WARNING! Language in this book is racist 

Fighting Times focuses extensively on the topic of racism, and confronting real world bigots and white supremacists. Readers will find certain language to be ugly, demeaning, and utterly abhorrent. 

I thought long and hard about whether to include racial epithets. Racism, I believe, must be exposed in all its ugliness, and aggressively opposed. Rather than sanitize the language, I chose to quote individuals in the context of their most distasteful and hateful utterances, which at the time, and today, make me cringe in disgust and despair.

I first experienced racism in its most despicable form as a 10-year-old growing up in apartheid-like Washington, D.C. The amusement park my buddies and I visited – Glen Echo – in nearby Maryland was forced to desegregate by courageous young black students. White bigots, rather than let go of vestiges of Jim-Crow, poured bleach in the swimming pool. 

Later in my childhood I remember seeing a black chain gang working under the blazing summer sun on a Virginia road under the glare of white guards with shotguns cradled in their arms. That indelible scene of American racism in action turned me into an anti-racist at a young age. 

I joined the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee in 1965 after three young civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi by the Ku Klux Klan. Around the same time, I joined my first picket line in front of the South African Embassy in D.C. to protest apartheid. From then until now, fighting white supremacy has been at the heart of my political organizing. 

As one cannot live life in America without observing/experiencing racism, I decided not to disinfect the language of the book, as I want readers to see the world as I did in my many years of organizing. I hope you will understand. 

Jon Melrod

Chapter 26

SAVE FIGHTING TIMES

PROTECT FREE SPEECH

On September 15, 1980, the headline in the Racine Journal Times blared, “3 at AMC sued for $4.2 million.” A more ominous sounding Chicago Sun Times read, “$4.2 million libel suit a rude awakening to trio.” The Sun Times, which included profile shots of Tod and me in dark sunglasses, as if we were incognito labor goons, quoted, “‘This is all a terrible nightmare’, [Melrod] said, fingering his goatee.”

From its inauspicious launch in 1975 by a few young workers collaborating with Tod and John, Fighting Times unceasingly lambasted American Motors and its most loathsome, unrestrained supervisors. Fighting Times initially received a mixed reception. Younger workers, many who experienced, or were influenced by, the protest culture of the Vietnam era, the break-out Woodstock rock revolution, and the black liberation movement, were receptive and identified with the rebellious, take-no-shit vibe of the newsletter. Others, often older and white, were originally wary, suspicious that the Fighting Times was not sanctioned by the Local and was possibly “communisitic.”    

As time passed, and more people got to know us, Fighting Times found a receptive, welcoming audience. The newsletter evolved into an institution rooted in the fabric of life at the Motors. As Tod told a reporter, “The response to Fighting Times changed 180 degrees. At first you couldn’t count the number of times we were called communist on all your hands and toes, and 20 percent would refuse to take it. Now, you can [handbill] the whole plant and not have 10 people, out of 8,000, who won’t take it.”

By September 1980, when a defamation suit claiming over $4 million in damages was filed at the Racine courthouse, Fighting Times had become the outspoken, uncensored voice of a major segment of the rank and file. Our rapid-fire criticisms of predatory corporate management, lampooning cartoons created by our in-plant artist, and unceasing hounding of lousy sexist, racist front-line bosses, became a force to reckon with and prompted corporate management to covertly initiate legal action. They hoped to squelch our voice by orchestrating and funding a punishing, if utterly frivolous, lawsuit.  

The defamation suit alleged enormous monetary damages and was filed by four supervisors and the son of a plant Superintendent. The litinary of allegations asserted that Tod, John Drew and I had ‘damaged’ the plaintiffs by publishing false articles that caused them severe emotional distress, as well as loss of reputation, and damaged their careers. 

For about three years, the case sat on the court docket with little real impact. Periodically, we mentioned the litigation in Fighting Times, and on occasion took up collections at the plant gates to raise funds for our legal defense, but we didn’t lose a lot of sleep. 

In early winter 1983, as if manna had fallen from sky, we unexpectedly gained indisputable evidence of what we always suspected: AMC was surreptitiously financing and directing the litigation. The pivotal discovery occurred almost by happenstance. On a cold winter day, Rudy Kuzel (at that time Local 72’s Substance Abuse Rep) serendipitously observed an occurrence that a less discerning person would have ignored. 

Rudy, who just happened to be in the Employment Office, saw a low-level manager hand a secretary a list of employeesand ask for their addresses. The query sparked Rudy’s curiosity. “Why,” he wondered, “were all the addresses being requested those of workers who had lodged complaints against infamous Scab of the Month Stevie Freeman?”  

As Rudy explained in an October 1983 Chicago Reader interview, “[I] suspected that they [the names on the list] were going to be subpoenaed. My first reaction was [that] they [AMC] shouldn’t be doing that kind of thing. It’s a misuse of corporate funds. We’re supposed to be in the auto business.” 

Rudy relayed his suspicions to Local 72 President Sylvester, and the two confronted Director of Manufacturing Gil Austin, demanding to know if AMC was financing the lawsuit. Austin responded that he “doubted” it, but promised to find out. Rudy believed “union people trusted [Austin] as a decent character” and subsequently visited his office. In the ensuing conversation, Austin showed Rudy a memo that revealed that corporate Industrial Relations’ counsel Alex McCloskey had, in fact, authorized AMC to pay the plaintiffs’ legal costs. 

As David Moberg of the Chicago Reader wrote, “Kuzel knew from past conversations that Maddox [VP of Manufacturing] and other managers disliked Melrod, Drew, and Ohnstad, whom they considered communists … Maddox said “the company wanted to stop all the derogatory articles [in Fighting Times] that were filled with lies …and the company would look like heroes for coming to the assistance of the plaintiffs.” 

Moberg continued, “Kuzel [grew] more outraged … ‘The main thing they’re after is to quash that paper and to stop the printing of the truth about supervisors. You can’t hush it up with a paper like that around. The whole theory of the labor movement is that as one person you can’t stand up to the corporation, but you have to act together — an injury to one is an injury to all...’”  

“Maddox … said that he [was] going to get Melrod because he [Melrod] is against everything that America stands for.… Maybe George Maddox’s America is where corporations can limit the right to free speech, but that’s not my America. His America is where the rich and privileged and the corporations break laws with impunity. But that’s not my America, and it’s not Jon Melrod’s America.” 

Next, Rudy acted in a manner atypical of many in the leadership of the labor movement, who generally feared young, upcoming, outspoken militants and political radicals. He swore an affidavit that attested to a litany of facts indicting the company for surreptitiously funding the supervisors’ litigation:

On five separate occasions, management employees, and high level executives of the American Motors Corporation, have disclosed to me that said corporation has signed a written fee agreement to pay the law firm of Foley, Foley … all legal fees and expenses for the representation of the plaintiffs in the case of Freeman et al vs. Melrod et al, ...  

Reference to Maddox’s utter disdain for me, and statement that he would “get” me for “being against everything America stands for” was not the only time the VP had expressed his antipathy towards me. We had a history. 

In the March 1981 issue of Fighting Times, we printed a blistering centerfold tagging Maddox as King George for being a heartless vulture capitalist:

The Life and Times of King George Maddox [excerpted]

‘I will personally turn the key to lock the door of the Kenosha plant.’ Those were the words of George Maddox, Vice President of Manufacturing, following the 1974 strike.       

Most recently he opened the Renault talks … As the union bargained for the best deal we could get, King George stated, ‘Everybody in Kenosha will lose their job before I lose mine.’ He also continuously threatened to take the Renault work to another AMC plant where he said he could get the work done cheaper. 

Any human being with a half-way decent conscience would be worried about the jobs and lives of 8,500 workers and 6,000 retirees in Kenosha. But not King George. 

A month after printing The Life and Times of King George, Maddox played out his ire towards me on the shop floor. As I swore before the NLRB in an affidavit, 

“I was at my [chief steward’s] desk on the shop floor of department 838 and the Division Head Russ Wing came over and said he’d like me to meet someone. I went with Wing to a semi-private area about 50 feet from my desk ... Maddox started out the conversation ‘So you’re Jon Melrod’. I said ‘yes.’ Maddox then said ‘Well I’m King George. I hear you believe in enforcing our contract.’ I said ‘I always try to.’ Maddox said ‘That’s good because I plan on making a lot of changes in it.’”

“This was very unusual for a VP of Manufacturing to speak to a chief steward. … I had never met Maddox … Normally Maddox as VP would deal with the UAW president and at times the UAW Executive Board (e.g. during contract negotiations).” 

If Maddox intended for his chat to be intimidating, he landed wide of the mark. I revelled in confronting management, particularly upper corporate management, and most particularly a capitalist, audacious vulture like Maddox. The stewards who overheard the exchange could hardly believe their eyes and ears, it being unthinkable that the VP of manufacturing would dain to confront a lowly chief steward.   

Armed with Rudy’s March 25 affidavit, John, Tod and I headed to the NLRB to file an unfair labor practice charge. On April 27, Regional Director Joseph A. Szabo concluded the investigation by filing charges that alleged AMC hadengaged in an unfair labor practice by financing and orchestrating the lawsuit. 

Szabo wrote, “The 10-year history of AMC’s repeated and continuing efforts to squelch Melrod’s protected activities, and to exact retribution against those employees supporting Melrod, evince a continuing campaign of harassment and discrimination culminating in the lawsuit.”

Szabo told the press, “We are suing them (AMC) for suing the other guys [Melrod, Drew and Ohnstad]. And if they don’t stop suing the other guys, we’ll keep suing them [AMC] until they do.” In the Racine Journal Times, plaintiffs’ attorney J. Judley Wyant responded to Szabo’s blistering indictment by trivializing the Board’s finding, castigating the three of us as a trio of “disgruntled, militant union members.”

For Alex McClosky, the instigator  of the agreement that pledged financial support for the litigation, the drive to get rid of me was both personal and, at its core, highly ideological. As McClosky’s assistant Richard Dodd told Szabo, “McClosky undertook a vendetta against Melrod in the early 1970’s. … When Melrod resurfaced in Kenosha after having been laid off in Milwaukee, McClosky raised hell with McCracken [AMC VP] about the ‘idiots in Kenosha’ who hired Melrod… McClosky vowed, “I’ll get him if it’s the last thing I do.” 

Per Dodd, “McClosky had a reputation in the corporate department for his vendetta against Melrod. … McClosky [is] an ultra-conservative type, who sometimes circulates petitions for the John Birch Society or related organizations. … At one time, McClosky explained the basis for his crusade against Melrod by saying, ‘we’ve got to get rid of the Communists’ … McClosky thought Melrod was a Communist … something to do with Melrod’s involvement with SDS.’” 

The Board held that [AMC be] “ordered to drop its support for the litigation by instructing [plaintiffs’] attorney Wyant to withdraw the legal action.” The Board set a July 12 trial before an administrative law judge to hear the complaint that there was reasonable cause to believe that AMC was committing an unfair labor practice.

The three of us, and our supporters, were elated. Before the civil trial was set to commence, it looked like the First Amendment gods had shined the light of justice and righteousness on us. What had promised to be a knock down drag out battle in State Court, costing us hundreds of thousands of dollars, appeared to have been narrowly averted. 

But Was It Frivolous, Too?

But the Reagan-dominated Supreme Court soon squelched that prospect. Weeks after the Board ruling, the Court announced its decision in Bill Johnson’s Restaurants. Similar to our case, a restaurant chain sued a former server forlibel because she picketed the restaurant and passed out leaflets after she was fired for trying to organize a union. The NLRB ruled the restaurant’s filing of a libel suit constituted an unfair act of retaliation for the woman’s exercise of protected labor rights. 

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed that the Board could throw out a libel suit, but only if the suit wasknowingly frivolous, that is, where there are no genuine issues of material fact.  After the Bill Johnson ruling, the NLRB couldn’t enjoin an action unless it was “frivolous and retaliatory.” 

The Bill Johnson’s Restaurants decision thrust our litigation back into State Court. Meanwhile, we had successfullybuilt broad support, particularly after Rudy’s affidavit pinned responsibility on corporate management for trying to muzzle us.

Our deepest trough of support came from the Local 72 rank and file. Our tactic was to designate a plant gate and mobilize a gaggle of supporters, all wearing United Workers Caucus jackets (the name of our militant Local 72 rank and file caucus), to form a cluster that everyone  heading into work would have to traverse. We displayed a large board with rows of yellow “Save the Fighting Times” buttons and gave them to all who contributed to our legal fund. Hundreds displayed the buttons in an ongoing show of solidarity and resistance to the company. The litigation had morphed from a court case to a solidarity movement involving thousands.   

One morning, we formed a cluster at the Lakefront plant. In advance, we issued a press release. Based on the case’s notoriety, T.V. newscasters were on scene. Workers of every age, race, and gender stopped to donate and buy buttons, contributing $20’s and $50’s - a scene that was covered on the evening news in the Milwaukee area. 

Letters and pledges of support arrived from across the U.S. and the world: 

The “Comite De Groupe Renault” collected $100, arriving via money order from France with a message of solidarity. The Racine Labor reported, “The libel suit has incurred the wrath of worker representatives on the [Renault] Board ... Roger Silvain, representing the largest union [CGT] … sent a blistering letter to company officials denouncing the harassment of the Fighting Times.” 

Two high-profile Chicagoans, James Balanoff, former United Steelworkers Regional Director, and Quentin Young, past Medical Director of Cook County Hospital and a leader of Physicians for Social Responsibility, sent out a mass mailing soliciting support. Their appeal said, “As we all know FREE SPEECH ISN’T ALWAYS FREE. Those of us who consider ourselves defenders of civil liberties, progressive unionists, and opponents of corporate abuse should all pitch in.” 

Other letters were just as passionate:  

Dear Brothers, I’m a laid off steelworker so I can’t contribute what I’d like to for your very important fight. You have fought to preserve free speech for all of us. Keep up the struggle, Linda Stovall, Homestead, PA

Dear Jon Melrod, John Drew, and Tod Ohnstad, Truly an issue of free speech in the workplace, we are proud to stand on the side of those defending this basic constitutional right. National Association of Letter Carriers - Branch 436-Racine WI

Dear Tod, Jon and John, Things certainly look grim for you all, but as I see it you just can not lose this one. Surely the American public will not allow this to happen. What are the International Unions doing about it? Or do they want to crucify people such as you? All the Best, Sid Turney - Coventry England

Dear Fighting Times, If AMC is allowed to prevail it would set a dangerous precedent for all unions and their leaders. The right to union free speech and protected activities must be protected at all costs. AFSCME Council 24, AFL-CIO Madison WI. 

Dear Fighting Times, I am writing to assure you that we are appealing the recent decision by the International to block the $500 donation made by the membership here at [UAW] Local 438 to your legal defense fund. Good luck to you in the coming months in your legal struggles to get back your legal fees that were necessary to defend not only Fighting Times but freedom of speech for the entire labor movement. In Solidarity, Joel Miller & Dave Chmielewski. 

Supporters organized fund-raising parties in Milwaukee, Chicago and New York. John Drew and I appeared at the Labor Committee of the National Lawyers Guild in Chicago. I addressed the Guild, “For union activists and those interested in First Amendment rights in the workplace, the stakes in the Racine trial are high. Already the trend has spread to Homestead, Pennsylvania where U.S. Steel is suing Steelworkers Local 1397 for libel and slander in their newspaper.”  

As the trial date grew close, I felt increasingly uneasy, plagued by concerns over the preparedness, or lack thereof, of our legal defense. Our costs could easily run into six figures. I worried not only for myself, but lay awake at night pondering how life-altering a loss would be for my best friends and fellow caucus members, Tod and John Drew. AMC’s ire had long been focused on getting rid of me, but now, all three of us might be shackled with a financial ball and chain, even bankruptcy. We had laughed off the supervisors’ lawsuit as absurd, but reality set in, and the future looked bleak.

While I had always prided myself on being fiercely independent and capable of fighting my own battles, I was not too proud to know when the time had come to seek help. I sought legal advice from my father. One of his law partners, Warren Kaplan, was an outstanding libel and First Amendment attorney. Warren also had a progressive political bent, having made his way to Cuba as a young man, by happenstance landing an interview with Fidel Castro soon after the revolution in 1959. 

Warren, without a moment’s hesitation, dropped all matters, personal and legal, and boarded a plane from D.C. to Milwaukee to prepare our legal defense. Warren’s first maneuver was to file a motion to transfer the case from State Court to Federal Court, as issues of free speech could be better defended under federal law. Unfortunately, in a grievous error, we had missed the filing date for removal of the case to Federal Court.  

Warren, with his one beat-up suitcase, two dark grey suits (soon to become very wrinkled), and a framed photo of his two sons, moved into the small empty bedroom in my home on a working class, residential street in Racine. I had bought the house a few years earlier at the list price of $49,000 in a neighborhood of neatly trimmed lawns, with backyards just big enough for family barbecues. 

Without missing a beat, Warren took command of not only preparing legal arguments, but turning John Drew, Tod and me into a three man fact-gathering squad, working hard to compensate for having lagged. Every day we worked our eight-hour shifts in the plant and afterwards remained at Warren’s beck and call, as he sought to shape-up and then fine-tune our defense.  

Like many litigators, Warren was mellow when out of the legal realm, jogging in the early mornings, and laughing and joking with the three of us about the case. But when it turned to legal matters and trial prep, he transformed into a calculating, high-powered, take-no-prisoners litigator. He made it crystal clear, in a manner that left us reeling from our negligence, that our defense preparation had been sorely lacking. We had only weeks to prepare. 

We tracked down some sixty-five fact witnesses and personally interviewed each. We located AMC workers, current and laid off, who had been harassed by plaintiffs; we located former AMC supervisors who didn’t condone the racist and sexist behavior of the litigants; and even found the former wife of lead plaintiff Steve Freeman. Dozens of affidavits were hurriedly taken and witnesses lined up. Not a minute of the seven days in a week were squandered. 

Whether we were ready or not, the high-stakes trial opened in a Racine courtroom on October 31, 1983, with Judge Dennis J. Flynn presiding. Warren, with a lifetime of courtroom experience, impressed on us the importance of jury discretion, meaning the jury observed everything that transpired in the court, including our daily demeanor. Our supporters prepped to fill the courtroom, understanding that their behavior was under scrutiny by the jurors who would decide our fate.  

While we had sought to move the trial to Federal Court, we now took full advantage of the class composition of the Racine jury pool in the selection of jurors; the jury selected had a similar makeup to our fellow workers at AMC. The twelve consisted of nine women and three men: a teacher, a clerk, a supply technician, a homemaker, two machinists, the manager of a women’s apparel store, a postal clerk, a welder at J.I. Case, a waitress, a secretary, and two retirees. Pretty damn close to a jury of our peers. 

The trial opened, but before the jurors even stepped into the jury box, Judge Flynn laid down a marker revealing his pro-company class predilection. Warren advanced a motion seeking to enter evidence that AMC had financed, directed, and orchestrated the litigation: “Your Honor, AMC pressured and encouraged these plaintiffs to bring this suit. The information on who is paying for the litigation is relevant, and the information focuses on the general issue of the credibility of the plaintiffs.” 

Judge Flynn, aware that the issue of financing would take center stage, had prepped well. Quoting from both State statutes and prior case law, Flynn ruled,“As a general rule in Wisconsin, credibility of a witness cannot be attacked by raising such issues as who is financing a lawsuit ... The issue of who is financing the suit is a collateral issue to the dispute between the parties.” 

“Humm” [Melrod said to himself] “Looks like we’re facing six plaintiffs, and one of them is sitting on the bench having donned a black robe.” 

I thought to myself, “If Flynn isn’t going to play fair, we’ll have to appeal directly to the jury and have faith in our ‘peers.’ We’ve lined up witnesses for everything we published. Let’s hope that none are too intimidated to retell the story as it went down in the shop and later appeared in Fighting Times.” 

The Trial Begins

The unfolding courtroom drama drew widespread media interest. The Milwaukee Journal and Milwaukee Sentineljoined the Racine Journal Times, both the Kenosha and Racine labor papers and the Kenosha News, which covered the trial on a daily basis; underscoring the national importance of the issues at stake, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune also reported on the proceedings. (Much of the dialogue in this recounting derives from press coverage. 

I awoke on the morning of October 31 filled with tension, anxiety and apprehension. I had never been sued for $4 million, or at all. In silence, Warren and I  went about our morning routine. Warren cooked our breakfast and I washed dishes. After we both changed into our courtroom attire - Warren into one of his two dark suits and I into a sports coat and tie, neither of us had anything much to say.  

A five-minute drive later, Tod, John, and I sat on the courtroom’s scuffed wooden benches, directly behind Warren and Al Ugent at the defense table. Attorney Al Ugent, our co-counsel, had represented me years earlier when I was arrested on a United Electrical Workers picket line blocking scabs from entering a struck plant. As a long-time UE lawyer, Al seemed a reliable choice to assist Warren. 

Instructed by Warren, the three of us jumped to attention when the jury, walking single-file, heads straight, entered the jury box. As prepped, we hoped to make a good impression and show proper respect. I studied each juror, hoping to discover a sympathetic ally, but their faces revealed little; the game had yet to begin. 

Attorney Judley Wyant opened, arguing that his clients were “victims of a campaign of harassment, intimidation, ridicule and vilification directed against supervisory personnel at AMC, and the union activists [the three of us at whom he was now pointing] were trying to get them fired. ... The five plaintiffs’ claim that Fighting Times articles interfered with their jobs, presented them falsely, and caused them mental and emotional distress.”  

Wyant, not required to stick to facts in his opening argument, painted the three of us as horrible meanies and callous union bullies, who, without justification, set out to undermine and disparage clean-cut, white-shirted, nice-guy supervisors. I noticed a few jurors glancing over at us quizzically, perhaps wondering if we were in fact devils in disguise.   

Kaplan and Ugent held their powder dry, poised like cats about to pounce to put on our full defense. The jury didn’t have to wait for our attorneys to argue our case before making up their minds about who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. Within a day or two of Wyant’s opening, as I later learned, jurors formed a clear picture of what had transpired, and it didn’t comport with the picture Wyant sought to portray. 

One of them explained to me after the trial that jurors quickly sized up each side based on intuition and common sense. The ensuing weeks of argument did little to change their early mindset. Though Judge Flynn sought to take the case out of the jury’s hands in the final days of trial, their initial conclusions were unshaken, and Judge Flynn's judicial intervention fell on deaf ears.  

For the moment, however, let’s wipe the slate clean and replay the case synopsis gleaned from the November 2, 1983, Kenosha News:

Wyant called to the stand Robert Fesko, Director of Employee Relations. In the organizational chart, Fesko ranked near the top for Wisconsin operations. Whatever Wyant’s intention in calling  Fesko, his strategy went awry. Through deft cross examination, Ugent flipped Fesko into an unwitting witness for our defense.    

Despite Judge Flynn’s protective ruling barring evidence of AMC’s financing of the lawsuit, Ugent, in cross-examination, inextricably linked Fesko and AMC’s top corporate management to the supervisors’ lawsuit.  

Ugent’s questions (“Q”), and Fesko’s answers (“A”), established that Alex McClosky pulled the strings - the same McClosky who vowed, “I’ll get him [Melrod] if it’s the last thing I do.” 

Excerpts from the court transcript:

 Q. In the field of industrial relations, where you are an expert, is it proper to refer to workers or employees as lazy niggers?

A. No, sir.

Q. And if one of your supervisors referred to an employee as a lazy nigger would he be working for your company for very long?

A. We would take a look at the reason that this was said, why it was said, talk to the employee.

Q. So, are you telling us that there are some circumstances where a supervisor could refer to a black employee as a lazy nigger and still keep his job? 

A. There would be circumstances where he could do that.

Q. Do you have any knowledge whatsoever as to whether or not American Motors Corporation has given any kind of encouragement to Mr. Freeman to start this suit?

A. I had discussions with Mr. Freeman subsequent to his determination to [file the lawsuit, and as] to whether or not he would be interested in pursuing this.

Q. Why did you do that?

A. I was instructed to do that.

Q. Who instructed you to do that?

A. By Mr. McClosky.

Q. In other words, you sat down with him (Freeman) and you said, are you interested in starting a lawsuit against Mr. Melrod, Mr. Ohnstad, and Mr. Drew and that was it?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Now if you didn’t know about all those things that Mr. Freeman was accused of, wouldn’t you feel it’s a good thing if the Fighting Times called these things to your attention?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever sent a letter thanking the Fighting Times for calling any of those things to your attention?

A. No sir. 

Q. Can you tell a single fact that is false ever published in the Fighting Times about Mr. Freeman? 

A. I can’t tell you a single fact, no. 

Q. In other words, you don’t know anything that’s false that was published in the Fighting Times, do you? 

A. No sir. 

Q. And you made a very thorough investigation, haven’t you? 

A. Yes. 

As a pugnacious Ugent examined Fesko in a steady, rapid cadence that allowed no time for contemplation or hesitation, my eyes were riveted on the jury. Racine was a solidly union town, and our jury consisted of working class men and women, many of whom punched a time clock. While it was hard to read their faces, none could mistake the David vs. Goliath scenario unfolding before them after hearing Fesko’s testimony.  

Next up, Dave Rutchik, often called ‘space ace’ in the plant, swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Early into his testimony, Rutchik stumbled. Under cross, he admitted that the worker in the article had never pushed him and that he (Rutchik) simply fell, precisely as reported in Fighting Times. Warren, with the legal chops of a street fighter, maneuvered Rutchik into testifying against himself, while upholding the veracity of Fighting Times!  

As grounds for damages, Rutchik claimed that the emotional distress he experienced from criticism of his in-plant behavior “exacerbated his marital problems.” Blaming us for his “marital problems” opened the door to questions about other causes for his ‘marital issues.’ 

Judge Flynn ordered the jury removed from the courtroom, and cross-examination regarding Rutchik’s marriage continued: 

Q. You claim to have marital problems?

A. Yes sir

Q. Is it possible that your self-described marital problems are a result of your drug use?

A. I plead the Fifth. 

Q. Are your marital problems connected to your sale of marijuana or other illicit drugs?

A. I plead the Fifth.  

Q. Do you smoke marijuana during lunch break?

A. I plead the Fifth.  

Stuck in the witness box, Rutchik looked like a deer caught in the headlights, as he gazed pleadingly at Wyant, then the Judge, and back to Wyant, hoping for an off-ramp; none appeared.  

In response to Rutchik’s repetitive pleading of the Fifth, Warren brought to the Judge’s attention a line of court cases that established the precedent that Flynn was bound by law to dismiss Rutchik as a plaintiff if he refused to respond to examination by hiding behind the Fifth. “Your Honor, based on uncontroverted case law, I move to strike plaintiff Rutchik from the litigation.”  

While I might have felt a twinge of guilt nailing Rutchik on the benign issue of smoking pot, all’s fair in love and war, especially in a war he started. With the jury excused from the courtroom, the questions, motions, and discussion concerning the legal impact of Rutchik’s reliance on the Fifth continued, after which the judge recessed the trial.

On November 10, the Kenosha News dropped an article that said, 

Wednesday afternoon, the eighth day of the trial, Racine Judge Dennis J. Flynn granted a motion by the defense to strike Rutchik as a plaintiff because he continued invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to not make incriminating statements against himself, preventing the defense from questioning him on his alleged marijuana use. ... Flynn simply told [the jury] that Rutchik’s claim “had been dismissed for legal reasons.”  

The Los Angeles Times printed a surprising mid-trial admission by Rutchik: ‘American Motors signed an agreement with me that they would pay my legal fees and expenses.’

Despite Judge Flynn barring testimony regarding AMC’s financing of the suit, you can bet the bank that every juror read and discussed Rutchik’s uncensored revelation that AMC had paid his legal fees and expenses. You can also rest assured that Rutchik’s dismissal by the judge left an indelible impression on the jurors and badly tarnished the remaining plaintiffs. 

No Sympathy for the Devil  

Soon it came time for Freeman, the mind that hatched the lawsuit and first discussed the litigation with Fesko, to take the stand. While I had felt somewhat sorry for Rutchik as he seemed a lost soul, I bore no such empathy for Freeman. I had been an 838 steward and Chief Steward during Freeman’s petty reign of unmitigated terror. 

I had interviewed the women he’d molested and the black workers whom he’d racially disparaged. I had collaborated with the steward body to provide stickers depicting Freeman as a pumpkin head, branding him Scab of the Month. My beef with Freeman was personal, and I felt no sympathy for this racist, misogynistic, power-hungry boss. We planned to eviscerate Freeman.  

Taking the stand, Freeman introduced himself as the son of a southern Baptist minister who left his family at seventeen to travel the country. At nineteen, he joined the Army and started a 13-month tour in Vietnam. When asked about his time in Vietnam, he responded that he had been fed amphetamines “like candy,” and that they had been provided in his army rations. 

When asked about employment prior to American Motors, Freman testified that he had an administrative job at St. Luke’s Hospital in Racine until he left voluntarily. Rex Brown, Human Relations Administrator at St. Luke’s during Freeman’s employment, testified that Freeman did not perform his job well and that he (Brown) had tried to “ease Freeman out of his job in late 1979.” 

Brown continued, “Freeman believed in ‘survival of the fittest.’ That did not fit St. Luke’s philosophy of fair play for all. I discussed his poor job performance with him and suggested he look for employment in another field.” 

Judge Flynn then asked the jury to vacate the courtroom. Brown further explained that he had asked another St. Luke’s employee, a man, to observe the discharge meeting with Freeman, as he wasn’t sure how Freeman might react based on prior “irrational behavior.” 

A woman who had worked with Freeman at St. Luke’s testified that he made uninvited sexual propositions of a ‘crude nature.’ Wyant asked, “Steve likes to joke around. Don’t you think you might have misinterpreted Steve’s strange sense of humor?” The woman responded quietly, but firmly, “I don’t think he was joking.” 

Wyant sought to have Freeman present the case from his own perspective:

Q. How did you react to the articles about you in the October, November and December issues of Fighting Times that were critical of you?

A. Those articles contained mostly erroneous information. The effect was to make it very difficult for me to effectively manage my people. I had been subjected to ridicule. People were laughing at me. My ability to get along with subordinates definitely decreased. 

Q. How else did the articles in Fighting Times affect you?

A. After the articles were published, I was continually written up [grievances were filed] by workers who said I was doing union work. I met with my Superintendent Frank Stella. I told him, ‘As God is my witness, I’m not doing those things.’

As Freeman sought to appeal to the jury, explaining that he was just trying to be the best supervisor he could, he broke down crying (crocodile tears). He had only been on the stand for about an hour, but Judge Flynn called a recess so he could compose himself. 

Questioning resumed. Freeman couldn’t recall if he had called workers ‘lazy pussies,’ but he did recall 24 or 26 workers in his section raising their hands at the same time to ask for passes to see the nurse. “I can’t say for sure that I did not say that [calling them pussies]. I was frustrated.”

“It was really hard for me. One union steward repeatedly told me, ‘We’ll get you.’ Whole groups of stewards would follow me around and tell my employees that they didn’t have to listen to me. One man even pressed a knife to my stomach. Using obscene language he threatened to remove my genitals if he caught me doing union work again.” While we hadn’t heard about these incidents, they certainly seemed characteristic.

Afterwards, the time arrived for Ugent and Kaplan to decimate Freeman, piece by piece, lie by lie, until any facade of false humanity or feigned decency had been stripped away.   

Joanne Tank, a night-shift steward, described an incident she had witnessed. One of the women Joanne represented had just returned from sick leave. “I was observing her as she was having trouble keeping up with her job, having been off work for a while. Freeman had been hassling and berating her to keep up on her ‘fucking job.’ I watched in shock as his glare turned piercing. He picked up a heavy air gun and threw it right at her, scaring her to death. I went to the chief and immediately filed a grievance.”  

“I don’t think he knew what he was doing from the day he started to the day he left,” testified Sam Picchietti. Asked by Warren how Freeman treated his employees, Picchietti, a steward, responded, “I’m going to be nice to him and say very badly. I had the impression he felt we were just animals.”  

Lisa Moreau had transferred to first shift to escape Freeman’s misogynist behavior towards her. Warren called Lisa to the stand:

Q. Good morning Ms. Moreau. I understand that during your employment at American Motors you had occasion to work for Steve Freeman?

A. Yes.

Q. At some point, did the Fighting Times newsletter write an article about Mr. Freeman’s treatment of you?

A. Yes. 

Q. Could you describe for the court that incident please?

A. Within a couple weeks of Steve becoming my boss, he repeatedly brushed up against me. I never had any problems before or after with people brushing up against me while I was doing my job. 

Q. Was it a tight squeeze by your work area?

A. Not at all. There was plenty of room for a man Steve’s size [200 pounds] to pass by without touching me. Everytime he walked past me, he brushed up against my behind. I told him I didn’t like it. I said that I was a respectable person and I didn’t have to work under conditions like that. 

Q. Did Freeman listen to you?

A. No. I went to his boss, Frank Stella, to complain. Mr. Stella told Steve to apologize to me and to stop his actions that bothered me. But Freeman didn’t listen. When Stella left, he kept touching me. 

Q. What happened next?

A. Freeman told me, in these exact words, ‘I can brush up against your 80-year old ass anytime I want and all I have to do is apologize.’

Q. At any time did you recount that incident to Mr. Melrod, one of the defendants? 

A. Yes. I told Jon about it as I thought he could write about it in the Fighting Times paper and it might make Steve stop doing it. 

Judley Wyant stepped in to pursue cross-examination:

Q. Ms. Moreau, Steve Freeman is a very enthusiastic person who swings his arms when he walks. Isn’t it possible that he may have unintentionally brushed the back of his hand against your backside?

A. Like I said - I’m a respectable person and I don’t have to work under those conditions; he touched me on purpose. 

Kurt Christensen and Carolyn Hiegert, both of whom worked in Freeman’s department, testified about an incident at a nearby tavern that had gone down on one of Freeman’s first nights. “We saw Steve sitting alone in the bar. He was new so we asked him to join us for a drink. After a while he was looking into the back room and said to us, ‘do you put up with that?’ We didn’t understand until he explained that down south where he came from, people wouldn’t tolerate a white woman dancing with a black man.”

Hiegert continued, “On one particular warm night Freeman came up to me. He said, ‘Let’s go to my place and get naked. It’s the kind of weather for that.’” 

Wyant, on cross, asked:

Q. Ms. Hiegert, my client Steve Freeman is known as a very jovial guy who likes to kid around. Was he perhaps joking with you?

A. I didn’t consider it any kind of joke.

I felt it important that Sarah Santiago testify, but she was very shy, and deeply humiliated about an incident I had reported in Fighting Times. To persuade her to testify, I guardedly reminded her that she would be standing up for herself, but also for the other women Freeman had harassed with impunity. Reluctantly, she agreed to take the stand.  

In a barely audible voice, Sarah struggled to recount the incident. With jury members leaning forward, straining to hear, she described asking Freeman for a piece of chewing gum. “He told me I could have one if he could see my … [inaudible …],” Sarah strained under the pressure to squeeze out Freeman’s words. 

Judge Flynn instructed, as Sarah squirmed and blushed, “Ms. Santiago, please speak loudly enough for the jury to hear, and you must use Mr. Freeman’s words as you heard them.” 

A. He said that I could have a stick of gum if he could look at my breasts. I then said, ‘What?’ 

Q. Did he respond?

A. Yes. He said, ‘Oh, I mean your hair.’ He laughed and snickered, but I was very embarrassed. I was afraid that my husband might find out. 

Q. Ms. Santiago, did you have other conversations with Mr. Freeman of a personal nature?

A. Yes. I asked him if I could leave work one day as I had just been informed that my ex-husband had kidnapped my three children.

Q. How did Mr. Freeman respond?

A. He refused to allow me to leave. 

Following Sarah, we called LaFonda Griffith to the stand. “One night, Freeman came up to me and another black woman. He formed his fingers into the shape of a pistol and said, ‘Bang, bang. There’s two dead blackbirds,’” La Fonda testified. “At another time he told me that I was a good worker, ‘but [the] only thing wrong with me was that I was flat-chested.’”

I had collaborated with a night-shift steward and caucus activist, Sharon Holmes, to write a number of articles about Freeman. Sharon had been active as a steward, pushing back against Freeman’s egregious mistreatment of the people she represented, particularly the women. Freeman had sought to retaliate against Sharon in a not-so-subtle manner. 

Freeman’s fellow line supervisor, James Previc, was called to describe Freeman’s interactions with Sharon: 

“I was walking through Freeman’s section and I happened to see him intentionally standing in front of Sharon, purposefully interfering with her so that she couldn’t install parts on the cars. I watched Sharon trying to navigate around the 200-pound Freeman, as she became increasingly frustrated. I got so damn pissed, I grabbed Freeman and slammed him against a car; I told him to cut that stuff out and I meant it. 

“I don’t feel he had any respect for the people around [on the assembly line]. On one occasion, a black employee who worked for Freeman came to me with a complaint that Freeman had called him a ‘a lazy nigger.’ I asked Freeman if he had said that. He just looked at me and walked away.” 

When asked about Fighting Times, supervisor Pruvec responded that we had criticized him twice. “I’ve always found the allegations in Fighting Times are somewhat accurate. The wording is strong, but the facts were there.”  

Normally, under the court’s rules of evidence, our attorneys were prohibited from introducing testimony impugning Freeman’s ‘character.’ There is an exception to that rule, however. Testimony about Freeman’s bad character could be introduced if Freeman testified to his own good reputation and good character.  

Warren coiled like a cobra waiting to strike. His questioning ran something like: 

Q. Mr. Freeman, would you consider your reputation in the community to be a positive one?

 Knowing that Warren had just laid a trap for Freeman, I surreptitiously glanced at Judley Wyant to see if he would raise an objection. Wyant remained seated and silent.  

A. Yes - I would definitely say that.

Q. And do you consider yourself to be well liked in the broader community? 

A. I do, yes.

Q. Would anyone in the community call you a racist?

A. Absolutely not. 

Q. Thank you Mr. Freeman, no more questions. 

Just days before Freeman had been called to the stand, Warren had tracked down Freeman’s ex-fiancee Carol Vansell, who had moved to another state. Even though it was a long shot, Warren telephoned to ask if she would testify about Freeman and about their relationship. Not only was she happy to talk to Warren about Freeman, she was like an uncapped fire hose. All the sordid details flooded out, as Warren scribbled on a yellow legal pad. By the end of the conversation, Warren had convinced her to fly back to take the stand. 

When Warren called Carol Vansell to the stand a hush descended over the courtroom. The coiled cobra stood ready to demonstrate that Freeman’s instability and errant behavior existed long before Fighting Times articles ever appeared. 

The jury had been looking bored after days in the courtroom. Now they sat up straight, taking out pads and pencils. Word had gotten to us, in small town Racine, that one of the jurors had a crush on Warren. I watched intently as she perked up to observe the questioning. 

Q. Ms. Vansell - could you please introduce yourself. 

A. Yes. My name is Carol Vansell. I am Steve Freeman’s former fiancee. 

Q. Are you here on your own volition today?

A. Yes I am. 

Q.  Did Steve Freeman ever engage in violent acts in your presence?

A. Many.

Q. Could you recount one such incident for the court?

A. Steve had a business raising beagle puppies. After one litter, he let me keep the runt rather than putting it down.

Tears were streaming down Carol’s face as she described the incident in painful detail. She could barely continue. Judge Flynn instructed the clerk to provide her with tissue.  

Q. I’m sorry to have to ask you, but can you please continue?

A. One day, Steve and I got into a heated argument. It turned ugly and Steve was furious. He picked up my puppy as I tried to grab it. He held it out of my reach. I screamed for him to put it down. The look in his eyes was wild. 

Q. Please continue. 

A. Steve stepped on the puppy’s head. He tore the puppy’s body away from the head. It snapped my dog’s neck. 

Dead silence descended over the courtroom. I glanced at the stenographer; she was silently sobbing, her shoulders shaking with emotion, her fingers no longer clicking the keys to record witness testimony. I heard quiet sniffling from the jury box and saw at least two jurors in tears. The always cold, stern Judge Flynn gazed out at his once orderly judicial kingdom, waiting to move on as he gaveled the wheel of (un)justice back to order.  

After a minute, allowing for Carol to compose herself, Warren continued:

Q. I’m sorry that this is so difficult, but I have to ask, were there any other occasions during your relationship with Steve when he lost his temper in a similar fashion?

A. Too many to list. 

Q. For the court, would you mind recounting any other incidents that come to mind?

A. One time, after we had a heated argument, I went into our garage. Steve followed me, still yelling. Suddenly, he grabbed a lawn mower blade that was hanging in the garage and swung it, hitting me in my head. I don’t know how much later, but I regained consciousness while laying in a pool of frozen blood. 

Carol’s testimony ran diametrically counter to Steve’s. Steve, referring to the same ‘incident’, claimed that he bumped into the lawn mower blade while getting into his car and that it had grazed Carol. A rather unlikely scenario that carried little weight. One glance at the jury box revealed their disdain for Freeman.  

Q. Ms. Vansell - there was testimony earlier that threatening phone calls were made to the house you shared with Steve. Can you describe any of those calls?

A. We received a couple of angry calls. In one instance, I answered the phone and a man whose voice I didn’t recognize told me that I better warn Steve to stop harassing his wife or he would kill Steve. On two other occasions women called complaining that Steve had harassed them at work. 

Q. It sounds as if your relationship was marked by violent arguments. Are there any other instances that come to mind?

Before answering the question, Carol needed time to compose herself. The jury had never been so riveted. Twelve men and women avidly hung on each word of testimony.

A. After a particularly bad argument, Steve really flipped out. He grabbed his shotgun, put it to my head, and threatened to kill me. Another time, Steve wanted to have sex, but I didn’t. We quarreled. Afterwards, I took a bath. In a rage, Steve broke into the bathroom. He grabbed my head and held it under the water. I thought he was going to drown me.

Q. Am I correct that you have a daughter? How did Steve interact with her?

A. Steve didn’t like kids. He once told me that my daughter and all kids should be dead. He was even nasty to his own nieces and nephews. He was never loving with kids. He would always tease his nephews and nieces in a nasty way.  

Q. Following these numerous incidents of abuse, did you decide to end the relationship?

A. Yes. I finally had had enough. I called some friends to help me move. The problem was that Steve’s sister was our landlady. When she saw me moving my stuff, she called Steve. He pulled up while I was packing. We argued about who owned what. I was scared. He forced me to leave all my belongings, including my clothes and medicine. 

Questions regarding Freeman’s character ended on that devastating note. 

My Turn in the Witness Chair

Judley Wyant called me to the stand. I looked forward to my time as a witness so I could spar with Wyant, who had bullied our witnesses. After I was sworn in, I turned my gaze to the twelve jurors. It was to them I planned to testify as to the honesty and veracity of the Fighting Times. I also figured that their working class orientation would counter  pro-company bias being exhibited by Judge Flynn. The following is a brief synopsis of my testimony:  

Q. Mr. Melrod, are you the editor of Fighting Times? 

A. Yes, one of the editors. Many of the articles are written by people in the shop who experienced unfair or discriminatory treatment. Sometimes we assisted them in writing articles about their complaints. We also encouraged people to write letters that we printed. 

Q. Mr. Melrod, my question called for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. No need to deviate from my questions with long drawn-out responses. 

A. I’ll do my best, but I need to fully explore the questions and answers so that I provide the jury with the most thorough responses possible. 

Q. Let’s proceed. Mr. Melrod, do you know Steve Freeman, one of the plaintiffs?

A. Yes. I’ve had many occasions to speak with people who’ve been harassed in one manner or another by Stevie while he was their boss. I assisted the stewards with drafting a petition to protest some of Freeman’s more egregious racist and sexist behavior. 

Q. Your honor, could you please instruct Mr. Melrod to be more responsive and not deliver a speech in response to my questions. 

Judge Flynn: Mr. Melrod. You are to respond directly to the questions Mr. Wyant is asking without editorializing. 

Q. Did you have occasion to write any articles in the Fighting Times about Mr. Freeman?

A. Yes, many. Every time we heard about a complaint regarding Freeman, we dug up information to report on his malfeasance. We wrote about Freeman in four successive issues in an attempt to correct the problems in Freeman’s section. 

Q. Mr. Melrod, can you tell the court if those articles were always accurate and factual?

A. Of course, that is the purpose of Fighting Times. We take our responsibility to report accurately very seriously. In our statement of ‘Who We Are’ we are very clear that …

Wyant: Objection your honor. Mr. Melrod is editorializing rather than answering my questions. 

Flynn: Sustained. Mr. Melrod, I again instruct you to provide direct answers to Mr. Wyant’s questions. 

Melrod: I forget your honor. What was the question again?

Wyant: I hadn’t asked one. Your honor was sustaining my objection. 

Melrod: OK. Mr. Wyant, please proceed. 

The jury appeared to be enjoying the verbal sparring. From my perspective, I was getting the better of Wyant; I hoped the jury shared my assessment. Little did I know, until after the trial, that by this juncture, the jurors were, by-and-large, bored to death and sick of both Judley Wyant and Judge Flynn.  

Q. Mr. Melrod, let’s try to proceed in an orderly fashion. I will ask the questions and you will provide the answers. 

A. That’s just what I’ve been doing. 

Q. OK then. It is your testimony that you are always factual, is that correct?

A. 100%

Q. I have in my hand a sticker that I’d like you to identify. Did you manufacture that sticker?

A. Yup.

Q. Why?

A. The stewards and workers on the second shift, particularly the workers of color and the women in Freeman’s section, were having serious, ongoing problems with his rude behavior. 

Q. So you thought manufacturing stickers would help that situation?

A. It seemed to be pretty effective. That’s why we’re here today, isn’t it?

Q. I’ll ask the questions. I’m holding in my hand a sticker that you manufactured. Is it an accurate picture of Mr. Freeman?

A. No. Actually it’s a caricature of him. 

Q. So it’s not an accurate picture of him?

A. As I said, it’s a caricature of Stevie Freeman, you can read his name on it. 

Q. If you are so factual, and if you always tell the truth, answer whether Mr. Freeman has a [pumpkin] stem coming out of his head as you see on the sticker?

Wyant just happened to be standing in the line of sight between me on the witness stand and his client Freeman, seated directly behind him. Before answering, I paused to allow the jury to concentrate and focus on my answer.

A. Well … Mr. Wyant, could you please move out of my line of sight so I can see whether Mr. Freeman has a stem sticking out the top of his head. [The courtroom, including the jurors, broke into boisterous laughter and cat calls. After a minute, Judge Flynn established decorum by pounding his gavel repeatedly.] 

Q. Please continue with a direct response to my question.

A. Like I said, it is a caricature. He does look like a pumpkin, so I guess the answer is yes. 

Raucous laughter again erupted from our supporters, as Judge Flynn repeatedly smashed his gavel calling for order. I caught quite a few smiles on the faces of the jurors. I had set out to humanize myself, while making a mockery of Freeman, who had been badly tarnished in the jury’s eyes. 

Once the laughter and snickering quieted, Wyant resumed his interrogation. 

Q. Let’s try to proceed. Mr. Melrod, does the Fighting Times ever participate in political events in Milwaukee? 

A. Yes, whenever the opportunity presents itself. 

Q. I have here a poster announcing a protest against President Carter and his energy policies. One of the sponsors is the United Workers Organization. Is that the same as the United Workers Caucus?

A. Basically. 

Q. Is that your phone number on the poster advertising rides to the anti-Carter event? 

A. Correct. 

Q. I’m holding up a copy of the Fighting Times with the very same phone number. Is that also your phone number?

A. Yes. 

Q. Could you please read off a list of organizations sponsoring the anti-Carter demonstration. 

A. Socialist Party of Wisconsin and the Communist Party/Marxist Leninists ...

Q. Stop right there please. So are you telling this court that the United Workers Organization sponsored a demonstration with the Communist Party?

A. Objection, your honor! (I loudly objected despite having no standing to do so.) This is nothing less than a crude, bald-faced attempt to return to the days of Wisconsin’s infamous Joseph McCarthy red-baiting which ... 

At that moment, Judge Flynn’s gavel smashed down. “I’m going to ask the jury to excuse itself from the courtroom so that we can pursue this line of questioning with only counsel present.  

Proceed Mr. Melrod. 

A. This is nothing but a cheap attempt to try to prejudice the jury against us by raising the specter of communism in the exact same fashion as the contemptible, discredited Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy stood in Congress with a blank sheet of paper claiming boogey men and communists had infiltrated the government. Of course, the paper was blank. Today, Attorney Wyant follows in Joe McCarthy’s footsteps.

Mr. Wyant is hoping that he can paint us with a brush by association so that the jury will turn on us rather than judge us by the truth and honesty of our articles in Fighting Times.  

I move that Wyant’s questions and political innuendo be stricken from the record. 

Judge Flynn: Mr. Melrod, need I remind you that you are not an attorney and are not authorized to interject or make objections. If you’re finished, we will proceed in an orderly fashion, without further interruption from you. 

Bailiff, please bring the jury into the courtroom. Mr. Wyant, you are free to continue with your questioning of Mr. Melrod now that he has finished with his uncalled for diatribe.  

For one moment I must digress. Warren continued to amaze the three of us throughout the trial, and after. In addition to having top-rate legal chops, Warren acted as a super-sleuth. Warren had somehow tracked down an individual named Harry Cross who was a refrigeration repair man. Cross had run into Judley Wyant while on a repair call. Warren had Cross testify about his and Wyant’s  conversation about the poster to which I had just objected. 

Warren: Mr. Cross, were you going in or coming out when you saw Judley Wyant?

Cross:    I was working inside the building.

Warren: And you asked him how the trial was going and he responded, “pretty good?”

Cross:    Yeah that’s correct. I had read about the trial in the Journal Times.

Kaplan: And you said something like, what are you trying to accomplish, because these guys don’t have any money?

Cross:    I think the words I used were, where is this going to go, because I’m sure if you win, there’s no way you’re going to collect that kind of money … And then he said, ‘well, you know, we don’t want the money, all we want is to shut them up.’ 

Warren: And did you say, what do you mean by ‘we’?

Cross:    I believe he said AMC.

Warren: Are you pretty sure he said AMC?

Cross:    Yes, I am. Judley told me they [AMC] didn’t want any money. The company just wanted to shut the three of them up. I told him [Wyant] something to the effect that those types of people, you’ll never shut [them] up, they’re crusaders. 

Warren: Alright. And then he asked if you were in court when he brought out the ... how did he refer to it?

Cross:    Wyant asked if I was in court when he introduced that Communist poster? I told him I wasn’t. I asked him what that’s got to do with the case? 

Warren:  Did he respond?

Cross:     He told me that the same phone number was on the poster and in the Fighting Times. I told him I still didn’t see what it’s got to do with the case.

Warren:  Did he offer an explanation?

Cross:    He told me that it didn’t really, but said, “I put it in just to make the floor a little bit slippery for the jury.” 

In a final desperate attempt to rehabilitate a badly damaged Freeman, Wyant called Freeman’s wife, Harriet Freeman. By that time, nothing she could say had any chance of eliciting sympathy from the jury, or anyone in the courtroom. After days of testimony of sadistic, misogynist, racist, and downright mean-spirited behavior, any prior well of sympathy was now bone dry. Freeman sat in disgrace as he waited for the day to end. 

‘A Terrible Mess’ 

Leonard Wohlgemuth, who, by the time of the trial, had been promoted from line worker to supervisor, took to the stand to deny our assertion that he had benefited from favoritism in being assigned desirable jobs because his father was assistant plant superintendent. 

Wohlgemuth’s denial of favoritism might have been believable if he hadn’t been such a smug, self-righteous 25-year old. I pictured myself as a juror observing an arrogant, pompous young man and wondered if I would believe anything he said. His early testimony surely raised the eyebrows of some of the working class jurors. 

When queried as to whether seniority should determine priority in job placement, Wohlgemuth responded, “Seniority has nothing to do with it. You can work here 15 years, but if you can’t tie your shoes, you’re no good.” When asked about his father exercising favoritism to help him advance, he replied, “I see nothing wrong with a father helping his son if the son deserved it.” 

The jurors didn’t look impressed by Wohlgemuth’s answers. I couldn’t help but think that jurors were saying to themselves, “Oh yeah, just forget the 7,800 other workers whose father didn’t hold a high management position.” 

Next up was Donald Panzlau, who was now living in Scottsdale, Arizona. It was hard to figure out how Panzlou could claim he suffered any damages; he was living comfortably and retired. 

Ranicav Milosevick, a Yugoslavian immigrant, testified through an interpreter. He explained that he had been on his job for a couple of weeks, working for Panzlau, when the incident reported in Fighting Times occurred. He had collapsed onto the floor in the pit where he was working, using a 30-pound torque wrench to secure bolts to the undersides of car bodies as they passed overhead. 

Testimony was conflicting as to how long it took for Panzlou to give Milosevick a nurse’s pass, but according to Eugene Breidel, a Chief Steward, it was he, not Panzlou, who knelt by Milosevick in the pit while awaiting emergency help. “I was down there, and he [Panzlou] wasn’t down there with me. It was a mess. It was a terrible mess. People who were working on the line had to step over us while the line continued to run.” 

Q. How did Mr. Panzlou respond?

A. Panzlau didn’t do nothing.

Donald Phipps, a sad looking, sickly figure who had consumed way too much alcohol, might as well have been testifying in our defense. Contrary to Phipps’ testimony as to his stellar work record before being employed by AMC, Warren introduced a portion of his Ford employment file that established that Phipps had been terminated twice by Ford for absenteeism and for exhibiting a poor attitude.  

In Fighting Times, we had accused Phipps of being a sexist and a racist. On cross-examination, Ugent pushed Phipps into a corner:

Q. Mr. Phipps, on any occasion, in your capacity as line supervisor, did you ever tell a female employee in the repair department that she needed a broom rather than tools to do her job?

A. Well, I will say that I believe that men are better suited for work in the repair department than women. 

Q. Can you please enlighten the court as to the basis for that observation?

A. Yes. Women are more adept at working at home than in a factory, or at least in the repair department.

Q. Can you further elaborate on that view?

A. Sure. Women don’t have the ability to repair autos. Perhaps it’s because men have more interest in it than women. 

From the look on a few of the women jurors’ faces, the article in Fighting Times criticising Phipps’ misogynist attitudes had just been confirmed by his sexist testimony. 

Our side recalled Robert Fesko, director of employee relations, to the stand. Asked whether it was a common occurrence for supervisory personnel to be discharged for acts of misconduct, including accusations of racist and sexist behavior, he responded, “In my four years in my position overseeing employment relations, it was unprecedented for Local 72 to insist that a foreman be fired. We have now done so twice within six months. We fired both Steve Freeman and David Rutchik, but I would have preferred to give them a second chance.” 

When Ugent asked why the cases of those particular two supervisors reached the level of discharge, Fesko answered, “I believe the UAW officials’ opinions were heightened by the way Fighting Times highlighted, emphasized and blew way out of proportion things that were happening in Freeman’s department, and in Rutchik’s department.”  

Ugent queried Fesko further:

Q. In your capacity as director of employee relations, do you have a set policy regarding supervisors touching female employees, propositioning them, using racial slurs, violating the union contract by doing union member’s work?

A. Yes, violations by Mr. Freeman in those areas would have violated company policy. 

Q. Is that policy absolute?

A. Looking at the situation as a whole, because of the pressures of being a production foreman, it is not inconceivable that a supervisor, any supervisor, might do some of those things, and depending on the nature of the incident, would not be disciplined. 

Q. One final question, Mr. Fesko. In your personal opinion, what do you think should be the outcome of these proceedings?

A. I would like the plaintiffs to win. I believe they’ve been harassed and the articles in Fighting Times affected their ability to perform their work.

Over the two weeks of the trial, we had experienced many days of kabuki theater, riding an emotional roller coaster. Some days we went home encouraged, on others we felt like we were losing for sure. We were emotionally exhausted, but there was no way off our judicial roller coaster until the final gavel, win or lose. 

On Thursday November 17, fourteen long days after our courtroom drama began, the trial resumed at 1:15p.m. Judley Wyant rose to request the Judge’s permission to speak. “Your honor, we’re seeking permission from the court to allow Steve Freeman to drop his claim ‘with prejudice’.” As the Kenosha News described that moment, “Warren Kaplan, one of the two defense attorneys, looked surprised, yet elated. The three defendants, still uncertain about the meaning of Wyant’s words, sat looking incredulous.”

Warren asked for a recess to confer with the three of us and Ugent. In the hallway, we celebrated the unexpected, major victory. Freeman had been seeking $1,850,000 in damages, twice as much as the total sought by the three remaining plaintiffs. As John  Drew said to the reporter from the Racine Journal Times, “All I gotta say is something is wrong somewhere when a guy can put us through all this trouble and expense for three years and just walk away.”  

Our arch nemesis, the lead plaintiff who had assembled the others, the front-man who had entered into a devil’s bargain with Fesko and McClosky, had been decimated and vanquished. His withdrawal ‘on the merits’ meant that Freeman had forever forfeited his right to file another claim against us. We now faced a motley trio of Leonard Wohlgemuth, seeking $550,000, Donald Phipps, seeking $350,000, and Donald Panzlou, seeking $80,000.  

Leaving the courtroom that Thursday, we were all smiles. Our legal liability had decreased to $980,000. Add to that our legal fees of a couple hundred thousand, and, worse case scenario, we might owe about $1,250,000. It was an astronomical number that would shackle us with debt for the remainder of our lives, but maybe not bankrupt us. 

Picking the Fly Shit Out of the Pepper

Friday morning, Wyant rose to make a motion on behalf of his remaining three plaintiffs: 

“Your Honor. Respectfully I move the court issue a directed verdict in favor of plaintiffs Wohlgemuth and Phipps.” He made no such motion on behalf of plaintiff Panzlau, whom he seemed to have dropped by the wayside. 

A directed verdict would allow the judge to make a ruling on a specific issue, as a matter of law, removing decision making from the jury. As I digested the meaning and impact of a ‘directed verdict,’ a wave of anger engulfed me. We had long considered Judge Flynn to be blatant in his bias for AMC and hometown lawyer Judley Wyant. Now, in what amounted to a legal coup d’etat, Flynn might usurp the jury’s power by robbing the twelve men and women, on whom we had been counting for fairness and impartiality, of their voice in determining our liability and destiny. 

As an apprehensive silence descended over the courtroom, we all focused on Judge Flynn 

“In response to plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict, considering all the testimony and evidence entered into the record of these proceedings, a reasonable juror using reasonable judgment could only conclude that four statements about plaintiffs Wohlgemuth and Phipps were false and that the two were therefore defamed, although other statements about the two were true.” 

What the fuck? I wanted to jump up and rip into Judge Flynn’s face. He knew that David was about to whip Goliath’s ass when the jury deliberated; rather than let the process play out, he directed a verdict. We had been robbed. 

Flynn ruled that based on witness testimony about the Fighting Times report that Phipps had been fired by Ford, “What we have is Melrod relying on Mr. Drew, who relied on Miss Janovicz, who relied on rumor, and rumor was relying on no one.” Despite the seriousness of Flynn’s holding, and the potential of an attendant damage award, John Drew and I couldn’t suppress our laughter at the absurdity of the situation. 

After two and one-half weeks on trial, after a parade of dozens of witnesses attesting to the veracity of dozens and dozens of articles in Fighting Times, the best Flynn could come up with to nail us was that I relied on Drew, who relied on Janowicz, who relied on rumor, and rumor relied on no one. On that one, we admittedly might have been more thorough in checking our sources. 

Flynn also took issue with our reporting that “this kid [Wohlgemuth] made relief with absolutely no experience or qualifications.” Flynn agreed that discussion of nepotism was “fair comment,” but asserted that our statement that Wohlgemuth possesed “absolutely no experience” did not meet the requisite standard of truthfulness. IF we had phrased the statement, Wohlgemuth had a ‘virtual lack of skills’, our reporting would have passed legal muster. Talk about picking the fly shit out of the pepper.

Flynn’s verdict that we defamed Phipps and Wohlgemuth hit like a ton of bricks. We sat in stunned silence, unable to fathom how the ‘jury of our peers’ system could have been steamrolled by the pro-corporate bias of Judge Flynn. Despite pro-plaintiff hubris during the proceeding, the three of us and our attorneys were caught off guard by what felt like a legal hijacking. We walked out of the courthouse into the chilly fall air, none of us uttering a word. Warren and Ugent offered little in the way of comfort; they too had been ambushed. We each headed our own way, there being little to say. 

I sought solace in multiple gin and tonics, stewing in silence over the inequity of Judge Flynn’s ruling. I bypassed dinner, preferring liquids to solids, until I conked out. Every once in a while, I woke to the sounds of Warren pacing the floor, audibly talking to himself; I assumed preparing an argument. 

In the morning, Warren looked exhausted, but the germ of a strategy had taken root. He telephoned a junior counsel in D.C., instructing him to head to the library for some intense legal research. There was little that I could do but watch Warren pace, scribble on a yellow legal pad, speak to his assistant in D.C., and jot down more notes. Like a man possessed, I heard him rehearse a script for Monday morning. 

Over the weekend, word of Flynn’s directed verdict spread among friends and supporters. All were stunned that the Judge had hijacked the judicial process. While the law may have allowed for a ‘directed verdict,’ popular opinion was that ‘the fix’ was in. 

Our fates now rested on what transpired on day 17 of the trial. Monday, Flynn rejected our motion to reconsider his defamation ruling. Discussion turned to how the jury would be instructed as to how much Wohlgemuth and Phipps should be compensated for damages suffered. 

It came time for Warren to present the arguments he had prepared while he paced the floor and scribbled on his legal pads. He repeatedly pointed to Supreme Court decisions for the proposition that cases involving general circulation publications prescribed broad standards regarding monetary awards.  

“Your honor, under the standard articulated by a long line of Supreme Court decisions, the jury can, and should, award damages only for additional suffering that would not have been incurred had the truth been told.”

In other words, if Wohlgemuth and Phipps experienced no more suffering from the Fighting Times’ articles that ‘defamed’ them than they would have suffered had the articles been true, the jury could opt to award zero damages.  

Warren’s argument boxed in Judge Flynn. A lower court judge like Flynn is loath to be overturned by a higher court. A common ground for reversal is when a judge is found to have committed an error when submitting jury instructions. Once confronted with Warren’s reasoning, Flynn felt compelled to authorize Warren to draft an instruction that the jury could consider awarding zero damages, even though Flynn had ruled that we had defamed Wohlgemuth and Phipps as a matter of law.  

On Tuesday, after closing arguments, Warren and I sat in my living room and waited for a phone call that would alert us the jury had completed deliberations. After a nervous four-and-a-half hour wait, the phone rang beckoning us to court. Once John and Tod joined us, the bailiff led the nine women and three men into the jury box. 

As my eyes met those of the jurors, I thought I detected a hint of a smile on a few faces. For anyone on trial, the seconds between the jury returning with a verdict and the foreperson standing to read the verdict are an eternity. The twelve men and women who held our fates in their hands, found that neither of the two remaining plaintiffs deserved any monetary damages. It took a minute to sink in, but the bottom line was that we were totally vindicated. The jury awarded zero monetary damages as Warren had so dramatically implored in his closing argument.   

The Kenosha News reported, “The defendants and friends shrieked and jumped for joy when the verdict was announced. Jurors later said they were pleased for the defendants.”

On Warren’s instruction, the three of us rushed over to shake hands and personally thank each of the jurors.  

The Los Angeles Times reported, “Melrod, Drew and Ohnstad said they felt ‘vindicated’ despite the judge’s negligence ruling and stressed that they would continue to publish their newspaper. … ‘The paper will be more popular than ever,’ Melrod predicted. He said that the company sponsoring the lawsuit, had ‘made us the biggest heroes in the plant.’”

One of our supporters called in to the second shift Chief Stewards to let them know that we had won. When stewards took the word out to the lines, spontaneous cheers, hooting and hollering drowned out the hum of air guns and the crackle of welding guns. 

Jurors Dorothy Hackler and Jean Spranger told the Los Angeles Times, “The jury did not believe that either Phipps or Wohlgemuth were personally injured by the articles.” Juror Hackler said, “I do think the paper is a necessary item in the factory to wake up the company to things that are happening.” 

Speaking about the jury, I was quoted, “I’m thrilled we were found innocent. The jurors were representative of the type of people we wrote for. These are the people who found us innocent because they knew what we wrote was the truth.”  

John Drew aptly concluded, “AMC picked up a big rock and hoped to crush us with it but dropped it on their own foot. After three years of legal battles culminating in 18 days of trial - AMC, their attorney Judley Wyant, and AMC’s sadly misused frontmen Freeman, Rutchik, Wohlgemuth, Phipps, and Panzlau were unable to get a jury to award one single penny of damages after originally asking for $4.2 million.”  

Stronger Than Ever

On Friday July 27, 1984, in an oversized font extending across three columns, the Kenosha News headline read, “NLRB rips AMC action in libel case”

The Kenosha News reported, “In its motion for dismissal, AMC claimed that Melrod should have done more to confirm or eliminate his suspicions that AMC was financially supporting the lawsuit.”  

Joseph A. Szabo, attorney counsel of the Milwaukee office of the NLRB, responded that AMC’s arguments, both in fact and law, were “specious, and frankly, somewhat outlandish. After all, who normally argues that they [themselves] should not be trusted and everyone should know that?

“What should Melrod have done that he didn’t do? The short answer is nothing. Again, AMC wants Melrod to be punished for being so stupid as to not assume that AMC was conniving and backhanded.”

Szabo even acknowledged that the 10-year history of AMC’s conduct against me might be hard for the Washington Labor Board to accept as having really happened. “It is hard to imagine a large corporation devoting so much of its energies to such a hopeless effort.”      

After Szabo’s sizzling brief, it was only a matter of time before AMC caved and cried uncle. Our lost wages, and Warren’s and Ugent’s fees, were compensated in full: a total of $238,000. Pursuant to the settlement agreement drafted by the Board, the company agreed to cease and desist from:

●  Prosecuting, financing, sponsoring or controlling ‘any non-meritorious and retaliatory’ lawsuit against any employee.

●  Unlawfully interrogating any employee concerning the internal affairs of the United Auto Workers Kenosha local. 

●  Interfering with, retraining or coercing Melrod, Drew, Ohnstad or any other employee in the exercise of their protected rights, including publication of the Fighting Times. 

All in all, it had been a grueling multi-year battle, plagued by countless emotional lows, but also exuberant highs. Folks in the shop had stuck with us by wearing “Save the Fighting Times” buttons and turning our defense into a shop-wide crusade. Hundreds donated multiple times at the gates to our defense fund. Most rewarding, virtually no one who had been the subject of an article, or had written a letter to Fighting Times, backed down or allowed intimidation to silence them. When it came time to take the witness stand to testify to the veracity of Fighting Times, not a single soul abandoned us out of fear of company retribution.  

The AMC Goliath, one of capitalism’s Fortune 500, had thrown everything they had at the three of us, with no financial limitation. They thought they could break us, but now we were stronger than ever, and as I had told the newspaper, AMC had made us heroes. The Fighting Times lived to fight another day. We took pride in having slain Goliath, at least for the moment. Now we could head back to work to pick up where we had left off a month ago.

See database of dozens of articles referenced in this chapter.

Jonathan Melrod’s new book, “Fighting Times” will be published in September. It is now available for pre-order from PM Press. To find out more or pre-order click here.