86 Cal.App.5th 893
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Chad Bishop was a 16‑year teacher at The Bishop’s School who exchanged flirtatious texts in Sept. 2019 with a 19‑year‑old former student that were later posted on social media.
- School administrators (including Head Ron Kim) learned of the texts, placed Bishop on leave, and terminated his employment; Kim sent Bishop a termination letter citing policy violations, poor judgment, and damage to trust.
- A student newspaper later published a lawsuit‑related article quoting Kim stating the School was "committed to the safety and well‑being of all students past and present" and that the School declines to share student‑specific information.
- Bishop sued the School for breach of contract and sued the School and Kim for defamation (also sued the former student, not at issue here).
- Defendants filed a demurrer and an anti‑SLAPP special motion; the trial court granted anti‑SLAPP relief as to the defamation claims but denied it as to the breach‑of‑contract claim and overruled the demurrer to the contract claim.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part: it held the termination letter and the termination itself were not protected activity; Kim’s quoted statement to the student newspaper was protected but Bishop failed to show a probability of prevailing on the defamation claim based on that quote; the anti‑SLAPP order was modified to strike the newspaper‑based defamation allegation(s) only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the termination letter is protected activity under Cal. CCP §425.16(e)(4) | Bishop: letter was private, not a contribution to public debate; not protected | School/Kim: letter related to student safety and arose from a matter of public interest | Court: Not protected — private employer→employee communication that did not further public discourse |
| Whether Kim’s quoted newspaper statement is protected activity | Bishop: statement was informational and implied he was fired to "protect students," not protected | Defendants: statement addressed student safety and was made to a newspaper audience; it contributed to public discussion | Court: Protected — made to student newspaper, intended for community, contributed to public conversation |
| Whether Bishop’s termination (the act) is protected activity so anti‑SLAPP can strike breach‑of‑contract claim | Bishop: termination is not speech; contract claim targets the termination itself | School: termination advanced the School’s ability to speak on student‑safety issues and thus is protected | Court: Not protected — termination is an employment act, not expressive conduct that materially advances defendant’s public speech |
| Whether Bishop showed probability of prevailing on defamation claim based on Kim’s newspaper quote | Bishop: quote implied false factual assertion that he was fired to protect students and thus was defamatory | Defendants: quote was a general statement of commitment, not a provably false factual assertion; opinion/true/non‑defamatory | Held: Bishop failed to show minimal merit; quote not provably false factual assertion and no evidence supporting falsity; defamation allegation based on that quote stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (2019) (two‑part FilmOn test: identify public issue from content, then assess functional relationship between speech and public conversation)
- Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, 11 Cal.5th 995 (2021) (disciplinary/operational acts are not automatically protected; speech must be the wrong complained of or substantially advance expressive ability)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (2017) (de novo review of anti‑SLAPP orders; claims arise from protected activity only if the act itself forms the basis for the claim)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) (plaintiff must show probability of prevailing once defendant establishes protected activity)
- Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (2007) (elements of defamation and distinction between provably false factual assertions and nonactionable opinion)
- McGarry v. University of San Diego, 154 Cal.App.4th 97 (2007) (statements implying unspecified immoral conduct often not actionable where not provably false)
- Hicks v. Richard, 39 Cal.App.5th 1167 (2019) (school safety and protecting students are matters of public interest; context can distinguish protected vs. private communications)
- Murray v. Tran, 55 Cal.App.5th 10 (2020) (contextual factors—speaker, audience, purpose, timing, and location—govern whether communication contributes to public debate)