The former chairman of the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board has won a chance to continue pressing defamation claims against the Chicago Sun-Times for the way it reported on his involvement in the decision to lower property tax assessments at Chicago's Trump Tower, allegedly for political reasons.
Mauro Glorioso sued Sun-Times Media Holdings and reporter Tim Novak in January 2021, regarding articles from February and October 2020 examining a November 2019 anonymous whistleblower complaint lodged with the Illinois Office of Executive Inspector General in regard to the 2011 Trump Tower assessment.
That complaint named four other individuals and specifically alleged Glorioso told Steven Waggoner, the board’s acting executive director and its chief administrative law judge, he wanted the assessment reduced in part because it was owned by then-President Donald Trump.
In May 2021, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Patricia Sheahan dismissed Glorioso’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the judge denied the remaining portions of the newspaper’s motion to dismiss claims of defamation and false light privacy invasion. In October 2021, Sheahan also denied a motion to reconsider and the alternative request for dismissal on the argument Glorioso’s litigation constituted an illegal strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP.
The Sun-Times challenged that ruling before the Illinois First District Appellate Court. Justice Aurelia Pucinski wrote the panel’s opinion, filed May 8; Justices Michael Hyman and Mary Ellen Coghlan concurred.
“The Sun-Times argues that the articles do not deviate from fairly and accurately describing the accusations made in the OEIG complaint — namely, that Glorioso told Waggoner that he wanted a reduction in the Trump Tower appeal because the property owner was the president, Waggoner complied with Glorioso’s directive, Glorioso’s ALJs followed his orders, and Glorioso’s staff and Waggoner authored a revised report granting the reduction,” Pucinski wrote.
The newspaper said Judge Sheahan erred by determining its reporting implied Glorioso bore more responsibility than what the whistleblower alleged. It further noted the stories offered “potentially legitimate reasons for replacing the original ALJ decision and granting the appeal, including the vacant storefronts at Trump Tower,” according to Pucinski.
However, the panel agreed with Judge Sheahan’s take, noting the articles included “a series of omissions and/or misplaced statements that rendered the reporting an unfair summary of events that downplayed the involvement of anyone besides Glorioso. The articles not only repeatedly mention Glorioso by name, despite the inclusion of four other individuals in the OEIG complaint, but also focus on him in how they frame the reporting on the investigation, including but not limited to the use of his name in headlines and of his photo alongside the reporting.”
But the panel also noted reasonable readers “could validly" read the story to implicate Glorioso. This coupd make the case a factual dispute better suited for a jury and not motions to dismiss, the appellate judges said.
They applied the same reasoning to Glorioso’s allegations the newspaper acted with actual malice, as well as his allegations the reporting factored in Gov. JB Pritzker’s decision to remove Glorioso and to deny, for now, the newspaper’s attempt to end the suit by invoking protections for fair reporting.
Pucinski further explained the Sun-Times’ motion for reconsideration used “substantially the same” arguments and therefore the panel found no reason to undo Judge Sheahan’s rulings. But that motion also included the newspaper’s first attempt to argue Glorioso’s lawsuit was an illegal SLAPP suit in retaliation for an attempt to exercise First Amendment rights.
Sheahan first told the newspaper it should’ve brought that argument in its first motion to dismiss and also said it failed to meet the burden for dismissal. The panel agreed, making distinctions between news reporting on government matters and commentary urging specific government action. Furthermore, it said the newspaper hasn’t affirmatively disproven any essential elements of Glorioso’s lawsuit and didn’t show Glorioso’s lawsuit was retaliatory.
They noted he waited 11 months to file his claim and is seeking only $50,000 in damages.
“We take no position on the merits of the defamation claims or the Sun-Times’ defenses,” Pucinski wrote. “We limit our decision to affirming the circuit court’s determination that these issues should have been presented to the jury.”
The Sun-Times is represented by Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn.
Glorosio is represented by Schoenberg Finkel Beederman Bell Glazer.