How far can a company's enemies go in complaining about and publicizing its corporate practices? A state court of appeals recently considered that question in the case of a nonunion construction employer that found itself the target of a campaign by the local carpenters union.

What happened. J. Maki Construction Company is a nonunion construction contractor building single-family homes in Lake County. Because Maki was nonunion, the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (the union) made the company a target of an activity called an area standards campaign, the purpose of which was to make the general public aware that Maki wasn't paying the area standards for wages and benefits. As part of the campaign, union officials followed Maki's owner around the area, picketing and distributing handbills at locations he visited, such as the golf course and his barber. The handbills contained an anti-Maki limerick which, among other things, claimed that Maki homes were "crappy." As a result of the campaign, the company incurred $100,000 in attorney's fees. Maki sued the union for defamation. A jury found the union liable and awarded $2,353,000 in damages. The union appealed.

What the court said. On appeal, the union argued that the handbill at issue wasn't defamatory because it was nothing more than an opinion. The court said that there were several factors that determine whether a statement constitutes an opinion or factual assertion: (1) whether the statement has a precise and readily understood meaning; (2) whether the statement is verifiable; and (3) whether the statement's literary or social context signals that it has factual content.

On the first factor, the court decided that, when used to describe a home, the word "crappy" may mean multiple things to multiple people, including construction defects or decorating tastes. On the second factor, the court said the statement in the handbill cannot be verified, and that because the word meant different things to different people, one couldn't verify whether Maki's homes were actually "crappy." On the third factor, the court said that the literary and social context of the word "crappy" does not signal factual content. Rather, the word was used as rhetorical hyperbole and was intended to show the union's displeasure at Maki's failure to pay union wages.

"In conclusion," the court wrote, "we find that the handbill containing the limerick was not actionable, as it did not contain any factual assertions," and reversed the jury verdict. J. Maki Construction Company and John Maki v. Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters, Appellate Court of Illinois, 2nd District, Nos. 2-07-0173 & 2-07-0204 (2/1/08).

Point to remember: Union organizing can be a rough business, and in this case, a nonunion employer targeted by a union can expect blunt language from its opponent.