Facts
- Sungho Park, a tenure-track assistant professor at California State University, Los Angeles, applied for tenure in 2013 and was denied.
- Park alleged the denial was motivated by national origin discrimination (Korean) and that non-Korean colleagues with similar or weaker records received tenure.
- Park also alleged a dean made comments reflecting discriminatory animus.
- Park filed an administrative discrimination charge, obtained a right-to-sue letter, and sued under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for discrimination and failure to maintain a discrimination-free workplace.
- The University filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute, asserting the claims arose from protected evaluative communications made during the tenure review process.
- The trial court denied the motion; the Court of Appeal reversed; the California Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
- Whether FEHA claims challenging an allegedly discriminatory tenure denial “arise from” protected speech or petitioning activity under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 when the decision was reached through, and communicated by, evaluative statements in the tenure review process.
- What nexus is required between a plaintiff’s claim and a defendant’s protected activity to satisfy anti-SLAPP’s threshold “arising from” requirement.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.
- The Court held Park’s FEHA claims did not “arise from” protected activity within the meaning of section 425.16 and therefore were not subject to an anti-SLAPP motion.
- The case was remanded with directions that the Court of Appeal affirm the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.
Legal Principles
- Anti-SLAPP analysis is a two-step process: (1) the defendant must show the claim arises from protected activity; (2) only then must the plaintiff show a probability of prevailing.
- The threshold “arising from” requirement is not met merely because protected communications preceded, contributed to, or followed the challenged action.
- A claim is subject to being stricken only when the protected speech or petitioning activity itself supplies the actionable wrong; protected activity that is only background, a procedural step, or evidence of liability does not trigger section 425.16.
- In employment discrimination cases, the gravamen inquiry focuses on the injury-producing conduct alleged (e.g., a discriminatory adverse employment decision), not on internal communications used to reach or memorialize that decision.
Conclusion
The Court held that Park’s lawsuit targeted an allegedly discriminatory tenure decision under FEHA, not the evaluative speech used in the tenure process; because the protected communications were not the actionable wrong, the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply and the case could proceed on the merits.