Dave Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938
87 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1571, 37 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1233, 743 F.3d 1134 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Minnesota law, allegedly defamatory statements made during a workplace investigation are not protected by a qualified privilege if they are outside the scope of the investigation's purpose and are based on uninvestigated, anonymous complaints, as this fails the 'proper occasion' and 'reasonable or probable cause' requirements for the privilege to apply.
Facts:
- Dave Thomas was a team leader for United States Steel (USS) and a member of the United Steelworkers union (USW).
- On April 4, 2009, Thomas had a verbal altercation with a crew member, Roy Varani, during which Thomas insulted him.
- Varani reported the incident as harassment, and management called a fact-finding meeting on April 6, 2009, for the sole purpose of investigating this specific event.
- During the meeting, USW representative Jon Malek stated he had received "20 complaints on Dave Thomas" and that Thomas had been "verbally abusive to others for the past five years."
- Malek also made several derogatory remarks, calling Thomas "an absolute prick."
- In a subsequent deposition, Malek admitted he had not investigated any of the complaints because they were anonymous, could only recall seven complaints, and acknowledged most of them concerned overtime assignments rather than verbal abuse or threats.
- Two days after the meeting, USS management removed Thomas from his team leader position.
Procedural Posture:
- Dave Thomas filed a lawsuit against United Steelworkers Local 1938, USW, and Jon Malek in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
- Thomas's second amended complaint alleged federal claims under labor statutes and a state-law defamation claim.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- In his opposition brief, Thomas stated he was abandoning all claims except for defamation.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Malek's statements were protected by a conditional privilege and that Thomas had failed to show actual malice.
- Thomas (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his defamation claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Minnesota law, are a union representative's statements about an employee's alleged past misconduct, made during a fact-finding meeting focused on a single, separate incident, protected by a qualified privilege when the representative has not investigated the underlying complaints on which the statements are based?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepherd, Circuit Judge.
No. A union representative's statements about an employee's alleged past misconduct are not protected by a qualified privilege when made during a meeting about a separate incident and based on uninvestigated complaints. To be privileged, a statement must be made upon a proper occasion and based upon reasonable or probable cause. Here, the meeting's narrow purpose of investigating a single incident was not the 'proper occasion' for Malek to introduce broad, historical allegations about Thomas's character. Furthermore, Malek lacked 'reasonable or probable cause' because he failed to investigate the anonymous complaints he cited; relying on unverified hearsay from unidentified sources is not the action of a reasonably prudent person. Because Malek's statements of fact—such as receiving '20 complaints'—were capable of being proven false and Thomas presented evidence creating a genuine dispute as to their falsity, the statements are actionable. The district court's grant of summary judgment was therefore improper.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limitations of the qualified privilege for defamatory statements made in the context of workplace investigations under Minnesota law. It establishes that the privilege is not a blanket protection but is contingent on the specific circumstances, including the purpose of the meeting (the 'proper occasion') and the factual basis for the statements ('reasonable cause'). The ruling serves as a caution to employers and union representatives that they cannot rely on unverified, anonymous hearsay to make potentially defamatory statements about employees, even during an otherwise legitimate investigation. The case reinforces that the privilege's protections are tied to reasonableness and relevance, preventing its use as a shield for spreading unsubstantiated accusations.
Unlock the full brief for Dave Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938