2012 Ohio 1507
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Randal Anzevino, a Teamsters Local 377 member, sued union officials and the Local for tortious interference, defamation (intentional and negligent), vicarious liability, and negligent supervision.
- The conduct at issue began in 2007 when union officials copied Anzevino’s personnel file and mailed it to his new employer, leading to his firing in September 2007.
- The case was removed to federal court, which held most claims not preempted by LMRA; one count was time-barred by statute of limitations.
- Remanded to state court in 2009 for remaining claims not requiring interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.
- In 2010-2011, the trial court granted summary judgment, holding NLRA preemption under Garmon for several claims, requiring NLRB exclusive jurisdiction.
- On appeal, the Seventh District addresses whether NLRA preemption applies to the intentional defamation, negligent defamation, and tortious interference claims, and which may proceed in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NLRA preempts the claims at issue under Garmon | Anzevino argues claims are not all NLRA preempted; Linn exception applies to intentional defamation. | DePasquale argues conduct falls under NLRA protections or duties (fair representation) and is preempted. | Intentional defamation not preempted; negligent defamation preempted. |
| Whether intentional defamation is preempted by NLRA | Linn exception supports maintaining intentional defamation in state court. | Garmon preempts if conduct concerns protected or prohibited NLRA activity. | Intentional defamation not preempted under Linn; may proceed in state court. |
| Whether negligent defamation is preempted by NLRA | Not argued to be knowingly false; seeks damages for negligent statements. | Garmon preempts negligent defamation as NLRA-related activity. | Negligent defamation preempted. |
| Whether tortious interference claims survive where based on intentional defamation | Tortious interference tied to intentional defamation may remain; Linn applies. | Other aspects of tortious interference are preempted under Garmon. | Tortious interference survives to the extent based on intentional defamation. |
| Whether the trial court correctly remanded the NLRA preemption issue to state court | Court should maintain jurisdiction in state court for non-preempted claims. | NLRA preempts and NLRB should adjudicate protected activities. | Reversed and remanded in part; state court may hear intentional defamation and related tortious interference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 475 U.S. 608 (1986) (Garmon preemption framework; NLRB has primary jurisdiction over protected activity)
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (Garmon doctrine; precludes state remedies where NLRA covers the conduct)
- Wisconsin Dept. of Indus. v. Gould Inc., 475 U.S. 282 (1986) (preemption limits; Court addresses breadth of NLRA preemption)
- Garner v. Teamsters, 346 U.S. 485 (1953) (warning against state remedies that interfere with federal labor policy)
- Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724 (1985) (structural considerations of federal policy; preemption scope)
- Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 (1966) ( intentional defamation not preempted under Linn; limits of Garmon exception)
- Amalgamated Ass’n of Street, Elec., Ry. & Motor Coach Emp. of Am. v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274 (1971) (focuses on conduct vs. cause of action for preemption)