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
- Whether employment discrimination and retaliation claims are categorically exempt from California’s anti-SLAPP statute.
- Whether allegations of discriminatory or retaliatory motive prevent anti-SLAPP step-one coverage when the conduct forming the basis for liability is protected activity.
- 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.