This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ruzicka Electric (P), founded by Ruzicka (P), provides commercial electrical services. D is a labor union representing electricians in eastern Missouri. Lindenwood University (Lindenwood) hired P to perform electrical work. D sent letters to Lindenwood and P notifying them of D's area standards dispute with P, and that D intended to engage in area standards picketing at the Lindenwood job site to publicize D's belief that P pays its non-union employees 'substandard wages and fringe benefits.' D did not seek to remove P from the job or have work reassigned; it did not seek 'to cause anyone to cease doing business with anyone else'; it would not interfere with work conducted at the job site; and the picket would be legal and peaceful. From June to October, D picketed and distributed handbills at the Lindenwood job site. There was a neutral gate at the site, and D claimed that by P accepting deliveries through that gate rather than the reserve gate, D had violated the neutral gate, and D picketed the neutral gate on July 18 and 19. Picketing the neutral gate resulted in 'other trades deciding not to enter the project.' On July 18, Julie Mueller (Mueller), Lindenwood's Chief Operations Officer, faxed a letter to D advising D no electrical deliveries had been made to P through the neutral gate, informing D another electrical contractor besides P was conducting business on the premises, and 'urging D cease picketing neutral gate. The letter informed D that failure to cease picketing would result in Lindenwood taking 'all appropriate measures to stop your illegal activity.' After the general contractor for the project informed D that the deliveries made through the neutral gate were going to another electrical contractor, and not P, D verified the information and decided to remove the picket from the neutral gate. D acknowledged it could have mistakenly believed the neutral gate had been tainted, noted it did not know another electrical contractor was on-site, and stated it did not ask Lindenwood about the electrical deliveries through the neutral gate before it decided to set up a picket. Ps sued D section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 187, alleging D engaged in unlawful secondary activity, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(B). P brought state law defamation claims against D for statements made by its agents questioning the quality of P's work. Thomas Ruzicka (P) brought a state law invasion of privacy claim against D based on the conduct of private investigators hired by D to surveil Ruzicka (P). In April 1998, D hired a private investigator to investigate Ps. The private investigator, in turn, hired four additional investigators to conduct surveillance. The investigators surveilled P's private residence with the purpose 'to establish a daily routine . . . [and] to see what time P got home.' The written surveillance reports detailed when P left and returned to his residence, as well as times in the morning and at night when lights were turned on or off. The private investigator was unable to answer numerous questions, including exactly where he and his investigators were located when they surveilled P's residence, but claimed they never trespassed. The investigators made videotapes of the surveillance and mailed the tapes to D. P never produced the videotapes, saying the tapes were lost. P testified that the investigators could not have conducted their surveillance from public streets or the like. There is absolutely no way to see P's house [because of the] tree lines. P testified that a person would have to be on his property to see the things the surveillance notes depict. P was appalled, amazed, shocked, and angered when he discovered 'somebody had been lurking around on my property . . . taking videotapes of me and my family [and] had been on my property until 11:00 at night on a Saturday.' P brought state law defamation claims against D for statements made by its agents questioning the quality of P's work. Thomas Ruzicka (P) brought a state law invasion of privacy claim against D based on the conduct of private investigators hired by D to surveil Ruzicka (P). After Ps presented their claims to a jury, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to D on all claims. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.