this alleged statement further, and we hold that summary judgment was properly granted with respect to it. 4. “Anti-Semitic” {30} Both Bernstein and O’Donnell stated that Defendant told them he thought Plaintiff was anti-Semitic. The accusation that Plaintiff was anti-Semitic is non-actionable opinion. Recognized treatises on defa mation as well as a majority of jurisdictions that have addressed this issue have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., 1 Robert D. Sack, Sack on Defamation, § 2.4.7 (3d ed.2001) (stating charges of bigotry or racism ordinarily are not actionable); Ward v. Zelikovsky, 136 N.J. 516, 643 A.2d 972, 980-81 (1994) (concluding statement that plaintiff hated Jews not actionable); Condit v. Clermont County Review, 110 Ohio App.3d 755, 675 N.E.2d 475, 478 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Rambo v. Cohen, 587 N.E.2d 140, 148-49
holding statement that plaintiff was antisemitic not actionable holding that a false statement about a credit rating is actionable under the udtpa holding that a qualitative statement that inventory was in good shape while defendants knew the contrary was actionable holding that an actionable  20a claim must be preceded by an actionable primary violation under  10b holding that claim for sons suicide was not actionable