If that is the case, why is UMV appealing that ruling to the Supreme Court, isn't that more favorable to them. 6th circuit affirmed US supreme granted cert. This could all very well be wrong, but that's my guess. I think you have it right, but let me try to put it in my words. Plaintiff sues under state and federal law.
Jury awards plaintiff damages under both state and federal law.
Defendant then makes a motion for judgment n.o.v., which in effect is a reiteration of a previous motion for a directed verdict. The trial judge sustains this motion, at least in part by throwing out the juries damage award for the hauling contract. Additionally, as a result of the motion for judgment n.o.v., the trial judge also states the plaintiff's discharge from his employer is primarily dispute between defendant and his former employer and is not recognizable under 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act. At this point, having had all federal claims now thrown out, the defendant appeals, claiming that the federal trial court improperly heard the case, since in the end the jury decided only the state claim. Additionally, though it is not stated in Freer and Perdue, the defendant must also have appealed on the merits of the claim under Tennessee law.