2023 IL App (1st) 211526
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Mauro Glorioso sued the Chicago Sun-Times and reporter Tim Novak for defamation (per quod and per se), false-light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on four articles (Feb. 7 & 9, 2020; Oct. 9 & 11, 2020) reporting an OEIG investigation of PTAB’s handling of the 2011 Trump Tower tax appeal.
- The anonymous OEIG complaint named five PTAB officials (including Glorioso and chief ALJ Waggoner) alleging politically motivated efforts to reduce Trump Tower’s assessment; the complaint’s precise attributions were ambiguous.
- Novak received the OEIG complaint and other records via an anonymous delivery and FOIA requests; the Sun-Times published news articles emphasizing Glorioso by name and photo and describing him as having pressured staff for a large reduction.
- Glorioso alleged the reporting materially misstated the complaint by overstating his authority/involvement, causing his termination and reputational and pecuniary harms.
- The trial court dismissed only the IIED count but denied the Sun-Times’ section 2‑619.1 motion to dismiss other counts, finding disputed factual issues about the articles’ “gist” and falsity.
- On reconsideration and an alternative motion to dismiss under the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (anti‑SLAPP Act), the trial court again denied dismissal; the appellate court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether articles were substantially true / fair report (gist/sting) | Glorioso: articles exaggerated his role/authority and conveyed false impression beyond OEIG complaint, so not substantially true. | Sun‑Times: articles fairly and substantially summarized the OEIG complaint and investigation; omissions were not material. | Court: question of fact exists; reasonable jury could find gist overstated Glorioso’s role — survive pleading stage. |
| Whether plaintiff pled actual malice (public‑official standard) | Glorioso: alleged defendants knew or recklessly disregarded falsity (sufficient at pleading stage). | Sun‑Times: no clear‑and‑convincing pleading of actual malice; reporting relied on complaint and public statements. | Court: pleadings sufficiently allege actual malice; issue for factfinder. |
| Whether defamation per quod damages pleaded with particularity (special damages) | Glorioso: alleged loss of employment and related pecuniary harms as direct consequence of publications. | Sun‑Times: plaintiff must plead causal nexus (e.g., governor read articles) with particularity. | Court: at pleading stage, loss of employment allegation sufficed; plaintiff not required to prove causal chain now. |
| Whether suit is a SLAPP under the Citizen Participation Act (meritless/retaliatory) | Glorioso: suit seeks genuine relief for reputational/pecuniary harm, not a retaliation chill. | Sun‑Times: reporting was protected public‑interest speech, substantially true; suit is meritless and retaliatory. | Court: defendants failed to show the suit was meritless or solely retaliatory; Act dismissal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77 (pleading special damages for defamation per quod requires particularity)
- Kurczaba v. Pollock, 318 Ill. App. 3d 686 (fair report privilege lost where report is inaccurate or unfair)
- Gist v. Macon County Sheriff's Department, 284 Ill. App. 3d 367 (determine the defamatory "gist" or "sting")
- Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558 (requirements for fair report privilege)
- Harrison v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 555 (substantial truth usually a jury question)
- Hytel Group, Inc. v. Butler, 405 Ill. App. 3d 113 (timing and damages bear on whether suit is retaliatory for SLAPP analysis)
- Wright Development Group, LLC v. Walsh, 238 Ill. 2d 620 (defamation claim may be meritless if defendant proves truth)
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 (defines scope/limits of Illinois anti‑SLAPP Act and "meritless/retaliatory" framework)
- Ryan v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 120005 (investigative reporting can be protected speech under the Act)