## Facts

- Stanley Wilson, a Black and Latino journalist, worked for CNN for nearly two decades as a Los Angeles-based producer.
- Wilson alleged CNN denied him promotions to correspondent/on-air roles in favor of less qualified non-Black and non-Latino employees.
- He alleged CNN assigned him menial tasks inconsistent with his position and failed to credit his work.
- In 2014, CNN terminated Wilson after accusing him of plagiarism; Wilson alleged the plagiarism rationale was pretextual and that non-Black employees were not fired for similar conduct.
- Wilson sued CNN and a supervisor asserting claims including discrimination (failure to promote, assignments, termination), retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation based on statements to prospective employers that he was fired for plagiarism.
- CNN filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), asserting the claims targeted protected newsgathering/editorial activity and related communications on matters of public interest.
- The trial court granted the motion; the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding employment discrimination/retaliation claims were not subject to anti-SLAPP because they arise from discriminatory motive rather than protected speech.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to clarify anti-SLAPP’s application to employment claims and the role of alleged improper motive in the “arising from” analysis.

## Issues

1. Whether employment discrimination and retaliation claims are categorically exempt from California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
2. Whether allegations of discriminatory or retaliatory motive prevent anti-SLAPP step-one coverage when the conduct forming the basis for liability is protected activity.
3. Whether CNN showed Wilson’s claims, in whole or in part, “arise from” protected activity under § 425.16, requiring step-two review for the protected-activity components.

## Decision

- The court held there is no categorical exemption for discrimination or retaliation claims under § 425.16.
- The court held alleged improper motive does not remove a claim from anti-SLAPP coverage when the acts supporting liability are protected activity.
- The court held CNN demonstrated Wilson’s claims arose in limited part from protected activity, entitling CNN to step-two “minimal merit” review for those portions.
- The court reversed in part and affirmed in part the Court of Appeal and remanded for claim- and theory-specific determinations of (a) which alleged acts are protected and (b) whether the protected-activity portions have minimal merit.

## Legal Principles

- Section 425.16 applies to “any cause of action” arising from protected petitioning or speech activity, and courts will not create categorical exceptions absent legislative text.
- Anti-SLAPP step one asks whether the claim arises from the defendant’s acts that supply the basis for liability; the inquiry focuses on conduct, not subjective motive.
- A plaintiff cannot avoid anti-SLAPP scrutiny by alleging discriminatory or retaliatory intent if the challenged acts are protected activity under § 425.16(e).
- In “mixed” causes of action, courts may strike only the components based on protected activity while allowing nonprotected components to proceed, depending on severability and pleading.
- If step one is satisfied for any portion, step two requires the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing (at least minimal merit) as to the protected-activity portion(s).

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court rejected a categorical rule exempting employment discrimination and retaliation claims from anti-SLAPP and held that motive allegations do not control the “arising from” inquiry; when liability is based on protected speech-related conduct, anti-SLAPP may apply in whole or in part, requiring courts to separate protected from nonprotected acts and evaluate minimal merit for the protected portions on remand.


Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal. 5th 871 (Cal. 2019)