text:
9/96 - present Professor - Department of Counselor Education. Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA. Theory and Process of Group Interaction (Group I), Facilitation of Group (Group II), The School Guidance Counselor: Psychopathology and Developmental Issues, Foundations of School Counseling, Theories of Psychological Development, Psychopathology, Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, Applied Counseling: School Counseling, Performance Psychology for Athletes and Performing Artists, Counseling Practicum/Internship Seminar, The Counseling Function in School, Agency/Community, and Higher Education Settings, Directed Study, Site Supervisor for Higher Education Counseling Interns in BSC fieldwork sites.
Psychosocial Intervention and Patient Care; undergraduate and graduate level courses in Athletic Training Education programs.
Associate Professor: 2001 – 2006; Assistant Professor: 1996 - 2001.
Coordinator of Counseling Programs: 6/00 - 8/05 (Fieldwork duties 6/00 – 8/02).
Chair: 5/03 - 8/05 (Founding Chair).
online course for Certificate in Sports Nutrition.
9/05 – 8/09 Senior Lecturer - Counseling Psychology. Lesley University, Cambridge, MA.
Introduction to Family Therapy, Group Dynamics for Counselors and Consultants.
1/85 - 5/96 Visiting Assistant Professor - Psychology. University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA.
Psychology of Women, Social Psychology, Dynamics of Interpersonal Relations (Group Dynamics), Child Psychology, Community Psychology, Personality Theory, Human Development I and II, General Psychology, Abnormal Psychology, Advanced Seminar in Human Development.
5/95 - 7/96 Visiting Professor - Counselor Education. Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg, MA.
9/79 - 8/84 Group Dynamics, Psychology of Women: Counseling Implications, Counseling Theory, Issues in Development: Counseling Children and Adolescents, Counseling and Case Analysis: Individual and Families, Group Leadership Skills, Vocational Counseling, fieldwork site supervision.
Psychology of Women, Clinical supervision of Bachelor's Degree students in Psychology.
9/94 - 5/95 Lecturer - Counseling Psychology. Cambridge College, Cambridge, MA.
Human Psychological Development, Counseling Internship, Counseling Practicum.
3/95 Lecturer - Counselor Education. Keene State College, Keene, NH.
Differential Diagnostic Skills for Professionals Working with Adolescents (1 credit course).
9/93 - 6/94 Lecturer - Counseling Psychology. Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
6/82 - 8/83 Counseling Theory and Process, Peer Counselor Seminar, Professional Leadership Seminar.
9/92 - 5/93 Clinical Field Supervisor - Clinical Psychology. Antioch College of New England, Keene, NH.
9/82 - 8/83 Clinical Supervision of Master's and Doctoral Interns in Clinical Psychology.
9/84 - 8/86 Lecturer - Psychology. Massachusetts Bay Community College, Wellesley, MA.
and the Family, Life Span Development, Social Problems.
9/84 - 8/85 Lecturer - Psychology. Middlesex Community College, Bedford, MA.
9/84 - 8/85 Lecturer - Psychology. Northern Essex Community College, Haverhill, MA.
9/80 - 8/82 Lecturer - Psychology. Fisher Junior College, Boston, MA.
1/09 – 5/09 Directed Study: Nicole Graf, Counselor Education; Job Shadowing Initiative for Wareham HS.
9/04 - 8/06 Thesis Committee: Richard Palumbo, Clinical Psychology Master’s Program.
9/04 - 12/04 Directed Study: Ayumi Hirano, MAHPLS; Sport Psychology (6 credits).
9/01 - 12/01 Directed Study: Kim Baker, Counselor Education; Developmental Psychopathology.
1/00 Thesis Committee: Ken Horrick, Clinical Psychology Master’s Program.
1/97 – 5/98 Research: Katrina Lee, Counselor Education; developed Addictive Behaviors Questionnaire.
1999 Trained in EMDR - Level I (Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing).
1996 Trained in Disaster Response, American Red Cross.
1995 Listed in the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology #43405.
1995 Listed in the National Registry of Certified Group Psychotherapists (CGP) #7112.
1995 Trained in Disaster Response, Massachusetts Psychological Association.
1993 Licensed Psychologist, Massachusetts #6597.
1993 Health Service Provider Certification, Massachusetts.
1979 School Guidance Counselor (K-12) License, Massachusetts #239458.
1988 Certificate of Advanced Graduate Studies in Counseling Psychology. Northeastern University, Boston.
1981 Certificate in Gestalt Therapy. Gestalt Institute of New England, Newton, MA. Level I and Level II.
1979 Master of Arts Degree in Counseling Psychology. Anna Maria College, Paxton, MA.
1977 Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology, Spanish Minor. Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg, MA.
rediscovering one’s roots, deepening one’s life purpose, and by expanding the capacity of caring.
artifacts, and oral histories in preparation for Gift of Legacy Group Work.
States, Canada, and Great Britain.
Mental Skills among Approved Clinical Instructors. Athletic Training Education Programs.
7/11 – 5/13 Collaborative Research Project: The Holistic Athlete: A Cross-disciplinary Collaboration.
9/99 – 5/11 Questionnaire Validation Project. Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA.
Research Assistant (phase three, 2010 - 2011).
3/06 – 5/09 Interdisciplinary Research Project. Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA.
(9/06-5/07), Jennifer A. Beaudry, Graduate Research Assistant (9/07-5/09).
9/92 - 12/98 Researcher. Collaborative for Women's Sports, Marlborough, MA.
the life-span with Dr. Barbara Fenby.
1/97 - 5/98 Questionnaire Development: Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA.
(ABQ) with Katrina Lee, graduate student in the Mental Health Counseling Program, BSC.
9/88 - 6/90 Teaching Assistant. Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
assistant for Special Education Department. Trained in qualitative, single case study methodology.
7/86 - 8/87 Graduate Assistant. Northeastern University, Boston, MA. Center for the Study of Sport in Society. Research analyst for study on Olympic athletes. Grant provided by the Education Council of the United States Olympic Committee.
5/80 - 12/80 Research Team Member. Massachusetts Department of Education and Fitchburg Public School System, Fitchburg, MA. Developed test battery to monitor skills development for elementary school aged children.
5/13 DAR Special Projects Grant and Bridgewater State University, Project Budget: $21,578.65.
deepening one’s life purpose, and by expanding the capacity of caring.
2/12 Center for Research and Scholarship Summer Grant 2012, $3,100. Bridgewater State University.
Athletic Trainers’ Guidebook: Promoting Wellness and Facilitating Psychosocial Referrals.
7/11 President’s Fund for Faculty Excellence Grant, $15,000. Simmons College, Boston, MA.
11/09 Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater State College.
A Generation at Risk: Prevalence of Multiple Addictive Behaviors Among Collegiate Athletes.
3/09 Online Course Development Grant, $2,000 for, Group II: The Facilitation of Group Experience.
12/07 Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater State College.
Faculty and Librarian Research Grant, $11,156.89. Co-Investigator Dr. Marcia K.
Anderson, Facilitating Behavior Change: Evaluating a Protocol for Educating Athletic Trainers.
3/06 Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater State College.
11/04 Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater State College.
12/01 Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater State College.
Development of Case Study Materials.
11/99 Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater State College.
Behaviors Questionnaire (MABQ) Instrument Validation.
4/99 Information Technology, Bridgewater State College.
$900 Software Grant for the Counseling Technology Center, Department of Counselor Education.
2/97 Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater State College.
Summer Grant Award, $2,500, “A Pilot Study: Athletes and Addictive Behavior”.
3/79 Fitchburg School Department; Occupational Education Grant, Massachusetts Department of Education. Grant Award, $25,163. Project Manager, Leroy E. Clark.
1996 - present Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater State College.
Funded $600 for travel to Acadia University, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Athletic Training, 5th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, pp. 187-202.
Enhance Counselor Education, Association for Specialists in Group Work, pp. 175-177.
Bacon, V. Psychological factors of rehabilitation. (2012). In J.A. Andrews, G.L. Harrelson & K.E. Wilk (Eds.).
Physical rehabilitation of the injured athlete. Saunders Publishers, pp. 2-10.
therapist’s notebook: Homework, handouts, and activities. NY: Haworth Press, pp.191-195.
(Eds.), Applying sport psychology: Four perspectives. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, pp.
pp 53-62. NY: Haworth Press.
student-athletes: Especially those with addictive behaviors. The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal.
Graham, L. & Bacon, V. (2003, September). The day after 9/11: The impact of the media on children.
Psychological Association Quarterly, 42(3), 13-14, 29.
Dubois, P. & Bacon, V. (1999, Spring). Gender and the hiring of coaches at high schools and small colleges.
Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 14, 73-104. (refereed journal).
Journal, 7(1), 244-248. (refereed journal).
body, and emotions. The Psychotherapy Patient, 10(3/4), 53-62.
Bacon, V. (1996, January). An epidemic of nonresponsibility. Littleton Independent, 45(50), 4.
book Evidence-based school counseling: Making a difference with data-driven Practices (2007)]. C.
Coping with the continuing threat (2004)]. C. E. Stout (Ed.), Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood (by invitation).
out: Using exercise in psychotherapy] ESPNews: Exercise and Sport Psychology Newsletter, 14(1).
Collegiate Athletes. Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater State College.
Retrieved on 12.11.09 from http://www.bridgew.edu/depts/cart/grant_abstracts.cfm.
Psychology, British Psychological Society, 37-38.
Writing Across the Curriculum, 73-74.
Trainers. Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater State College.
Practitioners. Retrieved 9/05 from http://www.bridgew.edu/depts/cart/small_grant_abstract_04.doc.
Bacon, V. (2004, Fall). Writing for Healing: Writing One’s Family History as a Therapeutic Process.
Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology Continuing Professional Education Programs, 7.
Concerning the Impact of the Media on Children. Counselor’s Notebook, 39(8), 17.
54th Annual Meeting and Clinical Symposium.
Bacon, V., Lee, K. & Calicchia, J.A. (1998, September). High rollers: College athletes and their addictions.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10(S), 116.
voice across the life-span. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(S), 17.
Bacon, V. & Lee, K. (1997, September). Addiction and athletes: Are we dealing with multiple addictions?
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(S), 66.
psychology: Golfers and gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8(S), 98.
Bacon, V.. & Fenby, B.L. (1995, September). The meaning of competition in the development of female athletes.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7(S), 38.
Bacon, V.. (1994). A comparative analysis of life stress for elderly living in the community and elderly entering long-term care facilities. (Doctoral Dissertation, Northeastern University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(11), 5934B.
Anderson, M. & Bacon, V. The Psychosocial Domain: Evaluating a Protocol for Athletic Trainers. (2011, January).
Coogan, T. & Bacon, V. (2010, July). Technology as a Tool for Instruction in Preparing Future School Counselors.
Proceeding of the American School Counselor Association Annual Conference, USA, 21.
Bacon, V. & Coogan, T. (2009, March). Multiple Addictive Behavior Questionnaire (MABQ) Validation Project.
Proceedings of the American Counseling Association Annual Conference, USA, 81.
Prevention, and Interventions. Proceedings of the WACES 2008 Conference, USA, 40.
Model. Proceedings of the MaSCA 2007 Spring Conference, USA. 32.
Education, USA, 133-141, ISSN# 1541-5880.
Education, USA, 93-101, ISSN# 1541-5880.
of the Massachusetts School Counselors Association Annual Conference, USA, 25.
Bacon, V. (2005, May). Empowering Educators K-12: A Practical Approach for Acute Traumatic Stress Management.
Proceedings of the Mass School Counselors Association Annual Conference, USA, 27.
Conference on Education, USA, 264-265, ISSN# 1541-5880.
School Counselors Association Annual Conference, USA, 33.
Association, USA, Vol. 73, 79-80.
and Clinical Symposium or the Eastern Athletic Trainers Association, USA.
services in response to the Worcester cold-storage fire: Critical incident stress management.
Proceedings of the 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, USA, 306.
Convention of the American Psychological Association, USA, 69.
Annual Meeting: Diversity Matters: Exploring Our Differences, USA, 28.
physically active individual. Proceedings of the 2001 Athletic Trainers Educators' Conference, USA, 59.
Bacon, V., Lee, K., Calicchia, J.A. (1999, August). Assessment of multiple addictions in college athletes.
Proceedings of the 107th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, USA, 278.
Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, USA, 56.
the 15th Whole Health Expo, USA, 11.
Massachusetts State Colleges’ Graduate Dean’s Symposium, USA, 9-13.
Hays, K., Brill, P., Bacon, V. (1997, August). Embodying voice: Women’s development in sport.
Proceedings of the 105th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, USA, 130.
counseling female athletes. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Counseling Athletes, USA.
narrative theory. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Counseling Athletes, USA.
Bacon, V., Denike, J. & Rosenthal, M.N. (1983, June). Gestalt therapy is alive and well in education.
Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference of the Theory and Practice of Gestalt Therapy, USA, 8-9.
of the National Conference on the Freshman Year Experience, USA, 23.
Bacon, V., Lee, K. & Coogan, T. (2008). [Multiple Addictive Behaviors Questionnaire - Revised (MABQ-R)].
Bacon, V. & Lee, K. (1998). [Multiple Addictive Behaviors Questionnaire (MABQ)]. Unpublished instrument.
Advancement of Research and Teaching, Bridgewater, MA: Bridgewater State College.
Testing Program, Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.
long-term care facilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology.
[Videotape]. Department of Communications, Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg MA.
University, Springfield, Missouri. Promotion review for Professor of Counselor Education.
and Women in Sport, UNCG, North Carolina.
1/13 – present International Journal of Athletic Therapy & Training. Human Kinetics Journals.
8/93 - present Psychiatric Services. Formerly the Hospital and Community Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC.
10/09 – 1/13 Women in Sport and Physical Activity. National Association for Girls and Women in Sport.
Group Work. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Specialists in Group Work. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
8/94 - 5/96 Journal of Counseling Psychology. American Psychological Association, Washington DC.
Book proposal: Studer, J.R. The School Counselor in a Changing Society.
and Counseling Techniques, 7th ed. In preparation for 8th ed.
2007 PsycCRITIQUES – Contemporary Psychology. American Psychological Association.
Making a Difference with Data-Driven Practices.
Counseling:Facilitating Client Development in a Multicultural Society.
2004 PsycCRITIQUES – Contemporary Psychology. American Psychological Association.
Academic review: Newman, P. & Newman, B. (2007). Theories of Human Development.
Book proposal review: Newman, P. & Newman, B (2007). Theories of Human Development.
3/01 Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Manuscript review: Brown & Srebalus (1996) Introduction to the Counseling Profession, 3rd ed.
1/00 American Psychological Association, Washington DC.
psychotherapy.] ESPNews: Exercise and Sport Psychology Newsletter, 14(1), 2001.
Conference proposal reviewer for 2007 – Area: Counselor Education.
1993 American Psychological Association (APA). Washington DC.
1986 Research Communications, Ltd. Chestnut Hill, MA.
Evaluated prospective college telecommunication courses.
Research Grant Program; External Grant Review.
3/05 Goddard College, Plainfield, VT.
External Program Reviewer for Counseling and Psychology M.A. Program.
Bridgewater, MA, May 14, 2009.
Cox, M.& Bacon, V. WAC Discussion Group on Writing and Graduate Students. WAC Faculty Network.
Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA, March 5, 2008.
Induction Ceremony, Fitchburg State College, Psychology Department, Fitchburg, MA, April 18, 2002.
Association (EATA) 54th Annual Meeting and Clinical Symposium, Boston, MA, January 8, 2002.
Program at the Worcester Youth Guidance Center, Worcester, MA, March 5, 1997.
Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA, February 13, 1997.
and Society, Wellesley, MA, March 6, 1996.
Program, Worcester Youth Guidance Center, Worcester, MA, May 1992.
Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA, May 15, 2013.
Team. CARS May Celebration XVI, Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA, May 9, 2012.
Work 2012 National Convention, Albuquerque, NM, February 11, 2012.
Coogan, T, Lachman, M. & Bacon, V. Multiple Addictive Behaviors among Division III NCAA Institutions.
Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA, May 11, 2011.
Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA, May 12, 2010.
Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA, May 14, 2009.
Conference & Exposition, Charlotte, NC, March, 2009.
Bacon, V. Anderson, M. Facilitating Behavior Change: Evaluating a Protocol for Educating Athletic Trainers.
Society, London, England, December 11, 2008.
Milestones, Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA, May 14, 2008.
Work 2008 National Convention, St. Pete, Florida, February 23, 2008.
Anderson, M. & Bacon, V. A Protocol to Guide Allied Health Care Practitioners Facilitate Behavior Change.
Bridgewater, MA, May 16, 2007.
Schools and Colleges. Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, Hawaii, January, 2007.
Care Practitioner’s. Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, Hawaii, January, 2007.
Individual. 2001 Athletic Training Educator’s Conference, Dallas/Fort Worth, TX, January 19, 2001.
American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Boston, MA, August 23, 1999.
Providence, RI, April 17, 1999.
Association of Applied Sport Psychology, Cape Cod, MA, September 24, 1998.
the Association for Applied Sport Psychology, San Diego, CA, September 25, 1997.
Regional High School, Concord, MA, June 1987.
and the Massachusetts College and Personnel Association, Fitchburg, MA, February 1982.
Community College, Student Services Seminar, Gardner, MA, August 1981.
England American College of Sports Medicine, Providence, RI, November 8, 2012.
Interventions. WACES 2008 Conference, Palm Springs, CA, November 6-10, 2008.
University of Texas at Austin, May 20, 2008.
Bacon, V., Bukowiecki, E., & Doyle, A. Moderator: Michelle Cox. Graduate Writing Across the Curriculum.
Hyannis, MA, May 6, 2003.
of Teaching, Research, and Technology IV, Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA, May 18, 2000.
Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA, May 19, 1999.
Association, Boston, MA, March 9, 2002.
Psychological Association Annual Convention, Boston, MA, August 23, 1999.
San Diego, CA, September 25, 1997.
Sport. 105th American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Chicago, IL, August 16, 1997.
Boston, MA. November 9, 2012.
Workshop with high school athletes. Fall River, MA, March 8, 2012.
Curriculum (WAC), Bridgewater State University, MA, September 17, 2010.
England Institute of Art, Brookline, MA, September 3, 2010.
School Counselor Association Annual Conference, Boston, MA, July 5, 2010.
University, Slippery Rock, PA, May 19, 2008.
San Diego, CA, March 15, 2008.
Bacon, V. The Athletic Trainer’s Role in Facilitating Healthy Behavior Change; The Psychosocial Domain.
Massachusetts. Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, MA, August 11, 2007.
Bacon, V. Developing Effective Small Group Counseling Interventions in Keeping with the MA Model.
Massachusetts School Counselor Association Spring Conference, Hyannis, MA, April 30, 2007.
Counselor Association Spring Conference, Hyannis, MA, May 8, 2006.
Bacon, V. Empowering Educators K-12: A Practical Approach for Acute Traumatic Stress Management.
Massachusetts School Counselor Association Spring Conference, Hyannis, MA, May 2, 2005.
Software. Massachusetts School Counselors Association Spring Conference, Hyannis, MA, May 3, 2004.
Bridgewater, MA, May 14, 2003.
Conference, Hyannis, MA, May 7, 2002.
Educational Environment. Dartmouth Public Schools, January 28, 2002.
College, Bridgewater, MA, October, 11, 2001.
Pittsburgh, PA, February 7, 1998.
McGowan, R., Giges, B. & Bacon, V. Differential Diagnosing and Treatment Issues with Female Gymnasts.
Eleventh Annual Conference for the Association for Applied Sport Psychology, Williamsburg, VA.
Psychology Think Tank, Temple, NH, May 29, 1996.
Counseling Spring Workshop Series, Cambridge, MA April 8, 1995.
Psychology Spring Workshop Series, Cambridge, MA, April 8, 1995.
Psychology Fall Workshop Series, Cambridge, MA, October 15, 1994.
Psychology Think Tank, Temple, NH, July 30, 1994.
Bacon, V. & Weida, A. Team Building for Young Leaders. Urban Peace Corps, Lowell, MA, July 8, 1994.
Academic Affairs, Newbury College, Brookline, MA, April 14, 1994.
Hospital; Children and Adolescent Psychiatric Services, Nashua, NH, December 1992.
Hostile Behaviors. Governor Winthrop Nursing Home, Winthrop, MA, December 1988.
Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg, MA, August 1983.
the Theory and Practice of Gestalt Therapy, Provincetown, MA, July 1983.
Residence Life, Boston, MA, July 1983.
South Carolina, Columbia, SC, June 1983.
Department, Fitchburg, MA, December 1980.
The GroupWorker (2009, Spring), “New Members of the JSGW Editorial Board” 38(1), 11.
CART Faculty Librarian Research Grant, Fall 2007 Abstracts.
CART Newsletter (2007, Summer). CART Teaching Fellow – Dr. Victoria Bacon, p.2.
CART Celebration. Retrieved 5/07 from http://www.bridgew.edu/depts/cart/.
Bridgewater (2003, Fall). “CART Recognizes Faculty Achievement”, 11-12.
ESPNews: Exercise and Sport Psychology Newsletter (1999, Summer). APA National Convention Highlights.
Invited Panelist for “Sports and Psychology: Options for Students Who Love Both”.
Retrieved On 1.26.07 from http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/50/12/1565.
Do We Integrate Psychotherapy with Chinese Medicine”?
Bridgewater Review (1998, June), 17(1), 25. Research Faculty Note on Victoria L. Bacon.
The Group Circle (1996, Fall). American Group Psychotherapy Association Newsletter. Member Highlights.
Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise (1984). “Drop-Out Rate Drops After Mixers”.
Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise (1980, May 13). “Five Fitchburg High School Teachers in Career Program”.
The Page (1980, May 19), 9(5). “A Little Late, But Career Day Did Wait”.
Montachusett Review (1980, March 20). “Accent on Careers”.
General Electric Send Five Member Team”.
9/96 - present Graduate Counseling Program Committee (CPC) member, Chair 2001 – 2005.
9/96 - present Academic advisor for graduate students in Counselor Education.
9/12 – 12/12 Peer Evaluation Committee Chair.
9/10 – 12/10 Peer Evaluation Committee.
9/96 – 5/09 Comprehensive Exam preparation and reader.
9/07 - 5/08 Graduate Program Coordinator (Director).
9/07 - 3/08 Faculty Hiring Committee member (two searches).
9/07 - 12/07 Peer Evaluation Committee, Chair.
9/06 - 5/07 Faculty Hiring Committee member.
5/03 - 8/05 Department Chair (founding chair).
6/00 - 8/05 Coordinator of Counseling Programs.
Assumed Fieldwork duties (6/00-6/06) during summer months.
M.Ed. in Mental Health Counseling (dual license).
10/98 - 5/03 Comprehensive Exam Preparation Workshops for graduate students - fall and spring semesters.
8/99 - 8/02 Coordinator of Counseling Technology Center (CTC).
5/97 Prepared Graduate Student Handbook; Counseling Programs with GA, Barbara Ward.
9/96 - 5/03 Graduate Faculty Committee member.
9/01 - 2/02 Chair of Search Committee for Counseling Programs faculty position.
9/01 - 12/01 Chair, Peer Evaluation Committee for faculty promotions and reappointments.
10/00 - 4/01 Chair of Search Committee for Counseling Programs faculty position.
10/99 - 4/00 Hiring Committee member – Counseling Programs faculty position.
5/99 - 11/99 Department Liaison with Information Services for Microsoft-Outlook Project.
10/98 - 5/99 Hiring Committee member – Counseling Programs faculty position.
12/97 - 5/98 Hiring Committee member symbol 45 \f "Symbol" \s 10- Secondary Education faculty position.
12/96 - 5/97 Hiring Committee member symbol 45 \f "Symbol" \s 10- Educational Leadership and Administration faculty position.
9/08 - present WAC Faculty Network.
9/02 - present Massachusetts State College Association, Executive Committee Member.
9/08 – 5/09 Tenure Committee member for Dr. Christy Lyons (elected by Dept. of Counselor Education).
4/07 – 9/08 New Schools Committee.
1/06 – 5/08 Canadian Studies Council.
9/06 - 2/08 Promotions Committee.
6/06 - 8/07 The Faculty Working Group for a Teaching and Learning Initiative.
CART May 2007 Celebration Program Committee (Chair).
9/06 - 5/07 Faculty Development Leadership Group, BSC.
5/07 Department of Social Work Peer Evaluation Committee.
12/05 - 5/06 Community of Scholars Grant Proposal Development Team.
10/04 - 5/05 Working Group Member for the Assessment of Graduate Resources at BSC, Graduate and Continuing Education.
5/04 Delegate: Massachusetts Teachers Association Delegate Assembly, Boston, MA.
9/98 - 5/03 On-Site Supervisor for Counseling Interns in Higher Education for the Athletic Department.
7/02 - 8/02 Search Committee Member; Assistant Dean, Division of Graduate and Continuing Education.
9/99 - 5/02 Center for the Advancement of Research and Teaching Advisory Board.
Chair, External Grants Committee (2001-2002).
Member, Ad Hoc Grant Review (2000-2001).
Chair, Summer Grants Committee (1999-2000).
10/99 - 5/02 Provided training workshops to faculty and staff athletic trainers on counseling competencies.
3/98 - 5/01 Campus Climate Action Group.
Outreach Task Force (9/00 –5/01).
Video Task Force (9/98 – 5/00).
Steering Committee Member (8/98 – 5/99).
10/98 - 5/01 Coordinated Training for Athletic Trainers Seminar Series and Workshop Series.
2/98 - 5/01 Champs Life Skills Advisory Council, Athletic Department.
10/97 - 5/00 Provided training workshops for student leaders in the Mentor Program, Athletic Department.
Lacrosse, Women’s Volleyball, Men’s Soccer, Women’s Basketball.
10/96 - 5/00 Athletic/Counseling Team Management Coordinator.
2/97 Group Facilitator, “Women’s Institute Day symbol 45 \f "Symbol" \s 10- Making a Difference”, Bridgewater State College.
1995 - 1996 Assessment Team member for Disabilities Services, University of Massachusetts at Lowell.
1993 - 1996 Organized and facilitated student study groups, University of Massachusetts at Lowell.
1996 Group Therapy Course Review, Lesley College.
1995 Participant. Disability Services Orientation Program, University of Massachusetts at Lowell.
1993 - 1994 Freshman Tutorial Committee member, University of Massachusetts at Lowell.
1985 Temporary full-time Lecturer in Psychology, Massachusetts Bay Community College.
Health Services, Staff Physician, Fitchburg State College.
1981 - 1984 Developed & facilitated mental health workshops, Student Affairs staff, Fitchburg State College.
1981 - 1984 Freshman Orientation Committee member, Fitchburg State College.
1983 Developed and organized the Mental Health and the Law Conference, Fitchburg State College.
1983 Produced videotape -Peer Counselor Program for Freshman Orientation, Fitchburg State College.
1984 Produced videotapes: Counseling Services, Freshman Orientation, Fitchburg State College.
1982 Field Supervisor Orientation Training, Antioch College of New England, Keene, NH.
12/93 - present Licensed Psychologist. Private Practice, Norton, MA.
critical incident stress debriefing interventions.
4/88 - 8/92 Psychotherapist. Counseling and Consultation Center, Chelsea, MA.
Provided psychotherapy to adolescents, adults, and families.
9/87 - 8/90 Psychotherapist. Alpha Geriatric Services, Rockland, MA.
chronic medical illnesses and disabilities.
9/86 - 6/87 Guidance Counselor. Concord-Carlisle Regional High School, Concord, MA.
2/81 - 8/84 Coordinator of Counseling Services. Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg, MA.
clinical supervision of students - Master's in Counseling and Bachelor's in Psychology.
9/78 - 1/81 Counselor. Fitchburg High School, Fitchburg, MA.
bilingual counselor and supervision of Master's degree interns in Counseling Psychology.
5/95 – 5/07 Disaster Response Network, Massachusetts Psychological Association. Wellesley, MA.
statewide. Central Team member (currently in reserve); Steering Committee, 1/1999 - 10/2000.
9/12/01 Disaster Response Debriefing. Burnell Elementary (Campus) School, Bridgewater, MA.
Chair, Trainer, Organizer of Disaster Debriefing intervention for children grades PreK-5 post 9/11.
4/00 - 12/00 Home Box Office, New York, NY.
on HBO in December 2000.
12/00 University of New Hampshire’s Women's Ice Hockey Team, Durham, NH.
Provided debriefing to head coach, team, and athletic training staff.
6/96 - 3/98 American Red Cross. Leominster, MA.
and short term crisis intervention for disaster victims.
8/97 American Psychological Association (APA). Washington DC.
integrating electronic services for members.
1994 (summer) Urban Peace Corps. Lowell, MA.
11/83 Women's Sports Foundation and the United States Olympic Committee. Washington DC.
Delegate to New Agenda Conference. Developed physical education curricula - grades K-12.
1980 (spring) Saint Bernard High School. Fitchburg, MA.
Consultant to Career Education Committee.
9/92 - 8/93 Clinical Psychology Fellow. Brookside Hospital, Nashua, NH.
with adolescents (PTSD and substance abuse disorders and treatment of young children.
6/79 - 7/79 General Electric Foundation Fellow. University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Counseling and Career Education Summer Institute.
9/90 - 8/91 Clinical Psychology Intern. Worcester Youth Guidance Center, Worcester, MA.
9/86 - 6/87 Counseling Intern. Concord-Carlisle Regional High School, Concord, MA.
1/79 - 6/79 Counseling Intern. Worcester State Hospital, Worcester, MA.
2013 Honored for Contribution to the Growth of Ideas and Resources, Grants and Sponsored Projects, BSU.
2013 Honored with Award for Academic Excellence, Bridgewater State College 2012-13..
2012 Honored with Award for Academic Excellence, Bridgewater State College 2011-12.
2010 Honored with Award for Academic Excellence, Bridgewater State College 2009-10.
2008 Certificate of Participation: Writing Across the Curriculum Faculty Network 2007-08.
2008 Honored with Award for Academic Excellence, Bridgewater State College 2007-08.
2007 Honored with Award for Academic Excellence, Bridgewater State College 2006-07.
2007 Service Award, 10 years, Bridgewater State College.
Revolution. Paper: Writing for Healing: Writing One’s Family History as a Therapeutic Process.
2006 Honored with Award for Academic Excellence, Bridgewater State College 2005-06.
2005 Honored with Award for Academic Excellence, Bridgewater State College 2004-05.
2004 Honored for Contribution to the Growth of Ideas and Resources, Grants and Sponsored Projects, BSC.
Scholarship, and Academic Inquiry. Clement C. Maxwell Library, Bridgewater State College.
2001 Honored for Contribution to the Growth of Ideas and Resources, Grants and Sponsored Projects, BSC.
1997 International Woman of the Year Nominee; Twenty-sixth Dictionary of International Biography.
1997 Outstanding Young Women in America Nominee.
1996 Volunteer of the Month (October), American Red Cross, North Central Massachusetts.
1984 Administrative Merit Award, Fitchburg State College.
1983 Distinguished Service Award, Fitchburg State College.
1983 Outstanding Young Women in America Nominee.
1979 General Electric Foundation Fellow.
2013 Participant: CARS May Celebration XVII, Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, MA, May 15, 2013.
2013 Participant. American Counseling Association 2013 Annual Conference. Cincinnati, OH, March 21-24 .
Boston, MA, December 1, 2012.
2012 Participant. New England American College of Sports Medicine, Providence, RI, November 8, 2012.
Island Psychological Association, October 19, 2012.
September 9, 2012 (online course).
2011 Participant: Ladies in Waiting: A Group Intervention for Families Coping with Deployed Soldiers.
American Group Psychotherapy Association, July 30, 2011 (online course).
Association, July 30, 2011 (online course).
2011 Participant: The Trauma Recovery Group: A Practitioner’s Guide. MSPP, Boston, MA: April 2, 2011.
2011 Participant: Writing Memoir with Maggie Lowe. CART, Bridgewater State University, March 31, 2011.
Very Diminished Ability to Make Change. Bridge Institute, Westborough, MA, February 11, 2011.
Children, Adolescents, Adults and Families. Bridge Institute, Westborough, MA, January 28, 2011.
Philadelphia, PA, January 7-10, 2011.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
After one Helton, a waitress at petitioner's restaurant, filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging that she had been fired because of her efforts to organize a union, Helton and others, including other waitresses, picketed the restaurant and distributed leaflets. Petitioner and three of its co-owners then filed a suit for damages and injunctive relief against Helton and the other demonstrators in an Arizona state court, alleging that the defendants had harassed customers, blocked access to the restaurant, created a threat to public safety, and libeled plaintiffs by false statements in the leaflets. On the following day, Helton filed a second charge with the NLRB, alleging, inter alia, that petitioner had filed the civil suit in retaliation for the defendants' protected, concerted activities and the filing of charges against petitioner with the NLRB. After a consolidated hearing on the unfair labor practice complaints, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that, "on the basis of the record and from [his] observation of the witnesses," the evidence failed to support the allegations of the complaint in the state-court action, and that such action thus lacked a "reasonable basis" and its prosecution was retaliatory, in violation of 8(a)(1) and (4) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). On petitioner's appeal, the NLRB adopted, with minor exceptions, the ALJ's findings and recommendations, and ordered petitioner to withdraw its state-court complaint. The Court of Appeals enforced the NLRB's order.
1. The NLRB may not halt the prosecution of a state-court lawsuit, regardless of the plaintiff's motive, unless the suit lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law. Retaliatory motive and lack of reasonable basis are both essential prerequisites to the issuance of a cease-and-desist order against a state suit. Pp. 740-744.
(a) The filing and prosecution of a well-founded lawsuit may not be enjoined as an unfair labor practice, even if it would not have been commenced but for the plaintiff's desire to retaliate against the defendant for exercising rights protected by the Act. The Act's provisions guaranteeing employees the enjoyment of their rights to unionize, engage [461 U.S. 731, 732] in concerted activity, and utilize the NLRB's processes without fear of coercion or retaliation by their employer are to be liberally construed. However, countervailing considerations against allowing the NLRB to condemn the filing of a suit as an unfair labor practice include the First Amendment right of access to the courts and the States' compelling interests in maintaining domestic peace and protecting its citizens' health and welfare. Thus, the NLRB's interpretation of the Act that the only essential element of a violation by the employer is retaliatory motive in filing a state-court suit is untenable. Pp. 740-743.
(b) However, it is an enjoinable unfair labor practice to prosecute a baseless lawsuit with the intent of retaliating against an employee for the exercise of rights protected by the Act. Such suits are not within the scope of First Amendment protection, and the state interests noted above do not enter into play when the suit has no reasonable basis. Pp. 743-744.
2. In determining whether a state-court suit lacks a reasonable basis, the NLRB is not limited to considering the bare pleadings in the suit, but its inquiry must be structured in a manner that will preserve the state plaintiff's right to have a state-court jury or judge resolve genuine material factual or state-law legal disputes pertaining to the lawsuit. Therefore, if the NLRB is called upon to determine whether a suit is unlawful prior to the time that the state court renders final judgment, and if the state plaintiff can show that such genuine material factual or legal issues exist, the NLRB must await the results of the state-court adjudication with respect to the merits of the state suit. If the state proceedings result in a judgment adverse to the plaintiff, the NLRB may then consider the matter further and, if it is found that the lawsuit was filed with retaliatory intent, the NLRB may find a violation and order appropriate relief. Pp. 744-747.
3. This case must be returned to the NLRB for further consideration in light of the proper standards. It was not the ALJ's province, based on his own evaluation of the evidence, to determine that the libel and business-interference counts in petitioner's state-court suit were in fact without merit. He should have limited his inquiry to the question whether petitioner's evidence raised factual issues that were genuine and material. Furthermore, because, in enforcing the NLRB's order, the Court of Appeals ultimately relied on the fact that "substantial evidence" supported the NLRB's finding that the prosecution of the lawsuit violated the Act, the NLRB's error has not been cured. Pp. 747-748.
660 F.2d 1335, vacated and remanded.
Lawrence Allen Katz argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
[ Footnote * ] J. Albert Woll, Laurence Gold, Michael H. Gottesman, and Jeremiah A. Collins filed a brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Edward B. Miller, Matthew R. McArthur, and Stephen A. Bokat filed a brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States as amicus curiae.
We must decide whether the National Labor Relations Board may issue a cease-and-desist order to halt the prosecution of a state-court civil suit brought by an employer to retaliate against employees for exercising federally protected labor rights, without also finding that the suit lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law.
The present controversy arises out of a labor dispute at "Bill Johnson's Big Apple East," one of four restaurants owned and operated by the petitioner in Phoenix, Ariz. It began on August 8, 1978, when petitioner fired Myrland Helton, one of the most senior waitresses at the restaurant. Believing that her termination was the result of her efforts to organize a union, she filed unfair labor practice charges against the restaurant with the Board.
On September 20, after an investigation, the Board's General Counsel issued a complaint. On the same day, Helton, joined by three co-waitresses and a few others, picketed the restaurant. The picketers carried signs asking customers to boycott the restaurant because its management was unfair to the waitresses. Petitioner's manager confronted the picketers and threatened to "get even" with them "if it's the last thing I do." Petitioner's president telephoned the husband [461 U.S. 731, 734] of one of the picketing waitresses and impliedly threatened that the couple would "get hurt" and lose their new home if the wife continued to participate in the protest. The picketing continued on September 21 and 22. In addition, the picketers distributed a leaflet that accused management of making "[u]nwarranted sexual advances" and maintaining a "filthy restroom for women employees." The leaflet also stated that a complaint against the restaurant had been filed by the Board and that Helton had been fired after suggesting that a union be organized.
On the morning of September 25, petitioner and three of its co-owners filed a verified complaint against Helton and the other demonstrators in an Arizona state court. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had engaged in mass picketing, harassed customers, blocked public ingress to and egress from the restaurant, and created a threat to public safety. The complaint also contained a libel count, alleging that the leaflet contained false and outrageous statements published by the defendants with the malicious intent to injure the plaintiffs. The complaint sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages, $500,000 in punitive damages, and appropriate further legal and equitable relief. App. 3-9. After a hearing, the state court declined to enjoin the distribution of leaflets but otherwise issued the requested restraining order. Id., at 19-23. Expedited depositions were also permitted. The defendants retained counsel and, after a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on November 16, the court dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied preliminary injunctive relief. Id., at 52.
In December 1978, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a 4-day consolidated hearing on the two unfair labor practice complaints. 2 On September 27, 1979, the ALJ rendered a decision concluding that petitioner had committed a total of seven unfair labor practices during the course of the [461 U.S. 731, 736] labor dispute. 249 N. L. R. B. 155, 168-169 (1980). With regard to the matter presently before us, the ALJ agreed with the General Counsel that the prosecution of the civil suit violated 8(a)(1) and (4). The ALJ applied the rationale of Power Systems, Inc., 239 N. L. R. B. 445, 449-450 (1978), enf. denied, 601 F.2d 936 (CA7 1979), in which the Board held that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to institute a civil lawsuit for the purpose of penalizing or discouraging its employees from filing charges with the Board or seeking access to the Board's processes.
In Power Systems, the Board inferred that the employer had acted with retaliatory animus from the fact that the employer lacked "a reasonable basis upon which to assert" that its suit had merit. Similarly, in the present case, the ALJ found that petitioner's suit lacked a reasonable basis and then concluded from this fact that the suit violated the Act because it was "an attempt to penalize Helton for having filed charges with the Board, and to penalize the other defendants for assisting Helton in her protest of the unfair labor practice committed against her." 249 N. L. R. B., at 165. He bolstered his conclusion by noting the direct evidence that the suit had been filed for a retaliatory purpose, i. e., the threats to "get even with" and "hurt" the defendants. Ibid.
On petitioner's appeal, the Board adopted, with minor exceptions, the ALJ's findings, conclusions of law, and recommended order. Id., at 155. Accordingly, petitioner was ordered to undertake a number of remedial measures. Among other things, petitioner was required to withdraw its state-court complaint and to reimburse the defendants for all their legal expenses in connection with the suit. Id., at 169-170.
The Court of Appeals enforced the Board's order in its entirety, 660 F.2d 1335 (CA9 1981), holding that substantial evidence supported both the Board's findings that the employer's "lawsuit lacked a reasonable basis in fact, and that it was filed to penalize Helton [and] the picketers for engaging in protected activity." Id., at 1342. Petitioner sought certiorari, urging that it could not properly be enjoined from maintaining its state-court action. 4 We granted the writ, 459 U.S. 942 (1982), and we now vacate and remand for further proceedings.
The question whether the Board may issue a cease-and-desist order to halt an allegedly retaliatory lawsuit filed by an employer in a state court has had a checkered history before the Board. 5 At first, in W. T. Carter & Bro., 90 N. L. R. B. [461 U.S. 731, 738] 2020, 2023-2024 (1950), where an employer sued and obtained a state-court injunction barring its employees from holding union meetings on company property, a divided Board held that the prosecution of the suit constituted an unfair labor practice. The Board analogized from the common law of malicious prosecution and rejected the employer's contention that its "resort to court proceedings was a lawful exercise of a basic right." The dissent objected that the Board should recognize the employer's right to present its case to a judicial forum, even if its motive in doing so was to interfere with its employees' rights. Id., at 2029 (Herzog, Chairman, dissenting). Ten years later, in Clyde Taylor Co., 127 N. L. R. B. 103, 109 (1960), where the employer obtained an injunction banning peaceful union picketing in protest of unlawful discharges, the Board overruled W. T. Carter and adopted the view of the earlier dissent.
During the next 18 years after Clyde Taylor, the Board's decisions do not appear to us to have been entirely consistent. 6 [461 U.S. 731, 739] Then, in Power Systems, 239 N. L. R. B., at 450, the Board concluded: "Since we have found that Respondent had no reasonable basis for its lawsuit, . . . the lawsuit had as its purpose the unlawful objective of penalizing [the employee] for filing a charge with the Board." The suit therefore was enjoined as an unfair labor practice. The gravamen of the offense was thus held to be the unlawful objective, which could be inferred by lack of a reasonable basis for the employer's suit.
Although the Board in Power Systems purported to distinguish Clyde Taylor and its progeny on the basis that the lawsuit in each of those cases "was not a tactic calculated to restrain employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act," 239 N. L. R. B., at 449, the distinction was illusory. In Clyde Taylor itself the Board found no unfair labor practice despite the ALJ's specific finding that the employer's lawsuit "was for the purpose of preventing his employees from exercising the rights guaranteed to them under the Act, rather than for the purpose of advancing any legitimate interest of his own." 127 N. L. R. B., at 121. Since 1978, the Board has consistently adhered to the Power Systems rule that an employer or union who sues an employee for a retaliatory motive is guilty of a violation of the Act. 7 Under this line of cases, as the Board's brief and its counsel's remarks at [461 U.S. 731, 740] oral argument in the present case confirm, 8 the Board does not regard lack of merit in the employer's suit as an independent element of the 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(4) unfair labor practice. Rather, it asserts that the only essential element of a violation is retaliatory motive.
At first blush, the Board's position seems to have substance. Sections 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act are broad, remedial provisions that guarantee that employees will be able to enjoy their rights secured by 7 of the Act - including the right to unionize, the right to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, and the right to utilize the Board's processes - without fear of restraint, coercion, discrimination, or interference from their employer. The Court has liberally construed these laws as prohibiting a wide variety of employer conduct that is intended to restrain, or that has the likely effect of restraining, employees in the exercise of protected activities. 9 A lawsuit no doubt may be used by an employer as a powerful instrument of coercion or retaliation. As the Board has observed, by suing an employee who files charges with the Board or engages in other protected activities, an employer can place its employees on notice that anyone who engages in such conduct is subjecting himself to the possibility of a burdensome lawsuit. Regardless of how unmeritorious the employer's suit is, the employee will most likely have to retain counsel and incur substantial legal expenses [461 U.S. 731, 741] to defend against it. Power Systems, supra, at 449. Furthermore, as the Court of Appeals in the present case noted, the chilling effect of a state lawsuit upon an employee's willingness to engage in protected activity is multiplied where the complaint seeks damages in addition to injunctive relief. 660 F.2d, at 1343, n. 3. Where, as here, such a suit is filed against hourly-wage waitresses or other individuals who lack the backing of a union, the need to allow the Board to intervene and provide a remedy is at its greatest.
There are weighty countervailing considerations, however, that militate against allowing the Board to condemn the filing of a suit as an unfair labor practice and to enjoin its prosecution. In California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508, 510 (1972), we recognized that the right of access to the courts is an aspect of the First Amendment right to petition the Government for redress of grievances. Accordingly, we construed the antitrust laws as not prohibiting the filing of a lawsuit, regardless of the plaintiff's anticompetitive intent or purpose in doing so, unless the suit was a "mere sham" filed for harassment purposes. Id., at 511. We should be sensitive to these First Amendment values in construing the NLRA in the present context. As the Board itself has recognized: "[G]oing to a judicial body for redress of alleged wrongs . . . stands apart from other forms of action directed at the alleged wrongdoer. The right of access to a court is too important to be called an unfair labor practice solely on the ground that what is sought in the court is to enjoin employees from exercising a protected right." Peddie Buildings, 203 N. L. R. B. 265, 272 (1973), enf. denied on other grounds, 498 F.2d 43 (CA3 1974). See also Clyde Taylor Co., 127 N. L. R. B., at 109.
Moreover, in recognition of the States' compelling interest in the maintenance of domestic peace, the Court has construed the Act as not pre-empting the States from providing a civil remedy for conduct touching interests "deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility." San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244 (1959). It [461 U.S. 731, 742] has therefore repeatedly been held that an employer has the right to seek local judicial protection from tortious conduct during a labor dispute. See, e. g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978); Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290 (1977); Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 (1966); Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corp., 347 U.S. 656 (1954).
In Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, supra, at 65, we held that an employer can properly recover damages in a tort action arising out of a labor dispute if it can prove malice and actual injury. See also Farmer v. Carpenters, supra, at 306. If the Board is allowed to enjoin the prosecution of a well-grounded state lawsuit, it necessarily follows that any state plaintiff subject to such an injunction will be totally deprived of a remedy for an actual injury, since the "Board can award no damages, impose no penalty, or give any other relief" to the plaintiff. Linn, supra, at 63. Thus, to the extent the Board asserts the right to declare the filing of a meritorious suit to be a violation of the Act, it runs headlong into the basic rationale of Linn, Farmer, and other cases in which we declined to infer a congressional intent to ignore the substantial state interest "in protecting the health and well-being of its citizens." Farmer, supra, at 302-303. See also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, supra, at 196; Linn, supra, at 61.
Of course, in light of the Board's special competence in applying the general provisions of the Act to the complexities of industrial life, its interpretations of the Act are entitled to deference, even where, as here, its position has not been entirely consistent. NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 264 -267 (1975); NLRB v. Seven-Up Co., 344 U.S. 344, 347 -349 (1953). And here, were only the literal language of 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(4) to be considered, we would be inclined to uphold the Board, because its present construction of the statute is not irrational. Considering the First Amendment right of access to the courts and the state interests identified in cases such as Linn and Farmer, however, we conclude [461 U.S. 731, 743] that the Board's interpretation of the Act is untenable. The filing and prosecution of a well-founded lawsuit may not be enjoined as an unfair labor practice, even if it would not have been commenced but for the plaintiff's desire to retaliate against the defendant for exercising rights protected by the Act.
Just as false statements are not immunized by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, see Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 171 (1979); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 340 (1974), baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to petition.
Similarly, the state interests recognized in the Farmer line of cases do not enter into play when the state-court suit has no basis. Since, by definition, the plaintiff in a baseless suit has not suffered a legally protected injury, the State's interest "in protecting the health and well-being of its citizens," Farmer, supra, at 303, is not implicated. States have only a [461 U.S. 731, 744] negligible interest, if any, in having insubstantial claims adjudicated by their courts, particularly in the face of the strong federal interest in vindicating the rights protected by the national labor laws.
Considerations analogous to these led us in the antitrust context to adopt the "mere sham" exception in California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972). We should follow a similar course under the NLRA. The right to litigate is an important one, and the Board should consider the evidence with utmost care before ordering the cessation of a state-court lawsuit. In a proper case, however, we believe that Congress intended to allow the Board to provide this remedy. Therefore, we hold that it is an enjoinable unfair labor practice to prosecute a baseless lawsuit with the intent of retaliating against an employee for the exercise of rights protected by 7 of the NLRA.
Having concluded that the prosecution of an improperly motivated suit lacking a reasonable basis constitutes a violation of the Act that may be enjoined by the Board, we now inquire into what steps the Board may take in evaluating whether a state-court suit lacks the requisite basis. Petitioner insists that the Board's prejudgment inquiry must not go beyond the four corners of the complaint. Its position is that as long as the complaint seeks lawful relief that the state court has jurisdiction to grant, the Board must allow the state litigation to proceed. The Board, on the other hand, apparently perceives no limitations on the scope of its pre-judgment determination as to whether a lawsuit has a reasonable basis. In the present case, for example, the ALJ conducted a virtual trial on the merits of petitioner's state-court claims. Based on this de facto trial, the ALJ concluded, in his independent judgment, based in part on "his observation of the witnesses, including their demeanor," that petitioner's suit lacked a reasonable basis.
In the present case, the only disputed issues in the state lawsuit appear to be factual in nature. There will be cases, however, in which the state plaintiff's case turns on issues of state law or upon a mixed question of fact and law. Just as the Board must refrain from deciding genuinely disputed material factual issues with respect to a state suit, it likewise must not deprive a litigant of his right to have genuine state-law legal questions decided by the state judiciary. 13 While [461 U.S. 731, 747] the Board need not stay its hand if the plaintiff's position is plainly foreclosed as a matter of law or is otherwise frivolous, the Board should allow such issues to be decided by the state tribunals if there is any realistic chance that the plaintiff's legal theory might be adopted.
The Board argues that, since petitioner has not sought review of the factual findings below that the state suit in the present case lacked a reasonable basis and was filed for a [461 U.S. 731, 748] retaliatory motive, the judgment should be affirmed once it is concluded that the Board may enjoin a suit under these circumstances. Petitioner does, however, challenge the right of the Board to issue a cease-and-desist order in the circumstances present here, and the Board did not reach its reasonable-basis determination in accordance with this opinion. As noted above, the ALJ had no reservations about weighing the evidence and making credibility judgments. Based on his own evaluation of the evidence, he concluded that the libel count in petitioner's suit lacked merit, because the statements in the leaflet were true, and that the business interference counts were groundless, because the evidence failed to support petitioner's factual allegations. 249 N. L. R. B., at 164-165. See supra, at 736. It was not the ALJ's province to make such factual determinations. What he should have determined is not whether the statements in the leaflet were true, but rather whether there was a genuine issue as to whether they were knowingly false. Similarly, he should not have decided the facts regarding the business interference counts; rather, he should have limited his inquiry to the question whether petitioner's evidence raised factual issues that were genuine and material. Furthermore, because, in enforcing the Board's order, the Court of Appeals ultimately relied on the fact that "substantial evidence" supported the Board's finding that the prosecution of the lawsuit violated the Act, 660 F.2d, at 1343, the Board's error has not been cured. Accordingly, without expressing a view as to whether petitioner's suit is in fact enjoinable, we shall return this case to the Board for further consideration in light of the proper standards.
To summarize, we hold that the Board may not halt the prosecution of a state-court lawsuit, regardless of the plaintiff's motive, unless the suit lacks a reasonable basis in fact or law. Retaliatory motive and lack of reasonable basis are both essential prerequisites to the issuance of a cease-and-desist [461 U.S. 731, 749] order against a state suit. The Board's reasonable-basis inquiry must be structured in a manner that will preserve the state plaintiff's right to have a state-court jury or judge resolve genuine material factual or state-law legal disputes pertaining to the lawsuit. Therefore, if the Board is called upon to determine whether a suit is unlawful prior to the time that the state court renders final judgment, and if the state plaintiff can show that such genuine material factual or legal issues exist, the Board must await the results of the state-court adjudication with respect to the merits of the state suit. If the state proceedings result in a judgment adverse to the plaintiff, the Board may then consider the matter further and, if it is found that the lawsuit was filed with retaliatory intent, the Board may find a violation and order appropriate relief. In short, then, although it is an unfair labor practice to prosecute an unmeritorious lawsuit for a retaliatory purpose, the offense is not enjoinable unless the suit lacks a reasonable basis.
[ Footnote 1 ] These provisions state: "It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer - "(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in section [7 of the Act]; . . . . . "(4) to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this Act." 61 Stat. 140, 141, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) and (4). Section 7 guarantees employees "the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, . . . and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection." 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C. 157.
[ Footnote 2 ] On March 15, 1979, while the ALJ had the matter under submission, the state court issued an order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the business interference claims but leaving the libel count for trial. Before the state court issued this ruling, the defendants had filed a counterclaim alleging abuse of process, malicious prosecution, wrongful injunction, libel, and slander. The parties then apparently cross-moved for summary judgment on both the claim and the counterclaim. The state court, in the same order of March 15, 1979, dismissed the abuse of process count in the counterclaim and left the libel counterclaim for trial. See App. to Brief for Petitioner D1. Meanwhile, there had been other developments. On October 27, 1978, the Board's Regional Director petitioned the United States District Court pursuant to 10(j) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 160(j), for an order enjoining petitioner from maintaining its state-court suit pending a final Board decision. On January 22, 1979, the District Court denied the request for an injunction. App. to Brief for Petitioner C1-C7.
[ Footnote 3 ] The ALJ was apparently not made aware of the state court's denial of summary judgment as to the libel count. This fact is most apparent by virtue of the ALJ's statement, 249 N. L. R. B., at 163, that the defendants' counterclaim for abuse of process was still pending before the state [461 U.S. 731, 737] court. As noted in n. 2, supra, the state court dismissed the abuse of process counterclaim at the same time it denied summary judgment on the libel counts of both the claim and counterclaim.
[ Footnote 4 ] In its merits brief, petitioner for the first time argues to this Court that the Board erred by concluding that the taking of the state-court defendants' depositions constituted an unfair labor practice. Brief for Petitioner 33-36. This issue was not presented in the petition for certiorari and we decline to consider it. See this Court's Rule 34.1(a).
[ Footnote 5 ] It should be kept in mind that what is involved here is an employer's lawsuit that the federal law would not bar except for its allegedly retaliatory motivation. We are not dealing with a suit that is claimed to be beyond the jurisdiction of the state courts because of federal-law preemption, or a suit that has an objective that is illegal under federal law. Petitioner concedes that the Board may enjoin these latter types of suits. Brief for Petitioner 12-13, 20; Reply Brief for Petitioner 8. Nor could it be successfully argued otherwise, for we have upheld Board orders enjoining unions from prosecuting court suits for enforcement of fines that could [461 U.S. 731, 738] not lawfully be imposed under the Act, see Granite State Joint Board, Textile Workers Union, 187 N. L. R. B. 636, 637 (1970), enf. denied, 446 F.2d 369 (CA1 1971), rev'd, 409 U.S. 213 (1972); Booster Lodge No. 405, Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 185 N. L. R. B. 380, 383 (1970), enf'd in relevant part, 148 U.S. App. D.C. 119, 459 F.2d 1143 (1972), aff'd, 412 U.S. 84 (1973), and this Court has concluded that, at the Board's request, a District Court may enjoin enforcement of a state-court injunction "where [the Board's] federal power pre-empts the field." NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138, 144 (1971). Nash-Finch also requires rejection of petitioner's assertion that the Board is precluded from enjoining a state-court suit by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 2283, which, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits a court of the United States from enjoining proceedings in a state court. In Nash-Finch, the Court held that 2283 was inapplicable in instances where the Board files an action to restrain unfair labor practices, because the purpose of 2283 "was to avoid unseemly conflict between the state and the federal courts where the litigants were private persons, not to hamstring the Federal Government and its agencies in the use of federal courts to protect federal rights." 404 U.S., at 146 .
[ Footnote 6 ] Compare, e. g., S. E. Nichols Marcy Corp., 229 N. L. R. B. 75 (1977); Peddie Buildings, 203 N. L. R. B. 265 (1973); and United Aircraft Corp. (Pratt & Whitney Division), 192 N. L. R. B. 382 (1971), modified, 534 F.2d 422 (CA2 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 825 (1976); with, e. g., United Stanford Employees, Local 680, 232 N. L. R. B. 326 (1977); International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, 224 N. L. R. B. 1626 (1976), enf'd, 188 U.S. App. D.C. 15, 575 F.2d 896 (1978); and Television Wisconsin, Inc., 224 N. L. R. B. 722 (1976).
[ Footnote 7 ] See Sheet Metal Workers' Union Local 355, 254 N. L. R. B. 773, 778-780 (1981); United Credit Bureau of America, Inc., 242 N. L. R. B. 921, 925-926 (1979), enf'd, 643 F.2d 1017 (CA4), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 994 (1981); George A. Angle, 242 N. L. R. B. 744 (1979), enf'd, 683 F.2d 1296 (CA10 1982).
[ Footnote 8 ] See Brief for Respondent 13, 18-21. At oral argument, despite close questioning by the Court, the Board's counsel declined to rule out the possibility that prosecution of a totally meritorious suit might be deemed by the Board to be an unfair labor practice, if filed for a retaliatory purpose. Tr. of Oral Arg. 29-35, 39-41, 46-47.
[ Footnote 9 ] See e. g., NLRB v. Scrivener, 405 U.S. 117, 121 -125 (1972); NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 617 -619 (1969); NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 408 -410 (1964); Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 797 -798 (1945); Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177, 182 -187 (1941).
[ Footnote 10 ] Balmer, Sham Litigation and the Antitrust Laws, 29 Buffalo L. Rev. 39, 60 (1980). Accord, Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., 674 F.2d 1252, 1265-1266 (CA9 1982); Fischel, Antitrust Liability for Attempts to Influence Government Action: The Basis and Limits of the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, 45 U. Chi. L. Rev. 80, 101 (1977).
[ Footnote 11 ] In civil practice, the "genuine issue" test is used for adjudging motions for summary judgment. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56. Substantively, it is very close to the "reasonable jury" rule applied on motions for directed verdict. See Brady v. Southern R. Co., 320 U.S. 476, 479 -480 (1943) (directed verdict should be granted when the evidence is such "that without weighing the credibility of the witnesses there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict"). In the civil context, most courts treat the two standards identically, although some have found slight differences. See generally C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure 2532, 2713.1 (1983); J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore's Federal Practice §§ 50.034., 56.042. (1982). The primary difference between the two motions is procedural; summary judgment motions are usually made before trial and decided on documentary evidence, while directed verdict motions are made at trial and decided on the evidence that has been admitted. Ibid. In making reasonable-basis determinations, the Board may draw guidance from the summary judgment and directed verdict jurisprudence, although it is not bound by either. While genuine disputes about material historical facts should be left for the state court, plainly unsupportable inferences from the undisputed facts and patently erroneous submissions with respect to mixed questions of fact and law may be rejected. Although we leave the particular procedures for making reasonable-basis determinations entirely to the Board's discretion, we see no reason why the Board should want to hear all the employer's evidence in support of his state suit, or any more than necessary, if it can be determined at an early stage that the case involves genuine issues of material fact or law. In appropriate cases, the Board might prefer to rely on documentary evidence alone, as is done in civil practice with summary judgment motions. On the other hand, the Board might prefer to conduct a hearing.
[ Footnote 12 ] Let us assume, for example, that picketing employees distribute a leaflet accusing manager Doe of making a sexual advance on employee Roe on a specific date. Claiming that the leaflet is maliciously false, Doe sues for libel in state court. The Board's General Counsel then files a complaint alleging that the state suit is retaliatory and lacks a reasonable basis. At a hearing before an ALJ, Roe testifies that the accusation in the leaflet is true. If Doe fails to testify or to come forward with any evidence that the leaflet is maliciously false, or at least with an acceptable explanation why he cannot present such evidence, cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(f) (summary judgment may be denied if opponent needs time to discover essential facts), we see no reason why the Board should not enjoin Doe's suit for lack of a reasonable basis. In this situation, the state plaintiff has failed to show that there are any genuine issues for the state court to decide, and the inference that the suit is groundless is too strong to ignore, in light of the strong federal policy against deterring the exercise of employees' collective rights. In contrast, suppose that Doe testifies and claims that he was elsewhere on the date of the alleged sexual incident. The question whether the libel suit has merit thus turns in substantial part on the truth or falsity of Doe's testimony. Under these circumstances, we doubt that Congress intended for the Board to resolve the credibility issue and perhaps to disbelieve Doe's story and enjoin the lawsuit for lack of a reasonable basis, thereby effectively depriving Doe of his right to have this factual dispute resolved by a state-court jury. The same would be true if the question turned on the proper factual inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts.
[ Footnote 13 ] The present case involves a libel claim, which, of course, is not governed entirely by state law, since federal law superimposes a malice requirement. Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53, 64 -65 (1966).
[ Footnote 14 ] The Board's power to take such action is not limited by the availability to injured employees of a state-court malicious prosecution or other action. Dual remedies are appropriate because a State has a substantial interest in deterring the filing of baseless litigation in its courts, and the Federal Government has an equally strong interest in enforcing the federal labor laws. The Federal Government need not rely on state remedies to ensure that its interests are served.
The Court holds today that the National Labor Relations Board may not enjoin the prosecution of a state-court lawsuit unless the suit lacks a "reasonable basis," ante, at 743, and, further, that to find that the suit lacks a reasonable basis on factual grounds the Board must find that there is no "genuine issue of material fact," ante, at 744-748. For me, those are no delphic pronouncements. They are standards that take their content from the basic structures of federal and state - and of administrative and judicial - authority over labor disputes, and they should not be read in an artificial way that ignores their provenance.
It is important to remember that our focus in this case is on the function of judicial review. On the one hand, the National Labor Relations Act constitutes the Board, and not this Court, the principal arbiter of federal labor policy.
"[is] not to interpret that statute as [we think] best but rather the narrower inquiry into whether the [NLRB]'s construction was `sufficiently reasonable' to be accepted by a reviewing court. Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60, 75 (1975); Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 U.S. 443, 450 (1978). To satisfy this standard it is not necessary for a court to find the agency's construction was the only reasonable one or even the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding." FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 39 (1981).
On the other hand, this Court's responsibility for interpretation of the labor laws comes particularly into play when the Board's exercise of its broad mandate to develop federal labor policy has constitutional resonances. I do not suggest that a constitutional issue surfaces directly in this case. But [461 U.S. 731, 752] we have often observed that Congress left much unsaid as to the effect of federal labor law on the delicate relationships between institutional policy and individual rights, and between State and Federal Governments, without intending to exercise the full measure of its constitutional power to regulate those relationships. See, e. g., Garner v. Teamsters, 346 U.S. 485, 488 (1953). In construing how far the Act goes in depriving workers and employers of rights they would otherwise have under state law, we have often sought guidance from basic constitutional norms, on the theory that in the absence of more specific evidence they supply the surest indication of what Congress intended.
It is in this spirit that the "reasonable basis" and "genuine material dispute" standards must be understood. They are phrases that encapsulate a complex judgment as to what limits a court may infer on the Board's broad authority to set federal labor policy and to vindicate that policy by enjoining prosecution of a state lawsuit. 2 More specific meaning can be derived from close attention to the particular constitutional considerations upon which they are based.
Somewhat different concerns affect the standards and procedures by which the Board makes its "reasonable basis" determination. While the Constitution protects a person's right to file and to prosecute a lawsuit in state court, it does not guarantee that state law, rather than federal law, will provide the ground for decision. In fact, with regard to labor disputes, federal pre-emption of state law is the rule, not the exception. That pre-emption may be accomplished by congressionally authorized administrative action as well as by legislation. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982). Even in areas where state law is not pre-empted, there may be a federal overlay - as with defamation actions like the one involved in this case, [461 U.S. 731, 754] which are limited by a federal requirement that malice be proved. See Linn, supra, at 61.
Nor does the Constitution guarantee that particular questions of fact will be decided by a state jury. To the extent that a litigant has an "interest in having the factual dispute resolved by a jury," ante, at 745, that interest is completely derivative from the State's interest in providing a particular cause of action with particular procedures. Yet that "State's right" may be pre-empted by federal law whenever Congress or its authorized agent determines that the federal interest in labor relations, in industries affecting commerce, requires different rules.
"[W]hen it set down a federal labor policy Congress plainly meant to do more than simply to alter the then-prevailing substantive law. It sought as well to restructure fundamentally the processes for effectuating that policy, deliberately placing the responsibility for applying and developing this comprehensive legal system in the hands of an expert administrative body rather than the federalized judicial system." Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 288 (1971).
See also San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 242 -243 (1959); Garner v. Teamsters, supra, at 490-491.
That is not to say that Congress has authorized the Board to disregard altogether state-created rights to jury determinations on factual issues and to state-court rulings on state law that has not been pre-empted. Linn and its progeny make clear that it has not. The NLRA requires some accommodation of state interests; the question is how much. The most reasonable inference to draw from the structure of state-federal relations in this area is that the Board may enjoin prosecution of a state lawsuit if, in addition to whatever other findings are required to decide that an unfair labor practice has been committed, it determines that controlling [461 U.S. 731, 755] federal law bars the plaintiff's right to relief, that clear state law makes the case frivolous, or that no reasonable jury could make the findings of fact in favor of the plaintiff that are necessary under applicable law. I can understand the phrase "genuine material disputes," ante, at 749, no other way. With regard to questions of fact, which are crucial in this case, see ante, at 746, Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), provides an analogy for the proper allocation of factfinding authority to those charged with protecting federal rights. A state lawsuit may be regarded as having no reasonable basis if no reasonable factfinder could give a verdict for the plaintiff. Even if a State has some interest in entertaining frivolous lawsuits or providing unreasonable juries, that interest need not prevent swift, effective vindication of federal labor policy.
The scope of our review of the procedures the Board uses to accomplish its mission is limited, and the constitutional constraints on them are attenuated. Unless the agency goes entirely beyond its statutory mandate, violates its own procedures, or fails to provide an affected party due process of law, we have no role in specifying what methods it may or may not use in finding facts or reaching conclusions of law and policy. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 548 -549 (1978). The Court acknowledges this and notes that "we leave the particular procedures for making reasonable-basis determinations entirely to the Board's discretion." Ante, at 745, n. 11. Specifically, the Board may take evidence, although it need not do so in every case, nor would it be wise to do so in every case. Ibid.
Thus, the Board retains broad power to deal with the ways in which resort to judicial process may be used as a "powerful instrument of coercion or retaliation," ante, at 740. There is no constitutionally privileged method of harassing or punishing those who exercise rights protected by 7 and 8 of the NLRA. The Board may not enjoin prosecution of an unpreempted [461 U.S. 731, 756] state lawsuit unless it finds that the suit has no reasonable basis, and it may not decide that a suit has no reasonable basis in fact if a reasonable jury could view the facts differently. But it may take other measures which have less direct impact on the plaintiff's First Amendment rights, and it may investigate the matter to the full extent it deems necessary to vindicate the federal interest in protecting participants in labor disputes from coercive state-court lawsuits.
[ Footnote 1 ] As was said of the Federal Election Commission in FEC v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 37 (1981), the NLRB is also "precisely the type of agency to which deference should presumptively be afforded." It is "vested . . . with `primary and substantial responsibility for administering and enforcing the Act,'" and it is provided with "`extensive rulemaking and adjudicative powers.'" Ibid. "It is authorized to `formulate general policy with respect to the administration of this Act.'" Ibid. See also NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 266 -267 (1975).
[ Footnote 2 ] Justice Frankfurter, writing for the Court, astutely observed that interpreting the National Labor Relations Act involves "a more complicated and perceptive process than is conveyed by the delusive phrase, `ascertaining the intent of the legislature.'" San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 239 -240 (1959).

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.