## Facts

- Sandra S. Nelson worked as a reporter for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Washington, covering education issues.
- The newspaper adopted an ethics code aimed at avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest and maintaining readers’ perception of objectivity, including limits on high-profile political activity by reporters.
- Outside work, Nelson engaged in visible political activism on issues including gay and lesbian rights, feminism, and abortion rights, and was publicly identified at times as a newspaper reporter while doing so.
- Management concluded her high-profile activism conflicted with the ethics code and harmed the newspaper’s credibility.
- The newspaper reassigned Nelson from reporter to a swing-shift copy editor role with no reporting duties; pay, benefits, and seniority remained the same, but responsibilities and hours changed.
- The newspaper refused to return Nelson to reporting while she continued high-profile political activity.
- Nelson sued, asserting statutory protection under Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act (RCW 42.17.680(2)) and related constitutional and policy-based claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Nelson’s statutory and constitutional claims; the Washington Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 42.17.680(2) prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because the employee refuses to remain politically abstinent.
2. If the statute applies, whether applying it to a newspaper’s employment decisions regarding reporters violates the First Amendment free press right to editorial control.

## Decision

- The court held RCW 42.17.680(2), by its terms, prohibits employer discrimination against an employee based on the employee’s refusal to remain politically abstinent.
- The court held the statute is unconstitutional as applied to the newspaper’s decision to restrict a reporter’s high-profile political activity through reassignment, because enforcement would intrude on constitutionally protected editorial control.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Nelson’s statutory and constitutional causes of action.

## Legal Principles

- A statute protecting employees from employer discrimination based on political activity may be interpreted to cover retaliation for an employee’s refusal to remain politically inactive, not merely coercion related to political contributions.
- The First Amendment’s free press protection includes strong protection for a newspaper’s editorial control, including staffing and role-assignment decisions that affect how news is gathered and presented.
- Governmental application of an otherwise valid employee-protection statute can be unconstitutional as applied when it compels or restricts a newspaper’s editorial judgments about reporter roles and perceived objectivity.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted Washington’s campaign practices statute to protect employees against discrimination for political activity, but held the statute could not be enforced against a newspaper to control how it assigns reporters in light of high-profile political activism, because doing so would violate the newspaper’s First Amendment editorial control.


Nelson v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 131 Wash. 2d 523, 936 P.2d 1123 (Wash. 1997) (en banc)