Labor and the Citizen Participation in Act (H.R. 4364)
Silence never won rights. They are not handed down from above; they are forced by pressures from below.
– Roger Baldwin
A critical component of workers’ rights is being able to speak out about, and draw attention to, anti-labor practices. In recent years, however, anti-labor forces have used such speech to drag labor and their unions through lengthy and costly litigation on the basis of unsound claims arising from union speech and conduct. Anti-labor forces have gone so far as to bring suits against labor under RICO – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, designed to combat organized crime – when labor organizations approached local governments seeking censure of poor working conditions.
Such Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation – SLAPPs – are brought against those who urge their government to action or speak out on an issue of public interest. SLAPPs intimidate and harass, and divert resources and attention away from advancing workers’ rights.
Labor is no stranger to the use of the courts to hamper organizing and worker protection, so labor understands that SLAPPs are a pernicious threat – they turn the justice system into a weapon, and in doing so seriously chill free speech and the advancement of workers’ rights.
SLAPPs Against Labor
Bergen Regional Medical Center, L.P. v. HPAE, Civ. 05-2596 (D. N.J. 2005)
• In New Jersey in 2006, a hospital sued the local Health Professionals and Allied Employees and its president for, among other things, testifying before a State Assembly Health Committee and regulatory agencies about poor patient care at the hospital. The court dismissed the suit, finding that the hospital had failed to bring its claims before the National Labor Relations Board before bringing suit. See articles about Bergen Regional Medical Center, L.P. v. HPAE, Civ. 05-2596 (D. N.J. 2005).
• In 1996, medical services provider Beverly Enterprises sued a nurses union in Pennsylvania for malicious defamation in the publication of fliers and radio statements about safety issues and the ongoing labor dispute between the union and the medical services company. The NLRB, in advising that the suit constituted an enjoinable unfair labor practice, wrote that the employer “has failed to present the Board with evidence that shows his lawsuit raises genuine issues of material fact, i.e. prima facie evidence of each clause of action alleged.” See the NLRB Advice Memorandum, Beverly Enterprises-Pennsylvania, Case 6-CA-28130-(1-3).
Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Trump, et. al.,182 F.3d 183 (3rd Cir. 1999) (Findlaw)
• In 1997, the same health care organization sued the local president of the Service Employees International Union, accusing her of defaming an executive of the company in a one-on-one confrontation at a rally and at an informal town hall meeting called by five members of Congress. The suit was dismissed for failure to state a claim by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The judge ruled that statements made at the town hall meeting were protected by legislative immunity, and that the remarks made personally to the executive were made in anger and that no reasonable person would take them literally. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, but held that the statements made at the legislative proceeding did not constitute defamation, and so did not reach the question of legislative immunity.
Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. United Food Commercial Workers
• In 2007, Smithfield foods filed a federal lawsuit against the United Food and Commercial workers, claiming that the union orchestrated a public smear campaign to hurt Smithfield's business as a method of extorting the company and alleging $5 million in damages. Part of the “smear campaign” was the encouragement of local government entities to censure Smithfield’s practices. The suit was brought in Virginia, which has no anti-SLAPP law. The court allowed the suit to proceed, but it was settled in 2008. See article about the suit here and here.
Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Bronfenbrenner
• In 1998, Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of labor education research at Cornell University, was sued for defamation by nursing home company Beverly Enterprises, Inc. over testimony she gave at a congressional town hall meeting. The district court held that her statements were privileged communications made in the course of a legislative proceeding and dismissed the suit. Bronfenbrenner said, "I am deeply gratified that not only has the lawsuit against me been dismissed… and that [the] decision prevents Beverly from pursuing their effort to gain access to my confidential research data on union and employer behavior in organizing and first contract campaigns. This is a relief not only to me, but to the people I surveyed, and to all other researchers in other fields who have been watching my case very carefully. For, if Beverly were to succeed in gaining access to any of my data, researchers across the country would be hesitant to speak about their findings publicly, in articles, lectures, speeches and congressional hearings, for fear that they, too, might be forced to hand over their raw data to the very groups their research criticized."
Monterey Plaza Hotel v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Local 483, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1057 (1999)
• In California, the Monterey Plaza Hotel sued the Hotel Employees Local 483 after a member of the union made comments about firings conducted by the hotel. The union successfully invoked California’s anti-SLAPP statute to quickly dismiss the case.
The Citizen Participation Act would protect against SLAPPs in all states and at the federal level, by allowing a defendant who has been sued on the basis of protected speech to:
1. Invoke immunity for petitioning activity, which is speech and activity undertaken to secure a favorable government outcome;
2. Quickly dismiss suits arising out of petitioning activity or speech in connection with an issue of public interest. The law also limits discovery, saving resources and limiting the time in which attention is shifted away from the underlying matter;
3. Recover attorney’s fees and costs, so a labor organization need not bear the costs of a vindictive lawsuit brought to suppress its activities.
Please note: Some of the information and commentary contained in this listing are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information may be in dispute.