In Monterey Plaza Hotel v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1057, the plaintiff hotel had been charged with an unfair labor practice. (Id. at p. 1060.) A television station broadcast a story about the labor dispute. (Id. at p. 1061.) The story indicated that the plaintiff hotel faced "escalating allegations" of illegally firing two housekeepers and stated that a hearing had been set before an administrative law judge. (Ibid.) In the context of discussing the charges, the reporter said that the "'federal government has found that, you know, the firings were illegal.'" (Ibid.) Ultimately the administrative law judge concluded that the hotel had not acted improperly in dismissing the housekeepers. (Id. at p. 1062.) The hotel sued for defamation arguing that the statement that the federal government found the firings were illegal was false and exposed the hotel to hatred and contempt. (Ibid.) Monterey Plaza explained the relevant legal principles: "'The sine qua non of recovery for defamation . . . is the existence of falsehood.' In determining the falsity of a statement, 'the context in which the statement was made must be considered. . . . This contextual analysis demands that the courts look at the nature and full content of the communication and to the knowledge and understanding of the audience to whom the publication was directed. "'The publication in question must be considered in its entirety; "it may not be divided into segments and each portion treated as a separate unit." It must be read as a whole in order to understand its import and the effect which it was calculated to have on the reader , and construed in the light of the whole scope and apparent object of the writer, considering not only the actual language used, but the sense and meaning which may have been fairly presumed to have been conveyed to those who read it. If the publication so construed is not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in the defamatory sense pleaded, the demurrer was properly sustained.'"'" (Monterey Plaza, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1064-1065.) Monterey Plaza further explained that although standing alone the statement that the federal government has found the firing illegal "could have been construed as false, that is, that there had been a final adjudication that plaintiff had engaged in unfair labor practices. However, when the challenged statement is considered within the context of the entire broadcast, no reasonable viewer could have reasonably interpreted it in such a way." (Monterey Plaza, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 1065.)