Rush v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.
732 A.2d 648, 1999 Pa. Super. 141, 1999 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1805 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Newspaper articles concerning matters of public interest that use terms like 'patronage' to describe political connections do not constitute defamation or false light invasion of privacy, as such terms are considered rhetorical hyperbole rather than factual accusations of criminal conduct and are not highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Facts:
- Harold L. Rush's company, T-Enta Corporation, held a contract to provide vending services to the School District of Philadelphia.
- Subsequently, Harold Rush's wife, Dorothy Sumners Rush, was appointed as a member of the School Board.
- The President of the Philadelphia School Board, Andrew Farnese, gave a speech addressing the school district's $150 million budget deficit.
- In the speech, Farnese proposed eliminating contracts with 'politically connected people,' referring to the practice as 'patronage,' to reduce expenditures.
- Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. published two articles reporting on Farnese's speech and his plan to cut patronage.
- The articles identified Harold Rush's company as one of three that could lose its contract, referencing his connection to former Congressman William H. Gray's 'political machine.'
- One article also referred to Harold Rush as a 'board member's husband who provides vending machines to schools.'
Procedural Posture:
- Harold and Dorothy Rush filed a complaint against Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. and several of its employees in a Pennsylvania trial court, alleging defamation and invasion of privacy (false light).
- The newspaper filed preliminary objections to the complaint.
- On October 31, 1996, the trial court granted the preliminary objections as to the defamation count, dismissing it, but allowed the false light claim to proceed.
- Following discovery, the newspaper moved for summary judgment on the remaining false light claim.
- On September 14, 1998, the trial court granted the newspaper's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the entire case.
- The Rushes appealed the dismissal of both their defamation and false light claims to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do newspaper articles that describe a public official's family member's government contract as 'patronage' that might be eliminated to solve a budget crisis give rise to a claim for defamation or false light invasion of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Hudock, J.
No. The newspaper articles are not defamatory and do not place the Rushes in a false light. For the defamation claim, the term 'patronage,' when used in the context of a public debate about government spending, is not capable of a defamatory meaning that implies criminal conduct. Citing the Supreme Court case Greenbelt Coop. Publ’g Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, the court reasoned that the average reader would understand 'patronage' as 'rhetorical hyperbole' or a 'vigorous epithet' used to criticize a political situation, not as an accusation of a crime like bribery. For the false light invasion of privacy claim, the court found it must fail because the subject matter—the school district's budget crisis and its contracts—is a matter of legitimate public concern. Furthermore, a false light claim requires a 'major misrepresentation' that is 'highly offensive to a reasonable person,' which was not present here. Finally, the Rushes failed to produce evidence that the newspaper acted with knowledge of or reckless disregard for any falsity, which is the required state of mind for a false light claim.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high threshold plaintiffs must meet in defamation and false light cases involving public figures and matters of public concern. It demonstrates that courts will often classify politically charged language like 'patronage' as non-actionable opinion or rhetorical hyperbole rather than a defamatory statement of fact. The decision also aligns the standard for false light claims with the 'actual malice' standard from defamation law, requiring a showing of knowing or reckless falsity. This provides significant protection for the press when reporting on political and governmental affairs, ensuring robust public debate is not chilled by lawsuits over vigorous or critical language.
Unlock the full brief for Rush v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.