With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on this issue is instructive: for example, in Santa Fe Hotel, the Board identified “the main function of the Respondent’s hotel-casino [as] to lodge people and permit them to gamble.” Santa Fe Hotel, 331 N.L.R.B. 723, 723 (2000). Thus, the work activity — “security, maintenance, and gardening” — asserted by Respondent to occur at the facility entrance was merely incidental to its main function. See id. Other cases have followed the same line of analysis. In Saia Motor Freight, the Board designated a break room as a “mixed-use area” because it was an area “where employees may take breaks and eat” but also “where line haul and city drivers receive[d] papers from dispatchers and turn[ed] in documents at the end of a trip.” 333 N.L.R.B. 929 (2001); see also Transcon Lines, 599 F.2d at 721 (<HOLDING>); United Parcel Serv., 228 F.3d at 777

A: holding the boards mixeduse designation to be supported by substantial evidence because the drivers room was an area where employees could relax drink coffee or eat snacks and converse freely even though some work was occasionally conducted there
B: holding that the appeals boards eonclusion was supported by substantial evidence which left no reasonable doubt as to whether the claim was work connected
C: holding that a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole if it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the boards conclusion
D: holding that because pennsylvania law limited a state courts review of a zoning boards decision to the issue whether the boards determinations were supported by substantial evidence the rookerfeldman doctrine did not prevent the plaintiffs from filing a federal action claiming that the zoning board had engaged in disability discrimination following a state courts review of the boards determinations
A.