Brotherhood's Relief & Compensation Fund v. Ryan V. Rafferty

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 04/01/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090113 Brotherhood's R e l i e f & Compensation Fund v. Ryan V. R a f f e r t y Appeal from J e f f e r s o n PITTMAN, C i r c u i t Court, Bessemer D i v i s i o n (CV-06-573) Judge. An u n i n c o r p o r a t e d a s s o c i a t i o n , & Compensation the Jefferson Fund the Brotherhood's Relief ("the F u n d " ) , a p p e a l s f r o m a j u d g m e n t o f Circuit C o u r t , Bessemer D i v i s i o n , r a i l r o a d w o r k e r , Ryan V. R a f f e r t y awarding a ("the e m p l o y e e " ) , benefits 2090113 allegedly due him as a c t i o n taken against R a i l r o a d Company the Fund did employee's disciplinary the B u r l i n g t o n Northern Santa arbitrarily in the constituted a conclude determining willful or that that the intentional employer's r u l e s w i t h i n the scope Fund's i n t e r n a l c o n s t i t u t i o n b a r r i n g f o r s u c h v i o l a t i o n s , we remand t h e Fe reverse the of the trial cause w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s . r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e Fund m a i n t a i n s a s o c i e t y f o r and p r o t e c t i v e p u r p o s e s t h a t i s open, acceptance brotherhoods of an workers or a p p l i c a t i o n and who unions. c o n s t i t u t i o n that provides the adverse act of the transportation for an B e c a u s e we j u d g m e n t and beneficial upon by of employer"). award of b e n e f i t s The him conduct v i o l a t i o n o f one court's result ("the not a p r o v i s i o n of a benefit of are affiliated The Fund with dues, to railroad a t h a t moneys p a i d i n t o t h e Fund are and is of by i t s members, s p e c i f i e s t h a t a member may payment conditioned that governed document further make a c l a i m f o r b e n e f i t s , among o t h e r r e a s o n s , when t h a t member i s " h e l d o u t o f s e r v i c e , " t h a t is, of " r e l i e v e d b y [ t h e member's] e m p l o y e r f r o m t h e ... usual duties." However, t h e performance Fund's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s o s p e c i f i e s t h a t t h e t e r m " h e l d o u t o f s e r v i c e " does n o t 2 include 2090113 employer discipline "because of any willful or intentional v i o l a t i o n o r i n f r a c t i o n o f any o r d e r o r o r d e r s , r u l e o r regulation or regulations, member's] e m p l o y e r " expressed on duty exception of or implied, of [the (emphasis added). I n 2005, t h e e m p l o y e r had while or rules, on railroad the i n force a rule providing that employer's property, police officers, with " e m p l o y e e s must have f i r e a r m s o r o t h e r d e a d l y weapons." not employer a l s o had i n f o r c e a r u l e p r o h i b i t i n g d i s h o n e s t and i m m o r a l c o n d u c t . On October 18, 2005, holding a hearing an investigation the circumstances f o u n d i n s i d e a c a s e on one the of the employer's e m p l o y e e f r o m i t s employment on t h e s t a t e d b a s i s t h a t he had employer's 2005, under which a the the O c t o b e r 7, and dismissed violated on conducting concerning l o a d e d p i s t o l was locomotives after The the employer firearm-possession and dishonesty rules. The employee then p r e s e n t e d a c l a i m t o t h e Fund f o r " h e l d out o f s e r v i c e " b e n e f i t s , a v e r r i n g i n h i s c l a i m t h a t he by accident, locomotive. left An a pistol official in of the his bag Fund, on the after had, employer's studying the t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g , r e s p o n d e d by l e t t e r t o 3 2090113 the employee's c l a i m could n o t be and i n f o r m e d t h e e m p l o y e e t h a t approved because of p r o v i s i o n s constitution barring benefit awards the of the based claim Fund's upon acts c o n s t i t u t i n g m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f f a c t s t o an e m p l o y e r o r a c t s amounting t o w i l l f u l or i n t e n t i o n a l r u l e v i o l a t i o n s . to pertinent employee board of review provisions appealed from directors. reviewing the a v a i l a b l e adverse January a 2006, decision [c]ourt" decision and of an Fund's board, after the constitution. s p e c i f i e s that i t s board allege to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e employee's was n o t v a l i d u n d e r t h e Fund's The Fund's c o n s t i t u t i o n by decision i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e employee's claim, upheld the o f f i c i a l ' s claim o f t h e Fund's c o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e that In Pursuant of abuse directors of a party may discretion aggrieved "appeal to i n making a i f c e r t a i n p r o c e d u r a l d e a d l i n e s a r e met; however, t h e Fund's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s o s p e c i f i e s t h a t "no a p p e a l s h a l l l i e " f r o m a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e b o a r d t h a t an o f f e n s e i s w i l l f u l or i n t e n t i o n a l . I t i s undisputed that t h e employee initiated an a c t i o n i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r a l deadlines action, specified the i n the employee, Fund's alleging 4 constitution. breach-of-contract In that claims, 2090113 s o u g h t an award o f b e n e f i t s n o t o n l y from t h e Fund, b u t a l s o from a s e p a r a t e e n t i t y ( L o c o m o t i v e E n g i n e e r s and C o n d u c t o r s M u t u a l P r o t e c t i v e A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . ("LEMPA")) as a r e s u l t o f his dismissal. In the judgment; trial however, court employee's trial, trial court, that the Fund motion a n d was n o t r u l e d was upon. f a v o r ; however, orally the t r i a l u n t i m e l y by t h e on t h e of the 1 A bench f o r judgments declined i n their to rule on motions and i n s t e a d d i r e c t e d " a l l p a r t i e s t o submit orders." The t r i a l employee and against both proposed to defendants, ruling that i n t h e amount o f $20,160. a p p e a l e d from t h a t judgment, amounts those c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t owed b e n e f i t s judgment summary trial moved court deemed for a At the conclusion c l a i m s was t h e n h e l d . both defendants moved an 2 The Fund a s s e r t i n g that the t r i a l erroneous interference each court's with i t s We n o t e t h a t u n d e r R u l e 5 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t may be made b y a d e f e n d a n t " a t any t i m e " ; a l t h o u g h R u l e 1 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., a u t h o r i z e s a t r i a l court t o l i m i t the time i n a p a r t i c u l a r case f o r the f i l i n g o f m o t i o n s , no s u c h s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r a p p e a r s i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . 1 LEMPA s a t i s f i e d t h e j u d g m e n t as t o i t s l i a b i l i t y a n d h a s not appealed. 2 5 2090113 i n t e r n a l operations trial court's and an i m p e r m i s s i b l e interpretation intentional violation" that of the s u b s t i t u t i o n of the phrase or 3 phrase. The claim asserted f o r t h e Fund's own "willful by t h e e m p l o y e e was Fund h a d b r e a c h e d a c o n t r a c t by f a i l i n g he claimed Alabama l a w , were 4 due i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of under t h e Fund's simply that t o pay b e n e f i t s constitution. the that Under the c o n s t i t u t i o n of a v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n such as t h e Fund i s i n d e e d deemed t o be i n t h e n a t u r e o f a b i n d i n g contract between the association and i t s members. E.g., Mackey v. Moss, 278 A l a . 55, 59, 175 So. 2d 749, 752 (1965). However, w h a t e v e r f r e e h a n d t h e j u d i c i a r y may o t h e r w i s e have T h e Fund has a b a n d o n e d on a p p e a l any r e l i a n c e upon t h e p r o v i s i o n i n i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n b a r r i n g b e n e f i t s when a c l a i m i s b a s e d , i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , upon m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f f a c t s t o an e m p l o y e r ; t h u s , we w i l l n o t a d d r e s s t h a t p r o v i s i o n . 3 A l t h o u g h t h e Fund's c o n s t i t u t i o n e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s t h a t any a l l e g e d a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e Fund's b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s i s t o be " a d j u d g e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t u t e s and d e c i s i o n o f t h e Commonwealth o f P e n n s y l v a n i a " and t h a t t h e m u t u a l r i g h t s o f t h e Fund and i t s members a r e t o be d e t e r m i n e d u n d e r P e n n s y l v a n i a l a w , n e i t h e r t h e Fund n o r t h e e m p l o y e e a s s e r t e d , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 44.1, A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e p o t e n t i a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a law t o t h e i r d i s p u t e ; t h u s , l i k e t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d , we w i l l a p p l y A l a b a m a l a w . B r a d ' s I n d u s . , I n c . v. C o a s t Bank, 429 So. 2d 1001, 1003 ( A l a . 1983). 4 6 2090113 in interpreting a contract courts are enjoined internal operations "substitute b e t w e e n two n a t u r a l p e r s o n s , t h e by p r e c e d e n t n o t t o " i n t e r f e r e w i t h of a voluntary their own organization" construction bylaws, c o n s t i t u t i o n s , or other of formal rules, member o f a v o l u n t a r y claimed errors regulations, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are not c o n t r a r y t o the law or p u b l i c p o l i c y . " ( A l a . 1981). and n o t t o agreements f o r t h a t of t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n where t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s 403 So. 2d 214, 217 W i l s o n v. S p r u e l l , Thus, a c i v i l a c t i o n by a a s s o c i a t i o n m a k i n g a l l e g a t i o n s as t o or omissions occurring i n the association's b u s i n e s s c o n d u c t , t h e r e f o r e , must f a l l upon d e a f e a r s in cases such jurisdiction." So. 2d voluntary 414, as the fraud, arbitrary ruling or "except lack of M c N u l t y v. H i g g i n b o t h a m , 252 A l a . 218, 221, 40 416 (1949). McNulty further notes a s s o c i a t i o n s u c h as t h e Fund h a s p l e n a r y i n t e r p r e t and a d m i n i s t e r that a power t o i t s own r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s , that t h e d e c i s i o n o f s u c h an a s s o c i a t i o n i s t o be p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t , and that courts may not interpret r e g u l a t i o n s i n a manner r e s e r v e d association. Id. 7 and apply rules and t o t h e g o v e r n i n g body o f t h e 2090113 A n o t a b l e e x a m p l e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s we have d i s c u s s e d i s B r o t h e r h o o d o f R.R. T r a i n m e n v . B a r n h i l l , 214 A l a . 565, 108 So. 456 ( 1 9 2 6 ) , upon w h i c h t h e Fund in the t r i a l brief. c o u r t and a g a i n c i t e d i n i t s p r i n c i p a l In B a r n h i l l , railroad workers relied appellate a member o f a v o l u n t a r y b r o t h e r h o o d o f prevailed at t r i a l on a claim that the brotherhood had breached a c o n t r a c t t o remit " s t r i k e b e n e f i t s " a l l e g e d l y payable from a p r o t e c t i v e f u n d t o t h e member, who h a d c o n t i n u e d t o r e m a i n on s t r i k e a f t e r t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s of t h e b r o t h e r h o o d had v o t e d t o t e r m i n a t e a s t r i k e . The r u l e s of t h e b r o t h e r h o o d p r o v i d e d t h a t i t s b o a r d o f t r u s t e e s had t h e authority, in brotherhood's to event of disagreement between p r e s i d e n t and i t s g e n e r a l g r i e v a n c e d e c i d e whether event The the t h e board's to terminate a s t r i k e , d e c i s i o n would the committee, and t h a t i n that be b o t h b i n d i n g a n d f i n a l . j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e member was r e v e r s e d on t h e b a s i s that i t contravened the rules of the brotherhood: "[T]he power through the provisions of the b r o t h e r h o o d l a w t o make t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e i r own o f f i c i a l s and t r i b u n a l s c o n c l u s i v e i n r e s p e c t t o t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y p r o t e c t i v e fund and a l l i t s s t r i k e b e n e f i t s u n d e r i t s l a w ... [ i s ] c o n c l u s i v e on t h e members, no fraud being charged. These institutions, o p e r a t i n g f o r t h e i r members o r a reasonable c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t h e r e o f f o r reasons of 8 2090113 p o l i c y and t h a t o f i t s w e l f a r e , may a d o p t l a w s f o r t h e i r g o v e r n m e n t , t o be a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h e m s e l v e s t o i t s members, and r e q u i r e f o r t h e g e n e r a l b e n e f i t t h e s u r r e n d e r o f no r i g h t t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l may n o t waive. And [ a member] i s b o u n d by t h a t a u t h o r i t y and law o n l y so l o n g as [ t h e member] c h o o s e s t o recognize that authority. Any other r u l e would impair the u s e f u l n e s s of such i n s t i t u t i o n s , and render the d u l y c o n s t i t u t e d t r i b u n a l s of such order p r a c t i c a l l y useless." 214 A l a . a t 572, The owed 108 So. trial duty a court, to a t 462 (citations omitted). i n i t s judgment, o p i n e d t h a t the employee not to be the Fund "arbitrary c a p r i c i o u s " i n d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c l a i m was and p r o c e e d e d t o c o n c l u d e , corporate are not payable," that that actually considered. acted valid of the Fund's r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t "weapons a t work because, supports b a s e d upon t e s t i m o n y or the court trial the Fund's stated, We the decision employee's cannot conclude was arbitrary i n t e n t was that court's ultimate conclusion the not record t h a t the Fund arbitrarily. At claim, the time i t had investigative the before hearing Fund at which a denied the employee's t r a n s c r i p t of i t the the employer's employee's connection concerning w i t h the presence of the hearing, initially the f i r e a r m on union the locomotive. representative 9 appeared At that on the 2090113 e m p l o y e e ' s b e h a l f , t h e e m p l o y e r ' s B i r m i n g h a m t e r m i n a l manager (who was also t h e employee's supervisor) concerning t h e employee's i n t e n t i o n w i t h a on t h e e m p l o y e r ' s p r o p e r t y ; firearm testified, i n two r e s p o n s e s d u r i n g was respect questioned to bringing the terminal that l i n e manager of questioning, t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e h a d o r i g i n a l l y m e n t i o n e d t h a t he h a d b r o u g h t the pistol " t o show surmised that the p i s t o l carry the p i s t o l . special somebody" agent had f a l l e n the t h e employee had out o f t h e bag used t o Although another witness with solutions" unit, and t h a t employer's at the hearing, a "resource protection t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e employee had s t a t e d he h a d " f o r g o t t e n " t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e p i s t o l that i n h i s b a g when he r e p o r t e d t o work, t h a t t r a n s c r i p t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e a g e n t spoke w i t h t h e employee o n l y after t h e employee had spoken w i t h t h e t e r m i n a l manager. When questioned manager's t e s t i m o n y brought the p i s t o l at the hearing about the terminal t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e h a d s t a t e d t h a t he h a d t o work to display t o coworkers, the e m p l o y e e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d made t h a t s t a t e m e n t " i n p a n i c " after having been awakened from two h o u r s of sleep by a c o w o r k e r who h a d t e l e p h o n e d t o r e p o r t t h a t t h e p i s t o l h a d b e e n 10 2090113 found. Further, a l t h o u g h t h e e m p l o y e e m a i n t a i n e d t h a t he h a d gone " t a r g e t s h o o t i n g " as to explain employee friend with a f r i e n d before the presence d i d not present to corroborate of the p i s t o l any t e s t i m o n y i n h i s bag, the from t h e employee's account. reference i n the employer's regarding misrepresentations dismissal the pertinent Finally, the letter indicates deemed one o r more o f t h e s t a t e m e n t s regarding h i s work s h i f t so to the rule that t h e employer made b y t h e e m p l o y e e h i s i n t e n t i o n s t o have been u n t r u t h f u l . P u r s u a n t t o t h e Fund's c o n s t i t u t i o n , t h e Fund's r e v i e w o f an e m p l o y e e ' s c l a i m f o r b e n e f i t s b a s e d upon a l l e g e d l y h a v i n g been " h e l d o u t o f s e r v i c e " i n c l u d e s n o t o n l y a n y t r a n s c r i p t o f an e m p l o y e r ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , b u t a l s o t h e c l a i m n o t i c e and itself " a l l m a t t e r s s u b m i t t e d b y t h e member f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . " However, t h e e m p l o y e e s u b m i t t e d no s u c h a d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l t o the Fund. Thus, t h e r e c o r d on w h i c h t h e F u n d ' s d e c i s i o n t o deny b e n e f i t s was made c o n t a i n e d evidence i n d i c a t i n g that the employee, c o n t r a r y t o h i s c l a i m s o f i n a d v e r t e n c e , planned order to bring a firearm onto to display i t . 11 had a c t u a l l y t h e employer's property i n 2090113 E v e n i f i t i s t r u e , as t h e e m p l o y e e s u g g e s t s and as t h e trial court determined in i t s judgment, t e s t i m o n y o f t h e Fund's p r e s i d e n t that deposition p r o v e s t h a t t h e F u n d has a p a t t e r n and p r a c t i c e o f n o t g r a n t i n g any " h e l d o u t o f s e r v i c e " claims involving possession of firearms alone would not support a conclusion t o deny t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c l a i m i n this was more r e c e n t l y n o t e d i n t h e c o n t e x t "'[w]here there arbitrary and even 26 So. 3d 1127, 1140 v. D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h , that case i s a r b i t r a r y . of attorney i s room f o r two o p i n i o n s , capricious 5 fact t h a t t h e Fund's d e c i s i o n though e r r o n e o u s c o n c l u s i o n has been r e a c h e d . ' " Hallett, a t work, As discipline, [ a n ] a c t i o n i s not one may believe an A l a b a m a S t a t e B a r v. ( A l a . 2009) ( q u o t i n g Heinmiller 127 Wash. 2d 595, 609, 903 P.2d 433, The t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e Fund had s i m p l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t b e n e f i t s were n o t p a y a b l e f o r t h e s o l e r e a s o n t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t h a d i n v o l v e d a weapon. The r e c o r d as a w h o l e , h o w e v e r , does n o t s u p p o r t t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n ; t h e record instead r e f l e c t s that, i n denying b e n e f i t s to the e m p l o y e e , t h e F u n d r e l i e d on i t s b e l i e f t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e ' s a c t i o n i n c a r r y i n g t h e weapon o n t o work p r e m i s e s was w i l l f u l . T h a t t h e F u n d may a l s o h a v e h a d o t h e r r e a s o n s f o r d e n y i n g b e n e f i t s t o t h e e m p l o y e e (some o f w h i c h , t h e F u n d b e l i e v e d , were s u f f i c i e n t i n and o f t h e m s e l v e s t o j u s t i f y i t s d e c i s i o n ) does n o t p e r m i t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e F u n d d i d n o t a l s o deem i t s d e c i s i o n t o deny t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c l a i m t o be p r o p e r i n l i g h t o f t h e s u b m i s s i o n s t o t h e F u n d t e n d i n g t o show t h a t t h e employee's a c t i o n had been w i l l f u l . 5 12 2090113 440 (1995)). The f a c t s of the e m p l o y e e ' s c l a i m as presented t o t h e b o a r d w o u l d , a t l e a s t , l e a v e enough room f o r r e a s o n a b l e people to form c o n f l i c t i n g o p i n i o n s intent. Further, as we have regarding noted, the only employee's the board of d i r e c t o r s ' o p i n i o n r e g a r d i n g the employee's i n t e n t i s m a t e r i a l because the Fund's c o n s t i t u t i o n renders discretionary decision regarding basis o f an w h e t h e r an employment a c t i o n g i v i n g r i s e service" benefits claim i s w i l l f u l erred in s u b s t i t u t i n g i t s judgment respect the in benefits claim offense board's made to a "held for to the judgment i n f a v o r of the that of trial the p a y a b i l i t y of contravention e m p l o y e e on of 6 of Alabama precedents mandating deference to the board's d e c i s i o n . court's the out conclude t h a t the Fund's b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s w i t h employee's the or i n t e n t i o n a l . F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n , we court final his That breach-of- Our c o n c l u s i o n o b v i a t e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of other reasons c i t e d by t h e Fund's c o r p o r a t e manager i n h i s deposition t e s t i m o n y as a r g u a b l y f a l l i n g w i t h i n t h e two p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Fund's c o n s t i t u t i o n c i t e d by t h e Fund as a u t h o r i t y f o r d e n i a l of the employee's c l a i m . B u t see C e n t r a l o f G e o r g i a R.R. v. R u s h , 286 A l a . 333, 339, 239 So. 2d 763, 768 (1970) (Harwood, J., dissenting) ("The employment o f t h e p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t r e q u i r e h i s exposure to the r i s k of c a r r y i n g a p i s t o l i n h i s s h i r t p o c k e t , and t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s p e r s o n a l a c t i n c a r r y i n g t h e p i s t o l was e x t e r n a l t o t h e c o u r s e o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t . " ) . 6 13 2090113 contract claim erroneous. against We r e v e r s e t h e Fund i s , therefore, necessarily t h e j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h e c a u s e f o r the Jefferson Circuit Court t o enter the a judgment i n f a v o r o f Fund on t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c l a i m . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 14 writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.