those of Legal Defense Fund lawyers. The only material difference is that here employees must choose between the lawsuit and a conciliation offer while in Button there had been no conciliation and offer. The people attending the meetings held by the Legal Defense Fund lawyers in Button, however, did have to choose between initiating a lawsuit and not participating in a lawsuit. The type of choice the people would have to make here and in Button is not so different that the solicitation that could have occurred in this case was outside the scope of activity protected by Button. The characteristics of the solicitation that brought it within constitutional protection in Button are equally present in this case. See also Great Western Cities, Inc. v. Binstein, 476 F.Supp. 827 (N.D.I11.1979) (<HOLDING>). The continued vitality of Button was recently
holding that a district courts findings under rule 52a are to be liberally construed in support of the district courts judgment recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations holding rule similar to district courts order constitutionally inapplicable to nonprofit solicitation holding that the majority of courts to address this issue have decided that the 100mile rule is inapplicable to parties and party officers holding the carew rule to be inapplicable to claims of insurer bad faith