 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pinney v. Nordstrom11/22/2004
The Stranger, a weekly newspaper, published an article about Stacy Pinney's lawsuit against Nordstrom, Inc. and Peter Nordstrom for sexual harassment. The article featured several statements made by a representative of Nordstrom, Inc. Claiming that statements in the article were defamatory and portrayed her in a false light, Pinney sued The Stranger and Nordstrom, Inc. The trial court struck two declarations offered into evidence by Pinney and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Because the statements in the article were non-actionable opinion, we affirm.
I.
On October 17, 2002, The Stranger, a weekly newspaper, published an article entitled 'Uncomfortable Suit: Nordstrom Challenges Sexual Harassment Allegations.' The article was advertised on the front cover of the issue as 'NEWS: Nordstrom's Sexual Harassment Suit P. 11.' The article began, 'For more than a year, Nordstrom has been quietly trying to squelch a lawsuit brought by a former Nordstrom shoe saleswoman who had a seven-year romantic relationship with company division president Peter E. Nordstrom,' and featured quotes from Brooke White, the director of public relations for Nordstrom, Inc.
After the article appeared in the newspaper, Stacy Pinney, the plaintiff of the sexual harassment lawsuit that was the subject of the article, amended her complaint. She claimed that Nordstrom, Inc. made statements that were defamatory and portrayed Pinney in a false light. She further claimed that Index Newspapers, LLC, doing business as The Stranger, also defamed and portrayed her in a false light by publishing those statements. In early December 2002, the trial court granted defendant Nordstrom, Inc.'s and defendant Peter Nordstrom's motion for summary judgment dismissing Pinney's claims for sexual harassment.
II.
We review de novo the granting of a motion for summary judgment, taking the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
We also review de novo 'all trial court rulings made in conjunction with a summary judgment motion.' This standard of review is consistent with the requirement that the appellate court view all evidence and inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and conduct the same inquiry as the trial court. When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court cannot consider inadmissible evidence.
Pinney argues that the court erred by dismissing her defamation claim. Although Pinney states in the fact section of her opening brief that eight statements in the article are defamatory, she only argues the defamatory nature of three statements. Because the other five statements are insufficiently argued, we do not address them.
First, she claims that when the article stated that '{t}he company says the case is an attempt at extortion,' she was falsely accused of a crime. Second, she claims that the article suggested she lied in a judicial proceeding when it stated that 'the company calls her story 'revisionist history.'' Finally, she claims that the article called her a gold-digger by implying that she was motivated by financial gain when it stated, ''We think {Peter Nordstrom} is being preyed upon because of his name and his financial position.''
To establish a prima facie case for defamation, a plaintiff must prove ''falsity, an unprivileged communication, fault and damages.'' But before the plaintiff proves truth or falsity, she must 'prove that the words constituted a statement of fact, not an opinion. ''{E}xpressions of opinion are protected under the First Amendment,' {and} 'are not actionable.''
Pinney points out that our Supreme Court has not c
Page 1 2 3 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|