## Facts

- Garment workers sued a clothing manufacturer and contractor factories in federal court alleging severe wage-and-hour violations, falsified records, and retaliation; related complaints were also filed with the NLRB.
- Advocacy organizations and their officials supported the workers and conducted a public campaign aimed at retailers carrying the manufacturer’s goods, including letters, press events, demonstrations, and calls for consumer boycotts.
- The manufacturer filed a state-court action against the advocacy groups and officials (and initially the workers), asserting tortious interference with contract and business relations.
- The manufacturer alleged the campaign used false statements about “sweatshop” conditions and pressured retailers to stop buying unless the manufacturer paid money to resolve the workers’ claims; it also alleged violence at certain events.
- The manufacturer discontinued claims against the individual workers; the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the suit should be dismissed as a SLAPP and, independently, failed on the merits due to constitutional and common-law protections for advocacy on matters of public concern.

## Issues

1. Whether the tortious-interference action qualified for dismissal and sanctions under New York’s anti-SLAPP provisions as then defined.
2. If the anti-SLAPP statute applied, whether defendants were entitled to statutory fees, costs, and damages.
3. Whether, regardless of anti-SLAPP coverage, the record supported dismissal because the challenged speech and organizing were protected and the manufacturer could not establish tortious interference by wrongful means and causation.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was denied to the extent defendants sought dismissal and remedies under the anti-SLAPP statute; the suit did not fall within the statute’s then-limited scope.
- Summary judgment was granted on the merits; the complaint was dismissed.
- The court held the campaign addressed alleged labor abuses and retailer accountability—matters of public concern—and was largely protected advocacy, including calls for boycotts.
- The manufacturer failed to raise triable issues that defendants used independently wrongful means or that alleged misconduct caused the retailers’ business decisions.

## Legal Principles

- New York’s pre-amendment anti-SLAPP statute applied narrowly, generally requiring an action by a “public applicant or permittee” materially related to efforts to oppose or comment on a governmental application or permit; it did not reach all lawsuits responding to public criticism.
- Speech and petitioning connected to labor conditions and public advocacy, including urging consumer boycotts, receive strong constitutional protection, limiting tort liability for economic harm resulting from such advocacy.
- Tortious interference with business relations requires proof of wrongful means and causation; public criticism and peaceful protest are not wrongful means absent sufficient evidence of independently tortious or unlawful conduct tied to the alleged interference.
- Allegations of violence or illegality must be supported by admissible evidence and linked to the claimed business loss to create a triable issue.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the manufacturer’s tortious-interference claims because the defendants’ labor-rights advocacy and boycott activity were protected public participation and the manufacturer did not show wrongful means or causation, while also holding that New York’s then-narrow anti-SLAPP statute did not apply and therefore did not authorize statutory SLAPP remedies.


Street Beat Sportswear, Inc. v. Nat’l Mobilization Against Sweatshops, 182 Misc. 2d 447 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999)