Under Section 8(a)(1), it is an unfair labor practice “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed” in Section 7, to wit: “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 157, 158(a)(1). An employer’s statement violates Section 8(a)(1) if, “considering the totality of the circumstances, the statement has a reasonable tendency to coerce or to interfere with those rights.” Tasty Baking Co. v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 114, 124 (D.C.Cir.2001); cf. TIC-The Indus. Co. Se. v. NLRB (“TIC"), 126 F.3d 334, 339 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). While “an employer is free to communicate to
holding that an isolated comment is not direct evidence of discrimination even if a plaintiff interpreted it as motivated by a discriminatory animus holding that threatening to discipline employees for not reporting union solicitation violated  8a1 holding that court would not imply a statutory cause of action for employers interference in employees assertion of claim for compensation holding that a single isolated comment by a supervisor indicating the employers preference for nonunion hiring does not constitute substantial evidence of restraint coercion or interference with employees exercising protected rights under section 8a1 holding that isolated criminal attacks do not constitute persecution