by the special rules which have developed in that field. 234 N.W.2d at 793. Likewise, the Eighth Circuit has held, with respect to defamation and tortious interference claims brought under Minnesota law in the context of a labor dispute, that the malice standard required for “actionable defamation claims ... must equally be met for a tortious interference claim based on the same conduct or statements.” Beverly Hills Foodland, Inc. v. United Food & Comm’l Workers Union, 39 F.3d 191, 196 (8th Cir.1994) (footnote omitted). Indeed, the court held that “a plaintiff may not avoid the protection afforded by the Constitution and federal labor law merely by the use of creative pleading.” Id.; accord Johnson v. CBS, Inc., No. Civ-3-95624, slip op. at 5, 1996 WL 907735 (D.Minn. Sept. 4, 1996) (<HOLDING>). A decision of the Seventh Circuit (applying
holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage holding that sovereign immunity applies to claims alleging tortious interference with business relations because the tort requires proof of malice