Everett v. Uaw Local 699
| Decision Date | 18 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:21-cv-12648 |
| Parties | Craig EVERETT, Plaintiff, v. UAW LOCAL 699, Tom Hurst, Rhonda Fritz, and Joshua Bauer, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Kevin L. Kula, Masud Labor Law Group, Saginaw, MI, Richard R. Vary, Brian P. Swanson, Masud, Patterson, Saginaw, MI, for Plaintiff.
Darcie R. Brault, McKnight, Canzano, Smith, Radtke & Brault, Royal Oak, MI, for Defendants.
This Order addresses the question of whether a union official can create federal jurisdiction by raising the affirmative defense of qualified privilege to a fellow union member's claim under Michigan law that the official defamed him on the Internet, Facebook, and news broadcasts. The answer, respectfully, is "No."
Notably, in reviewing a motion to remand, this Court must assume all the facts set forth by Plaintiff to be true and resolve all uncertainties as to state substantive law in favor of Plaintiff. Walker v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. , 443 F. App'x 946, 954 & n.7 (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (collecting cases); accord Colon v. Ashby , 314 F. Supp. 3d 116, 120 (D.D.C. 2018).
From 2015 to 2018, Rick Burzynski was the president of United Auto Workers Local 699. ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.10. Plaintiff Craig Everett served as financial secretary during Rick Burzynski's administration. Id. In 2017, Rick Burzynski hired Chulindra Cooks, "an African American female and the first Black secretary to be hired at Local 699." Id.
In 2018, Defendant Tom Hurst became the president of Local 699 and Defendant Rhonda Fritz became the financial secretary, replacing Rick Burzynski and Plaintiff. See id. at PageID.11. Immediately upon assuming their new roles, according to Plaintiff, Defendants Hurst and Fritz began subjecting Chulindra Cooks to egregious racial discrimination, repeatedly using "the ‘N’ word" and calling her a "f**king N***ger" on the phone, eventually compelling her to address "racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation." See id. Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges, Defendants Hurst and Fritz terminated Chulindra Cook's employment. Id.
On October 18, 2020, Rick Burzynski and Plaintiff raised "a membership motion to return Chulindra Cooks to her secretarial positions with back pay." Id. at PageID.12. The members of UAW Local 699 voted in favor, and the motion passed. Id. But Defendants Hurst and Fritz "refused to implement the approved motions to return Ms. Cooks to her secretarial position." Id.
In early May 2021, in retaliation for Rick Burzynski and Plaintiff's effort to get Chulindra Cooks rehired, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Hurst and Fritz created a "hit list" to "discredit, silence, embarrass, and/or harm" all who opposed their racially motivated termination of Chulindra Cooks. Id. at PageID.12, 15. Defendants Hurst and Fritz began spreading lies that Chulindra Cooks, Plaintiff, and their allies committed criminal conduct. Defendants escalated their false accusations from text messages, to Local 699's official newsletter, Firepower , to the Internet, to local news broadcasts in at least three cities, not to mention that Defendants and their agents printed the lies on flyers they handed to Plaintiff's coworkers during work hours. See id. at PageID.12–15. Defendants were purportedly worried that Plaintiff and Rick Burzynski "might run" in a special election to regain their positions as president and financial secretary so they could rehire Local 699's first Black secretary. Id. at PageID.15, 16 & n.2. Defendants Hurst and Fritz cancelled the election. Id.
Steve Dawes, the regional director of UAW Region 1D, which governs UAW Local 699, learned of Defendants’ public accusations of embezzlement of union funds. On May 21, 2021, "very disturbed" that Defendants publicly distributed the "allegations with no proof, no substance," Regional Director Dawes issued a statement to Local 699. Id. at PageID.17, 59–60. His statements revealed that the UAW ran three audits during Plaintiff's administration and one audit after Defendants’ public accusations, all which "show NO misappropriation or missing funds." Id. at PageID.59. He elaborated that "there are no facts to support [Defendants’] claims." Id.
On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Tenth Circuit Court of Saginaw County. According to Plaintiff, Defendants defamed him, Rick Burzynski, and Chulindra Cooks for defending "the first Black secretary to be hired at Local 699" from Defendants’ racial discrimination and termination. See generally Everett v. Bauer , No. 21-045404-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct. 10th Saginaw Cnty. Sept. 15, 2021); ECF No. 1-1. He seeks $25,000 in damages for "defamation per se , defamation by implication, conspiracy to defame, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress"—all under Michigan laws. See ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.9.
On November 11, 2021, Defendants removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1441, contending that Plaintiff's Michigan defamation claim is completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). ECF No. 1. Specifically, Defendants assert that resolving Plaintiff's defamation claim would require interpretation of the constitution of the United Auto Workers (the "UAW Constitution").1
An initial review of the pleadings reflected concerns about federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, removal appeared improper because (1) the Complaint did not contest whether Defendants’ communications were entitled to qualified privilege, as Defendants alleged; (2) the Complaint did not identify the union constitution, as Defendants alleged; (3) the Complaint did not raise a federal question; (4) the Complaint did not establish jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship; and (5) all Defendants in the Complaint did not consent to removal. Due to those deficiencies, Defendants were directed to show cause why this case should not be remanded. ECF No. 3. As directed, Defendants filed supplemental briefing. ECF No. 5. To avoid waiving the right to seek remand, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, ECF No. 8, which has been fully briefed, ECF Nos. 10; 11.
Having reviewed the parties’ papers, a hearing is not required, and this case will be remanded back to the Saginaw County Circuit Court as explained hereafter.
Plaintiff's Complaint only pleads claims under Michigan law. Defendants’ Notice of Removal is exclusively grounded on Plaintiff's defamation claim.
A prima facie case of defamation in Michigan has four elements:
(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of special harm caused by publication.
Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enter. , 487 Mich. 102, 793 N.W.2d 533, 540 (2010) (citing Mitan v. Campbell , 474 Mich. 21, 706 N.W.2d 420, 421–22 (2005) (per curiam)).
Under element two, union officials might be entitled to a "qualified privilege" as "limited public figures" in very narrow circumstances. Lins v. Evening News Ass'n , 129 Mich.App. 419, 342 N.W.2d 573, 580 (1983).
To establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Michigan defamation claim, Defendants state that Plaintiff alleged that Defendants are entitled to a qualified privilege under the UAW constitution. See ECF No. 1 at PageID.3. But Plaintiff's Complaint makes no reference to privilege. See generally ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.7–34.
Defendants also contend that plaintiffs who allege defamation must prove the defendant's qualified privilege. See ECF No. 1 at PageID.3. Yet it is well settled that qualified privilege is an affirmative defense that a defendant must raise in its answer. Bufalino v. Maxon Bros. , 368 Mich. 140, 117 N.W.2d 150, 154 (1962) (); Peisner v. Detroit Free Press, Inc. , 82 Mich.App. 153, 266 N.W.2d 693, 695 (1978) ; accord Joba Constr. Co. v. Burns & Roe Inc. , 121 Mich.App. 615, 329 N.W.2d 760, 772 (1982) (); see also Square Lake Hills Ass'n v. Garland , No. 350403, 2020 WL 6684466, at *5 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2020) (); Bedford v. Witte , 318 Mich.App. 60, 896 N.W.2d 69, 72 (2016) ("Privilege can be used as a defense in a defamation action." (citing Postill v. Booth Newspapers, Inc. , 118 Mich.App. 608, 325 N.W.2d 511 (1982) ); Hayes v. Booth Newspapers, Inc. , 97 Mich.App. 758, 295 N.W.2d 858, 860 (1980) ().
Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, for a state-law claim to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams , 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). In this way, a complaint that relies on only state-law claims lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and should therefore be remanded to the state court. Crawford v. TRW, Inc. , 815 F. Supp. 1028, 1032 (E.D. Mich. 1993).
Defendants can avoid the well-pleaded complaint rule in two limited circumstances. Roddy v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. , 395 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 2005). The first is when Congress expressly permits removal. Id. ; see, e.g. , 15 U.S.C. § 77p(c) (). That exception does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial