but that has no other connection with a State or a local government or the Federal Government. The relationship must be an active one in which the department, agency, or instrumentality is actually carrying out some governmental function. S.Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 24 (1978), reprinted, in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 5810. It is undisputed that PHH is a private corporation that originates, funds, and services mortgages for profit, and not a “governmental unit” as contemplated by the statutes. Therefore, section 525(a) does not apply to the ease at bar. Section 525(b) also does not apply primarily because debtors are not employees of PHH. Section 525(b) states: No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an indi x.1989) (<HOLDING>). Courts are also willing to read beyond the
holding that an alibi instruction would not have been appropriate where the government offered both direct participation and accessory theories explaining that a conviction may be based on aiding and abetting even if defendants offered persuasive alibis holding that statements offered to establish defendants state of mind in making an employment decision and  not offered for the truth of the matter asserted are not hearsay holding that the district court made sufficient factual findings and adequately determined the scope of defendants participation in a conspiracy under  1b13 even though the district court did not expressly determine the scope of the defendants participation holding employer phone company violated section 525b when debtor account specialist was not offered participation in the commission advancement program because of debtors bankruptcy when all other account specialists were offered participation holding that when the district court imposed drug testing in connection with a special condition of substance abuse program participation  it was  not required to specify the number of drug tests a defendant must undergo as a part of the treatment program