Opinion ID: 591772
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: False light publicity

Text: 9 The tort of false light publicity in Illinois consists of three elements: (1) that the plaintiff is placed in a false light before the public, (2) that the false light in which the plaintiff is portrayed is highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (3) that the person giving the publicity acted with knowledge or reckless disregard of the falsity of the publicized information and the light in which the plaintiff would be portrayed. Lovgren v. Citizens First National Bank, 534 N.E.2d 987, 990-91 (Ill.1989). Here the district judge assumed, for the purpose of his analysis, that Purnell could prove all three elements of this tort. The judge also assumed that Purnell would suffer irreparable harm and that he had no adequate remedy at law. Nevertheless, the court determined that a preliminary injunction should not issue. 10 In denying injunctive relief under this tort, the district court found that Smart's allegation--racially discriminatory hiring practices by a public institution--raised a concern of such public interest that it outweighed all other factors. It is true, as we stated in Abbott Laboratories, that the aspect of public interest cannot be considered alone in determining whether an injunction should issue. Abbott Laboratories, slip op at 9, n. 3. And indeed here, the district judge weighed this consideration together with the other factors used to determine whether granting a preliminary injunction was appropriate. 11 The underlying aspect of this case is racial discrimination. Racial discrimination inherently is an issue of the most serious public concern. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1691 n. 8 (1983). This is certainly true when there are allegations of racial discrimination by a public university. We believe the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the public interest factor described in the Abbott Laboratories test weighed most heavily. None of the other factors are so strong that they overcome the interest of the public in knowing about Purnell's transcripts. Although Purnell may be harmed by further publicity, it was not error for the district judge, in light of the charge of racial discrimination, to determine that the greater harm would be in enjoining public dissemination of Purnell's transcripts.