Dave Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938, 743 F.3d 1134

Thomas, a USS employee at the Minntac pit, was a USW Local 1938 member and team leader from 2003 to 2009.
In April 2009 Thomas had a dispute with a crew driver; Varani reported harassment and a fact-finding meeting was convened on April 6, 2009.
At the meeting, Malek asserted multiple negative past complaints about Thomas, including statements that he had “20 complaints” and was “an absolute prick.”
Two days after the meeting, Thomas was removed as team leader; he was reassigned in 2010 and then removed again after anonymous complaints.
Thomas filed internal union complaints and then a federal/state suit asserting defamation and related claims; the district court granted summary judgment on many claims.
The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment on Thomas’s defamation claim and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject matter jurisdiction	Thomas abandoned federal claims, destroying jurisdiction.	Jurisdiction persisted via amended complaints and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.	District court had jurisdiction and properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction.
Defamation elements and falsity	Malek’s statements were defamatory and factually false.	Some statements were non-actionable opinions; others were true or substantially true.	Genuine disputes of material fact exist as to falsity of certain statements.
Qualified privilege	Privilege did not apply because statements were outside proper investigation and lacked probable cause.	Statements during an investigation are privileged if proper occasion and grounds exist.	Privilege did not apply; Malek acted outside a proper occasion and lacked reasonable or probable grounds.
Remand after reversal on defamation	Court should uphold dismissal of defamation claim on privilege grounds.	Case should be resolved on merits with respect to falsity and privilege.	Reverse summary judgment on defamation and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (amended complaint determines jurisdiction under well-pleaded rule)
McKee v. Laurion, 825 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. 2013) (true statements not actionable; opinions may be protected)
Lund v. Chi. & Nw. Transp. Co., 467 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991) (distinguishes fact from opinion for defamation)
Wirig v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 461 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. 1990) (grounds required for privilege; reasonable cause standard)
Sherman v. Rinchem Co., 687 F.3d 996 (8th Cir. 2012) (employer-employee communications during investigation may be privileged)