Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers
936 P.2d 1123 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees for their political activities is unconstitutional as applied to a newspaper if it infringes upon the newspaper's First Amendment right to exercise editorial control and protect its credibility by enforcing a conflict-of-interest policy.
Facts:
- Sandra Nelson was a reporter for The News Tribune (TNT), a newspaper owned by McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., covering the 'education beat.'
- To maintain its journalistic goal of appearing objective, TNT implemented an ethics code that defined conflicts of interest to include high-profile political activity by its reporters.
- Nelson was an active and visible off-duty political activist for feminist and gay rights causes, including organizing for a ballot initiative to reinstate an anti-discrimination ordinance.
- TNT management had previously warned Nelson that her political activism compromised the paper's appearance of objectivity.
- Due to her continued and visible political activism in violation of the ethics code, TNT transferred Nelson from her reporter position to a swing-shift copy editor role in August 1990.
- The transfer became permanent after Nelson refused to promise she would comply with the company's ethics code in the future.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandra Nelson filed suit against McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. and Tacoma News, Inc. in Pierce County Superior Court, a state trial court.
- Nelson alleged violations of RCW 42.17.680(2), various state constitutional provisions, breach of contract, and wrongful transfer.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of TNT on Nelson's statutory claim under RCW 42.17.680 and all her constitutional claims.
- Nelson appealed the trial court's summary judgment dismissal of her statutory and constitutional claims directly to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the application of a state statute, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for their political activity, violate a newspaper's First Amendment free press rights when the newspaper transfers a reporter to a non-reporting role for violating its ethics code aimed at maintaining an appearance of objectivity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sanders
Yes, the application of the statute violates the newspaper's First Amendment rights. A newspaper's freedom of the press under the First Amendment includes the right to exercise editorial control and judgment, which encompasses protecting the newspaper's credibility and appearance of impartiality. Enforcing a facially neutral ethics policy designed to prevent conflicts of interest is a core function of editorial control. The court, citing Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, reasoned that the government cannot compel what goes into a newspaper, and this protection extends to decisions that safeguard editorial integrity. The court distinguished Associated Press v. N.L.R.B., stating that the union activity in that case had 'no relation whatever' to the newspaper's core function of news distribution, whereas a reporter's high-profile political activism directly implicates the paper's perceived impartiality and credibility.
Dissenting - Justice Dolliver
No, the application of the statute does not violate the newspaper's First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects a newspaper's right to determine what to print, but it does not grant special immunity from general laws, such as employment discrimination statutes, that do not regulate content. There was no allegation that Nelson's reporting was actually biased or that enforcing the statute would impinge upon the newspaper's exclusive right to determine what to publish. The dissent argued that the majority improperly conflates editorial control over content with general employment decisions, citing Passaic Daily News v. N.L.R.B. to illustrate that a newspaper can be subject to labor laws without infringing on its right to control its printed material.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that a newspaper's First Amendment right to editorial control extends beyond its printed content to include employment decisions necessary to protect its credibility and appearance of impartiality. It prioritizes the free press right over a state's interest in protecting employees from discrimination based on political activity, at least concerning high-profile journalistic roles. The ruling creates a significant shield for media organizations, allowing them to enforce ethics codes that restrict the off-duty political speech of their journalists, which might otherwise be protected under general employment law. Future cases will likely grapple with the limits of this protection, such as how 'high-profile' a role or activity must be for this constitutional immunity to apply.
Unlock the full brief for Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers