|
No. 119357
| J & J Construction Company, |
|
Daniel J. Bretz (313) 965-3700 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
David A. Hardesty |
| vs (Appeal
from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Wayne
-- Kenny, T.)
|
|
|
|
Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Local 1
|
|
Mary Ellen Gurewitz (313) 965-3464 |
|
and Mark King,
|
|
Marshall J. Widick |
|
Defendants-Appellees.
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Reply
Brief>>
Defendants-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan Amicus
Curiae Brief>>
Background: In 1995, the city of Wayne solicited bids for the
construction of the Wayne Aquatic Center; J&J Construction submitted
the lowest bid for the masonry contract. Mark King, acting as business
agent for Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Local 1, told the Wayne city
council that J&J Construction performed poor-quality work and did
not paid the prevailing wage. Ultimately, the council awarded the contract
to another bidder. J&J Construction sued King and the union in Wayne
County Circuit Court, alleging defamation and tortious interference
with a business relationship or expectancy. After a five-day bench trial,
Wayne County Circuit Judge Timothy M. Kenny concluded that J&J Construction
had failed to prove that King's statements concerning the company's
failure to pay prevailing wages were false. The judge found, however,
that King's statements concerning plaintiff's quality of work and ability
to do the job on time were false, and that King acted negligently in
making the false statements. He also found that King represented the
union at the meeting and that he made the statements in order to keep
J&J Construction from getting the job. Judge Kenny held both defendants
liable for defamation and tortious interference with business expectancy.
On appeal, the defendants argued that they should be immune from suit,
because the right to petition government should immunize any petitioner
from liability for government's resulting actions.
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded
the case to the trial judge. The panel found that King and the union
had qualified immunity from a defamation lawsuit because he made the
statements to a government body. The trial judge erred by applying a
negligence standard, the panel said; the defendants would be liable
only if King made his statements knowing that they were false or with
a reckless disregard for the truth. The Court of Appeals went on to
hold that the defendants were absolutely immune from suit on the plaintiff's
claim for tortious interference with business expectancy. The plaintiff
appeals, arguing in part that the First Amendment does not protect one
who defames a private figure.
|
