relatively narrow range of $43 to $51. The
company also informed interpreters who requested rates above the standard maximums that their
requests did not comply with the company’s rates. Although rates were not, in fact, completely
nonnegotiable, even a “generally nonnegotiable” payment structure supports a finding of
employee status. Id.; see also Sisters’ Camelot, 363 NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 5; Lancaster 15
Symphony, 357 NLRB at 1765 (both stating that nonnegotiable compensation rates weigh in
favor of employee status). That SOSi does not withhold taxes or provide fringe benefits to
interpreters does not overcome the other important aspects of the payment system which favor
employee status. FedEx, 361 NLRB at 623 (drivers were employees, even though employer did
not withhold taxes from payments, provide fringe benefits or pay for accident insurance).20
(8) Whether the Work is a Part of the Employer’s Regular Business
Relying on FedEx, 361 NLRB at 623, Roadway Package, 326 NLRB at 851, and Porter
Drywall, 362 NLRB No. 6, slip op. at 5 (2015), the General Counsel argues that this factor 25
favors employee status because SOSi is in the regular business of government contracting,
including in the field of linguistics, and the interpreters’ work is essential to the fulfillment of
SOSi’s contract within this field. SOSi counters that “this factor seems so insignificant in this
case as to be essentially meaningless,” but to the extent it is relevant, it slightly favors
independent contractor status because the interpreting work is really for the EOIR’s benefit, 30
rather than SOSi. Citing Crew One Productions, Inc. v. NLRB, 811 F.3d 1305, 1313-1314 (11th
Cir. 2016), SOSi maintains that the “[t]he relevant inquiry is ‘whether or not the work is part of
the regular business of the employer’… not whether the work is essential to the business of [the
employer.]” If that is the inquiry, the result is the same because SOSi’s regular business is still
government contracting. 35
This factor favors employee status. SOSi’s mission is fulfilling government contracts in
a variety of fields, and the interpreters’ work “effectuate that purpose.” FedEx, 361 NLRB at
623. That government contracting in the field of linguistics was already part of the company’s
portfolio before the initial ICAs were negotiated is further evidence that the interpreters’ work is 40
part of the regular business of the employer. Cf. Pennsylvania Academy 843 NLRB at 347
(models were not employees in part because models were in the business of modeling, while
academy was exclusively in the business of art instruction). In addition, SOSi depends on the
interpreters for fulfillment of its EOIR contract, and would not be able to fulfill its obligations
without them. See Lancaster Symphony, 357 NLRB at 1765 (that orchestra could not conduct its 45
business without musicians favored finding that musicians were employees).
JD–18–18
52
(9) Whether Parties Believe they are Creating the Relation of Master and Servant
The General Counsel argues that this factor is neutral, but acknowledges that the
contracts between SOSi and the interpreters purport to create an independent contractor
relationship. The General Counsel also notes, however, that the interpreters have exercised 5
rights granted to employees under the Act, including joining the Union, engaging in concerted
activity and claiming employee status in Board proceedings. The General Counsel also points
out that some interpreters sought and received unemployment benefits, which are only available
to employees. Relying on FedEx, 361 NLRB at 623, and Lancaster Symphony, 357 NLRB at
1761, the General Counsel argues that the intent factor is inconclusive where workers are 10
referred to as independent contractors in their agreements with the purported employer, but also
engage in concerted activity such as voting for union representation. Somewhat confusingly, the
General Counsel also states that “interpreters do not view themselves as employees in their
relationship with SOSi in light of how they are treated by SOSi.
15
Unsurprisingly, SOSi argues that this factor strongly favors independent contractor status
and that the intent of the parties is one of the two most important factors in this case, citing Penn
v. Howe-Baker Engineers, Inc., 898 F.2d 1096, 1103 n. 9 (5th Cir. 1990) and Crew One, 811
F.3d at 1312 in support. SOSi emphasizes the ICAs references to interpreters as “Contractors,”
and provisions making them responsible for all taxes arising from compensation and according 20
them sole discretion for the manner of interpretation. SOSi also notes that the interpreters
characterized themselves as independent contractors on their tax forms, and did not claim SOSi
as their employer. SOSi further refers to the parties’ negotiations, in which the interpreters
always referred to themselves as contractors, offered draft ICAs which characterized themselves
as contractors, and negotiated terms which would allow them greater flexibility to perform 25
assignments for parties other than SOSi.
This factor favors independent contractor status. Interpreters always understood that they
were signing up as subcontractors until the relationship between SOSi and some of them soured.
The General Counsel argues that the interpreters’ filings for unemployment compensation and 30
assertions of employee status in this proceeding show an understanding that they were
employees, but the interpreters only engaged in these activities after SOSi decided not to renew
their contracts. Further, FedEx is distinguishable from the current case because there the drivers
had no opportunity to negotiate the agreement they signed in which they were referred to as
independent contractors. Here, the interpreters not only had an opportunity to negotiate the 35
ICAs, they submitted draft proposals which referred to themselves as contractors. Further, in a
mass email sent to interpreters during negotiations, Rosas expressed frustration with an
“exclusivity clause” in a proposal by SOSi, asking “ARE WE NOW BEING CONSIDERED
EMPLOYEES?” Thus, the record clearly indicates that even as many of the interpreters joined
the Union, they still considered themselves to be independent contractors.40
(10) Whether the principal is or is not in the business
The Board has treated this factor very similarly to factor 8—whether the work is part of
the employer’s regular business. See FedEx, 361 NLRB at 624 (“Because FedEx is engaged in 45
the same business as the drivers, we find that this factor weighs in favor of employee status”) In
addition, so long as at least part of the employer’s operation is dedicated to the same work as that
JD–18–18
53
performed by the workers in question, this factor will weigh in favor of employee status. Sisters
Camelot, 363 NLRB slip op. at 6 (canvassers’ fundraising work found to favor employee status,
even though fundraising was not employer’s primary activity, and employer’s own fundraising
program which did not use canvassers provided only ten percent of its revenue).
5
As stated in the regular business factor, linguistics comprises a portion of SOSi’s
government contracting business, and the interpreters’ linguistic abilities are essential to SOSi
being able to fulfill a government contract in that field. Consequently, this factor favors
employee status.
10
C. Whether the Interpreters are Rendering Services as an Independent Business
The interpreters’ entrepreneurial opportunities also weigh in favor of employee status. It
is true that interpreters can and some do perform interpretation services for organizations other
than SOSi, which favors independent contractor status. Stamford Taxi, 332 NLRB at 1373.15
However, as previously stated, the ability to work for multiple employers does not, by itself,
make one an independent contractor. Sisters’ Camelot, 363 NLRB No. 13, slip op. 7 (“That the
canvassers may and often do work for other employers when they are not actively working for
the Respondent is essentially indicative of their part-time work schedule and has little bearing on
whether canvassers are employees or independent contractors”); Lancaster Symphony, 357 20
NLRB at 1763 (employee status found even though musicians were not required to work full-
time or continuously with orchestra). The interpreters are also nominally free to accept and
reject assignments as they wish, though, as explained below, this right is more theoretical than
actual. In addition, even if a worker has a truly unfettered right to set his own schedule, having
the right to work for an employer when one wants does not necessarily make one an independent 25
contractor. See, e.g., Minn. Timberwolves, 365 NLRB No. 124; Sisters’ Camelot, 363 NLRB No.
13; Lancaster Symphony, 357 NLRB 1761.
Several other factors make the interpreters “actual opportunities” for entrepreneurial
independence quite limited. FedEx, 361 NLRB at 612. The interpreters are not allowed to hire 30
any outside service or person when performing for SOSi. Slay Transportation Co., Inc., 331
NLRB 1292, 1294 (2000) (truck driver owner-operators’ right to hire drivers suggested
employee status). Interpreters have no proprietary interest in their assignments and cannot
transfer assignments without SOSi’s permission. See Roadway Package, 326 NLRB at 853
(drivers’ right to sell their customer service area did not suggest actual entrepreneurial 35
opportunity because employer could effectively control when and to whom service areas could
be sold). Although EOIR determines the location and time of all assignments, SOSi completely
controls who is offered assignments and interpreters have no right to compete with SOSi for
EOIR-related work. Cf. Porter Drywall, Inc., 362 NLRB No.6, slip op. at 3 (independent
contractor status suggested when crew leaders competed with employer for work and worked for 40
employer’s competitors, sometimes at the same time as they worked on jobs for employer).
Interpreters are also prohibited from soliciting business for themselves while working on
SOSi assignments. This restriction seriously “limits their opportunity to develop other business
relationships with new clients or employers.” Sisters’ Camelot, 363 NLRB No. 13, slip op. at 7. 45
Finally, although interpreters have the contractual right to refuse assignments, SOSi expresses
displeasure when this occurs, and interpreters can expect a reduced schedule in retaliation. This
JD–18–18
54
makes the supposed entrepreneurial opportunity to refuse an assignment one which interpreters
“cannot realistically take.” Fedex, 361 NLRB at 612 (quoting C.C. Eastern, Inc. v. NLRB, 60
F.3d 855, 860 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). Because of the unpredictable length of assignments, the same
can also be said for interpreters’ supposed ability to take an afternoon assignment for another
employer after committing to a morning assignment with SOSi. 5
Thus, the interpreters are left with little entrepreneurial discretion in their working
relationship with SOSi, outside of an essentially illusory right to accept or reject assignments
unilaterally offered to them by the company. Interpreters cannot be said to be offering their
services as part of an independent business under such circumstances.10
D. SOSi has not Sufficiently Demonstrated the Interpreters are Independent Contractors
This is a close case with the majority of factors and the lack of entrepreneurial
opportunity favoring employee status. Interpreters are highly skilled professionals who exercise 15
independent judgment. Most of the supervision and direction they receive on a day-to-day basis
is limited to procedural matters required by the immigration courts, rather than SOSi. Most
suggestive of independent contractor status are the ICAs and the parties’ negotiations, which
certainly demonstrated the intent to enter into an independent contractor relationship.
20
Yet when the parties’ relationship is viewed beyond the interpreters’ in-courtroom
working conditions and the parties’ initial intent, a pattern emerges in which SOSi dictates the
terms and asserts control far beyond what is required under its contract with EOIR. Interpreters
wear SOSi-branded name badges and are prohibited from soliciting business for themselves
while on SOSi assignments. They are prohibited from competing with SOSi for EOIR 25
interpretation work. SOSi’s Code of Business Ethics restricts their use of social media,
discussion of SOSi business with the news media, and dissemination of certain personal
information which is often useful for concerted activities – e.g., colleagues’ compensation data
and contact information. SOSi also has complete control over who is offered assignments, and it
punishes interpreters who refuse assignments by offering them fewer future assignments.30
Over time, the characteristics of an employer-employee relationship have only increased.
Driven both by business necessity and frustration with the interpreters’ concerted activity, SOSi
increasingly insisted on and implemented a uniform, hourly rate structure. The company has
partnered with SCSI to provide training and certification opportunities to interpreters which are 35
paid for by the company. The company has also ramped up efforts at supervision and evaluation
of interpreters by sending interpretation recordings to SCSI for review, and using company
employees to evaluate interpreters’ compliance with EOIR procedural requirements. Many of
these steps are sensible, as the interpreters perform work which is integral to the company’s
government contracts business in the field of linguistics. Yet they also undermine the company’s 40
assertion that the interpreters are independent contractors.
These discretionary exercises of employer control, and SOSi’s integration of the
interpreters into one of its core lines of business, make this case distinguishable from cases relied
on by the company in which workers were found to be independent contractors because nearly 45
all control exercised was government control. In Air Transit, for example, the cab drivers in
question paid the purported employer a flat fee for the right to pick up passengers at Dulles
JD–18–18
55
International Airport. The drivers had genuine entrepreneurial opportunity because they kept all
of their earnings and operated almost entirely without company supervision. The only controls
on drivers not imposed by the government were a prohibition on subleasing cabs, which was
widely ignored in practice; a flat-fare charge system which applied to only two corporate
customers; and a requirement that drivers maintain insurance coverage. Such minimal exercises 5
of discretionary employer control, with almost limitless entrepreneurial freedom for the workers
at issue, is not comparable to the relationship in this case.
The General Counsel introduced evidence of several state unemployment compensation
decisions finding the discriminatees to be common law employees. Under Board law, state 10
unemployment compensation decisions are admissible but not entitled to controlling weight.
Cardiovascular Consultants of Nevada, MI, 323 NLRB 67, n. 2 (1997); and Whitesville Mill
Services Co., 307 NLRB 937 (1992). While oftentimes useful in providing material evidence
that may corroborate or contradict testimony or other evidence in Board proceedings, the
conclusions of state adjudicators cannot preempt the responsibility of Board judges to apply 15
Board law to the facts before them. Here, the actions of several interpreters to seek and obtain
unemployment awards bolsters their claim that they considered themselves to be employees (9th
factor). However, I decline to give the state agency findings any weight beyond that.
Given all of the credible evidence, SOSi has not met its burden. To the extent that SOSi 20
suggests that certain factors, such as control and intent of the parties, are entitled to greater
weight in all cases, extant Board precedent does not support this contention. See FedEx, 361
NLRB at 617-618 (reiterating Board’s belief that all Restatement factors must be considered, and
that “no magic formula” exists in the area of worker classification). Further, in a relatively close
case such as this one, a finding of employee status is in accordance with the Board’s vow that it 25
“should construe the independent-contractor exclusion narrowly,” consistent with the Supreme
Court’s admonition that “administrators and reviewing courts must take care to assure that
exemptions from NLRA coverage are not so expansively interpreted as to deny protection to
workers the Act was designed to reach.” Id. at 618 (quoting Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517
U.S. 392, 399 (1996)). 30
Accordingly, I conclude that SOSi interpreters are employees within the meaning of
Section 2(3) and are entitled to the Act’s protections.
I. THE SECTION 8(A)(1) ALLEGATIONS35
A. Misclassification of Interpreters as Independent Contractors
Having determined that SOSi interpreters are employees, they are entitled to the
protection of the Act from SOSi’s actions that interfere with the exercise of their Section 7 40
rights. In that regard, the complaint alleges the commission of a series of coercive actions by
SOSi in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and discriminatory adverse actions in violation of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act.
Apparently operating on the assumption that relief available under the aforementioned 45
sections may not suffice, the complaint also alleges that since at least January 10, 2016, SOSi
“has misclassified its employees as independent contractors, thereby inhibiting them from
JD–18–18
56
engaging in Section 7 activity and depriving them of the protections of the Act.” SOSi contends
that even if interpreters were determined to be statutory employees they were not misclassified
because the parties “negotiated their status and mutually agreed that they were properly
classified as independent contractors.”
5
The parties concede the absence of any Board decisions directly addressing whether the
mere classification of employees as independent contractors violates the Act.27 The General
Counsel argues that the misclassification of interpreters served to chill Section 7 activity. While
Section 7 rights are applied to non-employees in certain instances – the discriminatory refusal to
hire job applicants, for example – there is no legal or policy rationale advanced to justify the 10
creation of a new class of violation for misclassifying employment status.
Moreover, I fail to see the merit to such a charge where SOSi and the interpreters
negotiated ICAs and even interpreters’ counterproposals incorporated the independent contractor
classification. Here, the facts demonstrated that the assertion that interpreters were actually 15
employees arose only after SOSi allegedly undertook adverse actions against some of them (see
Estrada’s April 6 charge). Nor is there any explanation as to why, under the circumstances of
this case, the protections emanating from Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act would be
insufficient to provide the appropriate remedies. Here, the discriminatees enlisted the support of
the Union and through that labor organization certainly had a statutory avenue available to seek 20
recognition as employees and members of a bargaining unit. In that regard, they would have had
the Act’s representational election process available to adjudicate the issue of their employment
classification. This allegation is dismissed.
B. SOSi Statements to Interpreters25
(1) Siddiqi’s August 26th Statements to Weiherer and Rosas
Siddiqi was SOSi’s statutory agent pursuant to Section 2(9) of the Act. He
communicated frequently with interpreters within the scope of his responsibilities as their 30
scheduler and was responsible for ensuring that the immigration courts were staffed with
interpreters. On August 26, the second day of the Los Angeles protests, Siddiqi contacted
Weiherer and asked if she could cover Los Angeles assignments. Weiherer declined because of
some unspecified hostility towards her by the Los Angeles interpreters and identified some of the
interpreters at the event as seen on the WhatsApp site. Siddiqi latched on to that revelation and 35
extracted detailed information regarding the participants depicted in photographs sent by
Weiherer. That same day, Siddiqi exchanged most of Rosas’ Adelanto assignments for the last
week in August and all of September for Los Angeles assignments. At the time, Rosas still had
not confirmed the assignments. Rosas was still at the demonstration when she saw the email and
called Siddiqi for an explanation. Siddiqi told Rosas that she had not yet confirmed her 40
assignments and he needed interpreters to cover the Los Angeles cases. He added that someone
sent him a photograph of her at the protest.

27 Indeed, the Board recently issued a Notice and Invitation to File Briefs on this issue in Velox
Express, Inc., Case 15-CA-184006, Feb.15, 2018.
JD–18–18
57
Questioning an employee about union or concerted activity, or suggesting that engaging
in such activity will have negative repercussions for the employee, constitutes unlawful
interrogation when the employee being questioned would reasonably feel restrained from
exercising rights protected by Section 7. See Rapid Mfg. Co., 239 NLRB 465, 472 (1978), enfd.
in relevant part, Rapid Mfg. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 612 F.2d 144 (3d Cir. 1979) (employer violated 5
Section 8(a)(1) when outside insurance company representative, acting as employer’s agent,
questioned employees about whether they planned to vote for Union in election, and stated that
employer’s insurance plan was more generous than Union’s); Westwood Health Care Center,
330 NLRB 935, 940-941 (2000) (employee unlawfully interrogated when, over multiple
conversations during union organizing drive, supervisor told employee “we [don't] need any 10
outside help,” and directed employee to take all concerns directly to her).
In addition, employee interrogation is especially likely to violate Section 8(a)(1) when
the nature of the information sought “could result in action against individual employees.”
Bozzutos, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 146, slip op. at 1 (2017). The Board has frequently found 15
unlawful employer statements which have the effect of encouraging employees who feel
harassed by other employees’ concerted activity to report such activity, particularly when the
employer implies that it will “discipline the offending individuals or otherwise take care of the
problem.” Tawas Industries, Inc., 336 NLRB 318, 322 (2001); see also CMI-Dearborn, Inc., 327
NLRB 771, 775-776 (1999) (employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by sending letter to all employees20
encouraging them to report “any threats, coercion or scare tactics used by the union pushers to
get you to join the union” so that the company could “protect your right to be left alone”).
Weiherer, apparently persona non grata amongst the protesting interpreters and reluctant
to take Los Angles assignments while the protests were ongoing, initially volunteered 25
information to Siddiqi about Rosas’ participation in the protest. However, Siddiqi went further
and extracted detailed information about the participants. The additional inquiry, which
reasonably conveyed to Weiherer that Siddiqi sought the information in order to take action
adverse to the interests of the protestors, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
30
Additionally, Siddiqi’s subsequent comments to Rosas conveyed the impression that
SOSi was surveilling the interpreters’ concerted activities. An employer’s statements or conduct
violate Section 8(a)(1) when they would “lead reasonable employees to assume that their union
activities have been placed under surveillance.” Durham Sch. Servs., L.P., 361 NLRB No. 44,
slip op. at 1 (2014). Certainly, Siddiqi’s comments to Rosas that he had been informed of her 35
participation in the protest would reasonably lead her to assume that the company was
monitoring her concerted activity, and would continue to do so. Thus, Siddiqi’s comments to
Rosas also violated Section 8(a)(1).
(2) Valencia’s September 14th Statement to Portillo40
On September 14, 2016, Valencia told Portillo that SOSi had not been offered a contract
extension because of her concerted activities, including her involvement with contract
negotiations and complaints to SOSi. A short while later, Valencia called Portillo back after
SOSi management changed its mind and retracted the offer. 45
JD–18–18
58
Valencia’s statement that Portillo was not offered a contract extension because she
engaged in protected concerted activity was also coercive. Informing an employee that she was
discharged due to her protected concerted activity is an independent violation of Section 8(a)(1),
separate and apart from the discharge itself. Three D, LLC., 361 NLRB No. 31, n. 2 (2014)
(finding separate violation of Section 8(a)(1) where employer told employees that their Facebook 5
discussion was the reason for their discharges), citing Benesight, Inc., 337 NLRB 282, 283-284
(2001) (finding independent violation of Section 8(a)(1) where employer told employee that his
discharge was attributable to his protected activity during a work stoppage).
C. SOSi’s Warnings to Interpreters Against the Transmission of Links10
SOSi, through counsel on October 6, 2016, sent letters to interpreters informing them that
it was investigating the improper forwarding of contract links and determined that “you are one
of the contractors who engaged in this wrongful conduct.” It proceeded to demand a list “of
individuals (including email addresses) to whom you forwarded any SOSi links for uploading or 15
downloading contract documents; (2) a [list] of individuals (including email addresses) who sent
to you any SOSi links for uploading or downloading contract documents; and (3) written
confirmation that you have deleted and/or destroyed any confidential or proprietary documents
about other contractors that you may have accessed or downloaded from SOSi links.” The letter
is extremely broad in scope, and makes no attempt to exempt from its information request an 20
interpreter’s own personal ICA which she voluntarily sent to other interpreters, or an ICA which
an interpreter forwarded after another interpreter voluntarily sent it to her.
The Board has held that prohibitions on employees discussing their wages and other
terms and conditions of employment are unlawful. See Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154, slip op. 25
at 4 (2017). By communicating that it was wrong for an interpreter to voluntarily provide his/her
own confidential data to other interpreters, including his/her ICA, SOSi retaliated against
interpreters for discussing their wages and other terms and conditions of employment, and sought
to prevent them from doing so in the future.
30
Moreover the Board has consistently held that threats to bring legal action against
employees for engaging in protected concerted activity violate Section 8(a)(1) in that they
reasonably tend to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in the exercise of their Section
7 rights. DHL Express, Inc., 355 NLRB 680 fn. 3, 692 (2010), citing S.E. Nichols Marcy Corp.,
229 NLRB 75 (1977). The portion of the letter informing the interpreters that “this matter was 35
being taken very seriously and that the investigation was still ongoing…and no decisions made
about what action to take…clearly constitute a threat to take legal action if interpreters engaged
in the protected concerted activity of sharing their own personal data regarding their wages and
other terms and conditions of employment. The threat violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
40
As discussed above, in determining whether or not an interrogation violates Section
8(a)(1) of the Act, the Board looks at whether under all circumstances the interrogation
reasonably tends to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7
rights. Considering the totality of the circumstances – the background and nature of the
information sought, identity of the speaker, and the place and method of interrogation – one 45
immediately focuses on the fact that the communication came via letter as opposed to in person
confrontation. However, the accusatory letter was sent from an attorney, gave the distinct
JD–18–18
59
impression that the recipient was individually targeted and conveyed warnings threatening legal
action if the recipient communicated with anyone else about the subject matter involved. The
serious and accusatory nature of the letter reasonably tended to restrain interpreters from
engaging in protected concerted activities relating to their wages and other terms of employment.
5
D. SOSi’s Rules
(1) Applicable Law
In Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154, slip op. at 4 (2017), the Board established a new 10
standard for evaluating the validity of employer rules, policies, and handbook provisions under
the Act. Overruling Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), the Board
created three categories of employer rules, policies, and handbook provisions:
• Category 1 includes rules that the Board designates as lawful to maintain, either because 15
(i) the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does not prohibit or interfere with the exercise
of NLRA rights; or (ii) the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by
justifications associated with the rule. Examples of Category 1 rules are the no-camera
requirement in this case, the “harmonious interactions and relationships” rule that was at
issue in William Beaumont Hospital, and other rules requiring employees to abide by 20
basic standards of civility.
• Category 2 includes rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case as to
whether the rule would prohibit or interfere with NLRA rights, and if so, whether any
adverse impact on NLRA-protected conduct is outweighed by legitimate justifications.25
• Category 3 includes rules that the Board will designate as unlawful to maintain
because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on
NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. An example of
a Category 3 rule would be a rule that prohibits employees from discussing wages or 30
benefits with one another.
Each of SOSi’s rules discussed below fall under Boeing’s Category 3 because they
prohibit employees from engaging in conduct protected by the Act, and the resulting harm to
employee rights is not outweighed by any legitimate business justifications for the rules. 35
Accordingly, each rule violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(2) The Publicity Clause
Publicity clauses are contained in each version of the ICA and prohibit interpreters, in 40
pertinent part, from issuing any “news release or other public announcement . . . about this
Agreement without the prior written consent of SOSi.”
Overbroad rules which completely prohibit employees from speaking with third parties,
including the media, violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. See Trump Marina Associates, 354 45
NLRB 1027 (2009) (company’s rule allowing only senior executives to speak with media was
overbroad and without legitimate business justification, and thus violated Section 8(a)(1)); See
JD–18–18
60
also Valley Hospital Medical Center, 351 NLRB 1250, 1252 (2007) (“Section 7 protects
employee communications to the public that are part of and related to an ongoing labor dispute.
This includes communications about labor disputes to newspaper reporters”) (internal citations
omitted); NCR Corp., 313 NLRB 574, 576 (1993) (“Employees have a statutorily protected right
to solicit sympathy, if not support, from the general public”). Further, a rule which otherwise 5
unlawfully prohibits employees from engaging in protected activity is not made lawful by
conditioning the activity on consent from the employer. See Trump Marina 354 NLRB at n. 3
(“To the extent that an employee is required to obtain permission before engaging in protected
activity, that requirement is an impediment to the full exercise of an employee's Sec. 7 rights”);
Saginaw Control & Engineering, Inc., 339 NLRB 541, 553 (2003) (finding rule requiring 10
employees to obtain company permission before distributing any materials on company property
was overly broad and violated Section 8(a)(1)); Crowne Plaza Hotel, 352 NLRB 382, 386–387
(2008) (finding unlawful a rule prohibiting employees from “leaving [their] work area without
authorization before the completion of [their] shift”).
15
SOSi’s publicity clause is unlawful because it is overly broad and prevents interpreters
from using any media outlet to solicit support from the public, unless they first receive the
company’s consent. Moreover, the apparent breadth of the publicity clause is almost unlimited
because it contains no disclaimer exempting statements which reference labor disputes or other
conduct protected by the Act. The publicity clause thus falls under Category 3 of the Board’s 20
analysis in Boeing because it unlawfully restricts employee rights protected by Section 7, and is
far too broad to be justified by any business justification.
(3) SOSi’s Code of Business Ethics
25
Although the company’s Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (CBEC) was only
included as an attachment to the first two versions of the ICAs, the record indicates that there are
interpreters who have continued to extend these versions of the ICAs. The record also
demonstrates that SOSi never advised its interpreters that the CBEC had been revoked or that it
was no longer applicable to them. Accordingly, to the extent that the CBEC still applies to some30
interpreters, SOSi has an obligation to remedy the unlawful rules contained within it. The
unlawful rules within the CBEC include the following:
(a) Confidentiality
35
Protection of personal information: “Confidential and/or sensitive information such as a
person’s…compensation data should only be used for legitimate business purposes and
be accessed by, and communicated to, only those individuals who have a need to know
such information.”
40
This rule falls under Category 3 in Boeing because it at least partially “prohibits
employees from discussing wages or benefits with one another,” a restriction usually considered
unlawful. See Triana Industries, 245 NLRB 1258 (1979) (unlawful to prohibit employees from
asking coworkers how much they were making since some made more than others). This blanket
prohibition on disclosing compensation data is tempered only by the extremely vague exception 45
that the data may be disclosed “for legitimate business purposes,” and even then, only to “those
individuals who have a need to know such information.” This unclear and seemingly very
JD–18–18
61
limited exception does virtually nothing to mitigate the harm to employees’ Section 7 rights.
Further, even to the extent that the exception arguably limits the harm to employee rights, it
should not be interpreted broadly because ambiguity in a rule is construed against the drafter.
See St. Joseph’s Hospital, 263 NLRB 375, 377 (1982) (unlawful for employer to forbid
protected communications between employees on their own time on the company’s premises, 5
provided they did not disturb employees who were working). Moreover, the fact that the
remainder of the rule is lawful is of no consequence. See First Transit, Inc., 360 NLRB 619, 629
(2014) (the existence of lawful provisions does not cure an unlawful gag rule prohibiting
discussion of work conditions, including wages). Accordingly, SOSi’s maintenance of this rule
violated Section 8(a)(1).10
(b) Non-business Communications
Use of Company Assets: Prohibits non-business communications on company
equipment/platforms.15
Practically speaking, interpreters do not have access to SOSi computers, but they do have
access to SOSi’s electronic file sharing system. In Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No.
126, slip op. at 14 (2014), the Board held that employees who use their employer’s email system
have a presumptive right to access that email system in nonworking time, unless the employer 20
can demonstrate the existence of “special circumstances necessary to maintain production or
discipline.” While Purple Communications applied to employer-owned email systems, a
reasonable interpretation of SOSi’s rule is that it also applies to the company’s file sharing
system at any time. See Republic Aviation, 324 U.S. 1973 (1945) (presumption that rules
restricting employee solicitation outside of work time are unlawful, even when the solicitations 25
are made on company property). SOSi offered no evidence of special circumstances justifying
its blanket ban on employees’ use of company communications systems at all times for any non-
business purpose. Consequently, the overly broad restriction to employees’ Section 7 rights
outweighs any legitimate justification offered for the rule.
30
(c) Social Media Policy
Social media should never be used to discuss any information concerning SOSi business
or to disclose confidential or proprietary information….Also, individuals who use social
media must refrain from sending any messages that are offensive or embarrassing to the 35
Company or to other people.
This rule also falls under Boeing Category 3 because it is far too broad. The Board has
recently held that employees’ social media messages which are otherwise protected by the Act
do not become unprotected merely because they are offensive or embarrassing to their 40
employer’s managerial personnel. Richmond Dist. Neighborhood Ctr., 361 NLRB No. 74, n. 9
(2014) (in upholding discharge of after-school program counselors who had publicly-visible
Facebook conversation criticizing program and expressing plans of future insubordination, Board
was explicit that it did not rely on the employees’ “use of profanity or disparaging
characterizations of the Respondent's administrative and managerial personnel”). In addition, the 45
rule’s prohibition on using social media to discuss any “SOSi business” or “confidential
information” leaves essentially no room for employee discretion to use social media to discuss
JD–18–18
62
job related information. Cf. Landry’s Inc., 362 NLRB No. 69 (2015) (employer rule did not
restrict Section 7 rights because it only encouraged employees to be civil when posting about
job-related information on social media). Because the rule prevents employees from using social
media to discuss any information about “SOSi business,” regardless of the tone of such
discussions, and without any exception for Section 7-protected topics such as wages, the rule 5
falls under Boeing Category 3 and is unlawful.
(d) Communications with News Media
SOSi personnel are not permitted to communicate directly with the media unless 10
explicitly permitted.
This rule is similar to the publicity clause, but is arguably even more restrictive of
employees’ Section 7 rights because it limits all communication with the media, including
protected communications. For the same reasons articulated previously, this rule falls under 15
Boeing Category 3, and is therefore unlawful.
II. SOSI’S TERMINATION OF ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DISCRIMINATEES
A. Refusal to Contracts of Gutierrez-Bejar, Estrada, 20
Magaña, Portillo, Morris and Rivandeneira
The complaint alleges that SOSi violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to
renew the ICAs of Gutierrez-Bejar, Estrada, Magaña, Morris and Rivandeneira in August 2016
because they engaged in union and other protected concerted conduct. It includes Portillo in that 25
group, but adds an additional allegation that SOSi rescinded a subsequent offer to extend her
ICA because she too engaged in union and other protected concerted activity. SOSi contends
that the decision to not renew their ICAs was based on legitimate business purposes.
30
Under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert.
denied 455 U.S. 989 (1982), the General Counsel has the initial burden of establishing that an
employee’s union or protected concerted activity was a motivating factor in an employer’s
decision to take adverse action against the employee. Id. at 1089. The General Counsel meets
this burden by showing that the employee engaged in union and/or protected concerted activity, 35
that the employer had knowledge of that activity, and that the employer harbored animus against
union or protected concerted activity. See, e.g., Mesker Door, Inc., 357 NLRB 591, 592 (2011).
If the General Counsel makes this initial showing, the burden then shifts to the employer to
prove that it would have taken the same action even if the employee had not engaged in
protected activity. Wright Line, 251 NLRB at 1089.40
As statutory employees, the concerted efforts of Gutierrez-Bejar, Estrada, Magaña,
Portillo, Morris and Rivandeneira to obtain better wage rates and other terms and conditions,
persistence in following up with respect to chronic payment problems, and criticism of alleged
conflicts of interests between SOSi, interpreters and the SCSI, were all activities protected under 45
the Act. Those activities, in conjunction with their union activities, motivated SOSi to not renew
their ICAs. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that SOSi considered these protected
JD–18–18
63
concerted activities to be inimical to its financial interests. That they were targeted for non-
renewal was corroborated in several respects: the coercive statements made by Valencia and
Siddiqi; Thornton’s testimony that SOSi did not renew their ICAs because they worked against
SOSi’s interests; and internal company email revealing that they were part of a troublesome
group of “seven” that Iwicki, SOSi’s vice president, did not want working for the company.5
In Portillo’s case, Valencia told her that she was not previously offered an extension
because of her refusal to take relay cases, complaints about the pay rate, breach of SOSi data, the
contentious contract negotiations with interpreters, Union membership, her participation in the
protests, and critical statements about SOSi to the press. He complained about the litigious 10
nature of the interpreters and their involvement of the Board in the dispute with SOSi. Portillo
denied the data breach, which was unsubstantiated, and Valencia confirmed her contract renewal.
A short while later, Valencia called Portillo back and rescinded her contract extension because
she was one of the interpreters that Iwicki did not want working for SOSi.
15
Gutierrez-Bejar, Estrada, Magaña, Portillo, Morris and Rivandeneira were all highly
skilled, experienced and qualified interpreters working in the immigration courts. The record,
devoid of any significant performance problems, leads to only one conclusion as to the reason
why their contracts were not renewed – SOSi, in its quest to standardize lower wage and travel
rates and with an ample supply of Spanish interpreters heading into its second year of the EOIR 20
contract, wanted to eliminate these six outspoken interpreters from its workforce.
Consequentially, SOSi failed to meet this shifting burden of proving that it would have
refrained from renewing the discriminatees’ ICAs even in the absence of their union and other
protected concerted conduct. Any doubt to the contrary was eliminated by the alternative 25
reasons proffered by SOSi for not renewing their contracts. Suggestions of deficient
performance were unfounded and, thus, pretextual. See BMD Sportswear Corp., 283 NLRB 142
(1987) (reliance on false, pretextual reason for adverse employee action evidences unlawful
motivation and precludes employer from meeting its burden of proving that it would have taken
same action in any event), citing General Iron Corp., 218 NLRB 770, 778 (1975), enfd. 538 F.2d 30
312 (2d Cir. 1976); see also, Taylor Machine Products, 317 NLRB 1187, 1210-1211(1995),
enf.in part, 136 F.3d 507 (6th Cir. 1996) (changing reasons for a discharge also often
demonstrates that the proffered reasons are pretextual).
Under the circumstances, SOSi violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to 35
renew the ICAs of Gutierrez-Bejar, Estrada, Magaña, Portillo, Morris and Rivandeneira.
B. Rosas’ Constructive Discharge
The General Counsel alleges that SOSi constructively discharged Rosas in violation of 40
Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by withdrawing her geographically preferred assignments in Adelanto on
August 26 and replacing them with assignments in the relatively remote locations in Los Angeles
because she engaged in concerted protected and union activity. SOSi denies the allegations,
contending that Rosas voluntarily ended the relationship when she refused to accept SOSi’s
contracts terms on or after September 27.45
JD–18–18
64
In order to prove a discriminatory constructive discharge, the General Counsel must
prove that the reassignment of Rosas’ Adelanto cases and assignment of more burdensome travel
cases to Los Angeles cases was an intentional or reasonably foreseeable effort to cause her to
quit because of her union or protected concerted activities. See American Licorice Co., 299
NLRB 145, 148 (1990) (employer’s transfer of employee from day to night shift was unlawful 5
where he knew that it would be a hardship and the employer had no legitimate justification for
failing to accommodate the employee); see also, North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, 351
NLRB 464, 470 (2007) (employer’s elimination of longstanding reduced-hours schedule of
discriminatee who could not work full time because of family obligations was tantamount to
constructive discharge); Yellow Ambulance Service, 342 NLRB 804, 807 (2004) (requiring 10
employee to choose between work and family obligations is sufficiently burdensome to support a
finding of constructive discharge).
Rosas engaged in protected concerted and union activity with the Los Angeles group.
Specifically, she was involved with the original interpreters negotiating committee, was critical 15
of SOSi’s wage rates, signed the petitions submitted to SOSi, joined the Union and attended
meetings, and protested on August 25 and 26. SOSi was aware of those activities.
Rosas sought the higher travel rate whenever she was assigned Los Angeles cases. In
December 2015, she was denied the travel rate for Los Angeles cases and told by a SOSi 20
manager that she was “shooting herself in the foot” by refusing to take those cases at the regular
full day rate. As a result, she sank to the bottom of the assignment list and her January
assignments decreased to about 15 – or half her usual caseload. Rosas relented, agreed to take
Los Angeles cases at the regular rate and her assignment numbers returned to normal in
February. No charges were filed over this sequence of events. 25
Even though she continued taking Los Angeles cases in addition to Adelanto cases, the
issue resurfaced on August 26 when Siddiqi switched Rosas’ Adelanto assignments to Los
Angeles after she failed to confirm the assignments. At that time, Rosas told Siddiqi that she
would only take Los Angeles as full day assignments for $550 instead of $225. Siddiqi replied 30
by assigning Rosas 20 Adelanto cases in September. Meanwhile, on September 12, SOSi
offered Rosas a new ICA at the maximum hourly rate of $35. Rosas declined this offer on
September 19, insisting on a continuation of her half and full day rates, and an hourly minimum
and mileage reimbursement. She received an automated response on September 27 indicating
that her response was unacceptable. Rosas did not submit any other counteroffer and concluded 35
her relationship with SOSi.
The circumstances regarding Siddiqi’s switch of most of Rosas’ cases from Adelanto to
Los Angeles on August 26 for the last week in August and through September are inconclusive.
She was participating in the Los Angeles interpreters’ demonstration when she got his email and 40
he conveyed the impression that her activities were under surveillance. While it may be inferred
that Rosas’ scheduling change was discriminatorily motivated by SOSi’s knowledge of and
animus towards Rosas’ protected and concerted and union activity, Rosas also conceded that she
failed to confirm the Adelanto assignments prior to August 26. Moreover, Rosas, after rejecting
Los Angeles assignments unless they came with the higher rates that she demanded, was still 45
assigned 20 Adelanto cases during September and sent a contract renewal, which she rejected.

JD–18–18
65
The General Counsel contends that Rosas was essentially weeded out and had no other
option but to quit working for SOSi because the company discriminatorily applied standardized
rates more strictly towards the California Spanish interpreters. This assertion ignores the fact,
however, that by August SOSi was awash in interpreters of Spanish, the common language in
greatest demand in the immigration courts, and had greater leverage to negotiate standard rates 5
from those interpreters. In contrast, SOSi was forced to be more flexible when negotiating with
interpreters of common and uncommon languages in other locations.
Under the circumstances, it cannot be concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that
SOSi’s constructively discharge Rosas by reducing and/or changing her assignments to such an 10
extent that made it so difficult for her to perform.
C. The Rescission of Espinosa’s ICA
The complaint alleges that SOSi rescinded Espinosa’s ICA in violation of Section 8(a)(1) 15
after she shared her contract information with other interpreters, including her wage rates and
other terms and conditions of employment. SOSi contends that Espinosa was legitimately
discharged after sharing faulty links which exposed other interpreters’ information.
Here, the General Counsel must establish that the protected activity was a “substantial or 20
motivating factor” in deciding not to renew Espinosa’s ICA. Brink’s, Inc., 360 NLRB No. 1206,
1216 (2014). Evidence of animus can be inferred from the entirety of the record, looking to
circumstantial evidence and where available, direct evidence. See Alternative Entm't, Inc. &
James Decommer, 363 NLRB No. 131 (2016), enfd. 858 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2017) (the timing of
and vague pretextual explanation for the discharge provided strong circumstantial evidence of 25
knowledge of protected activity and discriminatory motive).
On September 12, prior to the expiration of her last ICA extension, Espinosa received an
email from SOSi with an RFQ and a link to SOSi’s file sharing system. Espinosa opened the
link, which contained the proposed pay rates and other contractual terms, as well as certain 30
personal information. On September 14, Espinosa contacted Hatchette and expressed her
concerns over the maximum pay rate of $35 per hour and advised that she would submit a
counteroffer. Espinosa also contacted Estrada and other interpreters to discuss her response. On
September 19, after emailing Hatchette about the difficulty encountered in uploading and editing
the RFQ, Espinosa simply responded by attaching a counterproposal of the same half and full 35
day rates that she had under her initial ICA.
In the meantime, a SOSi employee erroneously forwarded the RFQ links and personal
information of another interpreter to Espinosa and other interpreters. On September 18 and 19,
Espinosa forwarded that interpreter’s RFQ and personal information to at least 129 other SOSi 40
interpreters. SOSi learned of the errant email on September 20 when interpreters posted the
information on the WhatsApp Messenger site. Hatchette took immediate measures to ensure that
the information was no longer accessible, informed interpreters of this development and
instructed them not to share or download the information:
45
Later that day, SOSi’s IT department informed Hatchette that Espinosa downloaded and
shared the errant link with others. Hatchette then called Espinosa and accused her of
JD–18–18
66
unauthorized disclosure. Espinosa gave inconsistent, shifting denials and concessions with
explanations. On September 27, Hatchette notified Espinosa that her “conduct and, particularly
your lack of candor, are not acceptable and violate your obligations to SOSi under your
Independent Contractor Agreement. Accordingly, SOSi has made the decision to terminate your
Independent Contractor Agreement.” About two weeks later, a regional coordinator reached out 5
to Espinosa with an offer to pay her an hourly rate of $35 for either 4-hour or 8-hour minimum
assignments, with lower travel rates than those in the expired ICA, and the steep penalties for no
shows. No agreement was reached.
Rosario’s ICA at Section 7 prohibited her from “[d]uplication or disclosure of the data 10
and information to which the contractor may have access as a result of this Agreement . . .
including, "without limitation," information that "due to its character and nature, or the
circumstances of the disclosure, a reasonable person would recognize as being confidential." In
addition, Section 9 required compliance with "federal, state, and local laws and regulations,"
which include laws prohibit the public dissemination of social security numbers.15
Employees have no statutory right to access or share private personal data of another
employee that they know was inadvertently breached. This is true even if the employees’ initial
exposure to the confidential personal data was innocent. Thus, in IBM Corp., 265 NLRB 638,
638 (1982), the Board upheld the discharge of an employee for disclosing wage data that he 20
knew was deemed confidential and that he was not authorized to disclose, even though the
information was sent to him anonymously. See also Cook County College Teachers Union, 331
NLRB 118, 118, 122 (2000) (employer lawfully disciplined secretary for disclosing confidential
directory); Grocery Carts, Inc., 264 NLRB 1067, 1067, 1070-71 (1982) (employee lawfully
discharged for examining document in manager’s desk containing the confidential information of 25
another employee). This allegation is dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. SOSi International, LLC (the Respondent) is an employer engaged in commerce within 30
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union, Pacific Media Workers Guild Communications Workers of America, Local
39521, AFL-CIO (the Union), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.35
3. By refusing to renew the contracts of Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar, Hilda Estrada,
Stephany Magaña, Kathleen Morris, Maria Portillo and Patricia Rivandeneira on September 1,
2016, and subsequently rescinding an offer to renew Portillo’s contract, all because they engaged
in Union and other protected concerted activities, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) 40
and Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, respectively.
4. By interrogating employees about their protected concerted activities, engaging in
surveillance, and creating the impression of surveillance on August 26, 2016, telling employees
on September 15, 2016 that they would not be offered contract renewals because of their protected 45
concerted activities and union activities, threatening legal action against employees on October 6,
2016 if they discussed protected concerted activities, and maintaining an unlawful “Publicity
JD–18–18
67
Clause” rule in its Independent Contractor Agreements and various unlawful provisions in its
SOSi Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. By the aforementioned conduct, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.5
6. All other complaint allegations not referenced above, including those alleging the
unlawful constructive discharge of Irma Rosas and cancelation of Rosas Espinosa’s contract, are
dismissed.
10
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall
order it to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate
the policies of the Act. 15
The Respondent, having discriminatorily refused to renew the employment contracts of
Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar, Hilda Estrada, Stephany Magaña, Kathleen Morris, Patricia
Rivandeneira and Maria Portillo, must offer them contract renewals and make them whole for
any loss of earnings and other benefits. Backpay shall be computed in accordance with F. W. 20
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356
NLRB No. 8 (2010).
Since the discriminatees have been found to be employees under the Act, the Respondent 25
shall file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the appropriate
calendar quarters. The Respondent shall also compensate the discriminatees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods
longer than 1 year, Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 44 (2012).
30
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended28
ORDER
35
The Respondent, SOS International, LLC, Reston, Virginia, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
40
(a) Refusing to renew the contracts of its interpreters because they engaged in protected
concerted activity or union activity;

28 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
JD–18–18
68
(b) Offering and then rescinding contracts and work to interpreters because they engaged
in protected concerted or union activity;
(c) Interrogating employees about their union or protected concerted activities;
5
(d) Engaging in surveillance or creating the impression of surveillance of employees
engaged in union or protected concerted activities;
(e) Threatening legal action against employees for engaging in protected concerted
activities;10
(f) Instructing employees not to talk about their protected concerted activities;
(g) Telling employees they cannot work for SOSi because of their protected concerted
activities; 15
(h) Maintaining unlawful provisions in the SOSi Code of Business Ethics and Conduct,
and the Publicity Clause in its ICA, that restrict employees’ rights under Section 7 of the Act;
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in 20
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) Offer interpreters Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar, Hilda Estrada, Stephany Magaña, Maria 25
Portillo, Kathleen Morris and Patricia Rivandeneira immediate and full reinstatement to their
former positions, or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions,
without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed;
(b) Make Jo Ann Gutierrez Bejar, Hilda Estrada, Stephany Magaña, Maria Portillo, 30
Kathleen Morris and Patricia Rivandeneira whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
suffered as a result of the discrimination against them, including, but not limited to, payment for
any consequential economic harm they may have incurred as a result of Respondent’s unlawful
conduct, plus interest;
35
(c) Expunge from its files any reference to the rescission of or refusal to renew the
contracts of Jo Ann Gutierrez Bejar, Hilda Estrada, Stephany Magaña, Maria Portillo, Kathleen
Morris and Patricia Rivandeneira, and notify them in writing that this has been done and that the
adverse actions against them will not be held against them in any way;
40
(d) Take whatever steps are necessary to reclassify its interpreters that work at the EOIR
locations nationwide, pursuant to the EOIR contract with SOSi, and treat them as employees
rather than independent contractors, including rescinding any portions of the Independent
Contractor Agreements and other documentation Respondent requires them to complete that
purports to classify them as independent contractors;45
JD–18–18
69
(e) Rescind or revise those portions of the SOSi Code of Business Ethics and Conduct,
and the Publicity Clause in the Independent Contractor Agreement, so as not to restrain or
preclude employees from exercising their rights protected by Section 7 of the Act, and notify
employees that this has been done;
5
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at Respondent’s facility in Reston,
Virginia and at EOIR contract locations nationwide, where Respondent has access to or
maintains a bulletin board, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”29 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 21, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 10
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the 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 15
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 involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to
all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
August 26, 2016.20
(g) File with the Regional Director of Region 21, within 20 days from the date of the
Administrative Law Judge's Order, a sworn certificate of a responsible official on a form
provided by the Region attesting to the steps that Respondent has taken to comply.
25
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 12, 2018
30
________________________________
Michael A. Rosas
Administrative Law Judge

29 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 National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.”
~,~1,./0. ~
JD–18–18
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 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 benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT discharge or otherwise discriminate against any of you for supporting the
Pacific Media Workers Guild Communications Workers of America, Local 39521, AFL-CIO or
any other union.
WE WILL NOT refuse to renew or rescind offers to renew your employment contracts because
you engage in protected concerted activity or union activity;
WE WILL NOT interrogate you about your union or protected concerted activities;
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance or give you the impression that we are surveilling you in
the course of union or protected concerted activities;
WE WILL NOT threaten legal action against you if you talk about your protected concerted
activities;
WE WILL NOT instruct you that you are prohibited from talking about your protected concerted
activities;
WE WILL NOT tell you that you cannot work for SOSi because of your protected concerted
activities;
WE WILL NOT maintain unlawful provisions in the SOSi Code of Business Ethics and
Conduct, and the Publicity Clause in our independent contractor agreements that restrict
employees’ rights under Section 7 of the Act;
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar, Hilda
Estrada, Stephany Magaña, Maria Portillo, Kathleen Morris and Patricia Rivandeneira full
JD–18–18
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges previously
enjoyed.
WE WILL make Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar, Hilda Estrada, Stephany Magaña, Maria Portillo,
Kathleen Morris and Patricia Rivandeneira whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits
resulting from their discharge, less any net interim earnings, plus interest compounded daily.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration allocating backpay to the
appropriate calendar quarters.
WE WILL compensate Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar, Hilda Estrada, Stephany Magaña, Maria Portillo,
Kathleen Morris and Patricia Rivandeneira for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving
one or more lump-sum backpay awards covering periods longer than 1 year.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files any reference to
the unlawful discharges of Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar, Hilda Estrada, Stephany Magaña, Maria
Portillo, Kathleen Morris and Patricia Rivandeneira and WE WILL, within 3 days thereafter,
notify each of them in writing that this has been done and that the discharges will not be used
against them in any way.
SOS INTERNATIONAL, LLC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
888 South Figueroa Street, 9th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5449
(213) 894-5200, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/21-CA-178096 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.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT BE
ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (213) 634-6502.