## Facts

- Ruzicka Electric and Sons, Inc., a nonunion commercial electrical contractor in Missouri, operated in the same area as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1.
- Local 1 conducted an “area standards” campaign asserting Ruzicka Electric paid substandard wages and benefits.
- Local 1 picketed at multiple job sites where Ruzicka Electric performed work, using area-standards signage.
- The picketing allegedly occurred at or near gates designated for neutral employers and subcontractors on some projects, not solely at locations reserved for Ruzicka Electric.
- Ruzicka Electric alleged the union’s conduct and related communications to general contractors/owners were intended to pressure neutral parties to stop doing business with Ruzicka Electric.
- Local 1 hired private investigators to surveil Thomas Ruzicka, including at and around his home.
- Ruzicka’s home was set back from public view, screened by trees, and posted with no-trespassing signs; testimony indicated visibility of home activity would require entry onto the property.
- Investigators allegedly entered onto or very near the property and videotaped Ruzicka and his family until late at night.
- Ruzicka Electric also claimed union agents made false statements to third parties questioning the quality and safety of Ruzicka Electric’s work.
- After plaintiffs presented their case, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to Local 1 on all claims, excluded evidence about an unpleaded job site, and admitted evidence of prior administrative proceedings involving Ruzicka Electric.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported submitting to the jury Ruzicka Electric’s LMRA § 303 claim that Local 1 engaged in unlawful secondary activity under 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(B).
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported submitting to the jury Thomas Ruzicka’s Missouri claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion based on the home surveillance.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported submitting to the jury Ruzicka Electric’s state-law defamation claims based on statements criticizing its work quality.
4. Whether the district court committed reversible error by excluding evidence of alleged secondary activity at a job site not pleaded and by admitting evidence of prior administrative proceedings.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the standard for reviewing judgment as a matter of law: evidence and reasonable inferences must be viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, without credibility determinations or weighing.
- The court reversed the judgment as a matter of law on the LMRA § 303 claims and remanded for a new trial, holding a reasonable jury could find Local 1’s conduct had a prohibited secondary objective.
- The court reversed the judgment as a matter of law on the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim and remanded for a new trial, holding a reasonable jury could find the home surveillance highly offensive and unreasonable.
- The court affirmed judgment as a matter of law on the defamation claims, finding the trial proof insufficient to support liability.
- The court affirmed the exclusion of evidence regarding an unpleaded job site and affirmed admission of evidence concerning prior administrative proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Judgment as a matter of law is improper if, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences for the nonmovant, a reasonable jury could return a verdict for that party.
- Under LMRA § 303, a damages remedy may exist when a union violates 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(B) by coercing or restraining with an object of forcing a neutral party to cease doing business with the primary employer.
- In evaluating alleged secondary activity, evidence such as picketing at neutral gates and conduct aimed at neutral employers may permit an inference of a secondary objective, making the issue one for the jury.
- Missouri intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion into a person’s solitude or private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; intrusive surveillance of a secluded home, including entry onto or near posted private property, can satisfy the jury-submission threshold.
- Defamation requires proof of actionable false factual assertion and other elements; generalized criticisms about work quality, without sufficient proof of falsity and required elements, may not support liability.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that the record could support jury findings that the union’s area-standards campaign crossed into unlawful secondary activity and that the home surveillance constituted an unreasonable intrusion, requiring new trials on those claims, while leaving intact the dismissal of defamation and the challenged evidentiary rulings.


Ruzicka Elec. & Sons, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Loc. 1, AFL-CIO, 427 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 2005)