In 2022, the city council for Baker City, Oregon, voted to discontinue ambulance service through the fire department, opting instead to provide only fire suppression services. Casey Husk, a former firefighter employed by the Baker City Fire Department, disagreed with this decision. He pursued recall petitions against city councilors Johnny Waggoner, Sr., Joanna Dixon, and Kerry McQuisten, asserting that they had “directly sanctioned the dissolution of the professional fire department in Baker City, destroying the network of public safety that has been in place for more than 100 years.” The city councilors then filed a lawsuit against Husk, claiming that the statement was false and violated ORS 260.532, a provision of Oregon’s Corrupt Practices Act. Husk responded by filing a motion to strike the complaint under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied Husk’s motion, and he appealed that decision.
The Court of Appeals of Oregon affirmed the trial court’s decision. The anti-SLAPP statute provides a mechanism for a defendant to move to strike certain non-meritorious claims predicated on speech and petitioning activity potentially entitled to constitutional protection. The purpose of ORS 31.150 is to “permit a defendant who is sued over certain actions taken in the public arena to have a questionable case dismissed at an early stage before defendant is subject to substantial expenses in defending against them.”
The facts presented to the trial court showed that Husk worked for the Baker City Fire Department from 2020 to July 2022. During his employment, the Department consisted of 15 professional firefighters, all of whom were also certified emergency medical technicians. The Department provided ambulance service in Baker City and a significant portion of Baker County. In March 2022, the city manager recommended that the city discontinue providing ambulance service through the fire department and instead have the county provide that service. The city manager cited the high cost of ambulance service and the potential for significant shortfalls in revenue. Husk opposed the change and voiced his opposition at city council meetings. The city council voted in favor of the change in April 2022, with the fire department ceasing ambulance service in September 2022 and reducing the number of firefighters from 15 to nine.
Husk left the department in July 2022. In September 2022, Husk filed six prospective petitions to recall six of the seven city councilors, including the plaintiffs. He used the prospective petition recall form, which included a statement section with the instruction, “Provide the reasons for demanding recall in 200 words or less. Any factual information provided must be true.” In that section, as to Waggoner, Husk stated that Waggoner “has directly sanctioned the dissolution of the professional fire department in Baker City, destroying the network of public safety that has been in place for more than 100 years. The consequences of this action must be the termination of his public service as he put personal gain, fear, or incompetence above the safety and interest of the people.” Husk provided materially identical statements as to plaintiffs Dixon and McQuisten.
The central issue on appeal was whether the plaintiffs presented a prima facie case that Husk violated ORS 260.532(1), which states, “No person shall cause to be written, printed, published, posted, communicated or circulated any letter, circular, bill, placard, poster, photograph with knowledge or with reckless disregard that the letter, circular, bill, placard, poster, photograph, publication or advertisement contains a false statement of material fact relating to any candidate, political committee or measure.” In order to make a prima facie showing under ORS 260.532, a plaintiff must show that the defendant published a false statement of a material fact with knowledge or reckless disregard that it was false. The Court had to consider whether the plaintiffs put forth substantial evidence for their claim, without weighing the evidence to determine whether they are likely to prevail at trial.
Husk argued that, if his statement could not be viewed as factually correct, then it should be viewed as opinion. The Court disagreed with this argument as well. A statement is “merely an expression of opinion” cannot be considered “false” for purposes of ORS 260.532. But the Court stated, “in distinguishing between statements of fact and expressions of opinion, the dispositive question is whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the statement implies an assertion of objective fact.”
The Court addressed Husk’s challenge to the plaintiffs’ prima facie case on the mental state element. The Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that Husk knew that the city council did not vote to dissolve the fire department. Given these circumstances, the Court concluded that the trial court did not err in denying Husk’s special motion to strike the plaintiffs’ complaint for a violation of the SLAPP statute.
Waggoner v. Husk, 337 Ore. App. 519 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).