92 Cal.App.5th 1256
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Wanda Brown, elected City Treasurer of Inglewood since 1987, alleged she reported financial improprieties (including an improper payment) and was then retaliated against.
- Alleged retaliatory acts: reduction of salary by ~83%, removal from dais, reduction of duties/authority (investment limit), and temporary lockout from office; Mayor Butts made allegedly defamatory statements at a council meeting.
- Brown sued the City and five council members for defamation, Labor Code § 1102.5 retaliation (reporting suspected illegal activity), and IIED (based on both retaliation and defamation).
- Defendants moved under the anti-SLAPP statute to strike; the trial court struck the defamation and defamation-based IIED claims but denied the motion as to the § 1102.5 retaliation claim and the retaliation-based IIED claim against all defendants.
- On appeal, the court held the individual council members’ votes and statements at council meetings were protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, but: (a) § 1102.5 does not extend to elected officials as “employees,” so the retaliation claim against the individual defendants fails; and (b) the retaliation-based IIED claim against the individual defendants is barred by the workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy rule. The remainder of the anti-SLAPP ruling was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the retaliation-based claims against individual council members "arise from" protected activity (anti-SLAPP step one)? | Brown: claims rest on adverse acts (salary cut, lockout, duty reduction) not the council members' votes; votes are mere context. | Defendants: their votes and statements at public council meetings adopting ordinances/policies are protected petition/speech activity. | Held: Yes. The individual defendants’ votes/statements were protected and were necessary to prove the alleged adverse actions, so the claims arise from protected activity. |
| Does § 1102.5 apply to elected officials (is Brown an "employee" for individual liability)? | Brown: elected officials reasonably should be treated as employees under § 1102.5 (and other contexts include elected officials). | Defendants: statutory definitions and legislative choice exclude elected officials from § 1102.5’s employee protection. | Held: No. The statute’s plain language does not include elected officials as "employees" for § 1102.5, so the retaliation claim against individual defendants fails. |
| Is the retaliation-based IIED claim against individual defendants viable? | Brown: IIED is pleaded based on the same retaliatory conduct by individual defendants. | Defendants: Brown is an elected paid public officer and any work-related injury is governed by workers’ compensation exclusivity. | Held: No. IIED is subsumed by the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy for elected paid public officers, so the IIED claim against individuals fails. |
| Are defendants’ votes/actions necessary elements of Brown’s claims (i.e., more than mere context)? | Brown: the operative adverse acts were City implementation (paying less, restricting authority), not the votes. | Defendants: the ordinances/policies (adopted by vote) were required to effect the alleged adverse employment changes and therefore are necessary elements. | Held: Votes were necessary to establish the adverse actions, so the claims depend on protected activity and proceed to anti-SLAPP step two. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal.5th 409 (Cal. 2016) (votes and deliberative statements by elected officials at council meetings qualify as protected petitioning activity)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (framework for determining whether a claim "arises from" protected activity)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (analysis for determining whether protected activity is necessary to an element of the claim)
- Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, 11 Cal.5th 995 (Cal. 2021) (anti-SLAPP movant’s burden to identify challenged acts as protected activity)
- Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 7 Cal.5th 781 (Cal. 2019) (plaintiff must show legal sufficiency and prima facie factual support at anti-SLAPP step two)
- Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, 44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal. 2008) (tort claims arising from workplace conduct may be barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity)
- Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino, 17 Cal.App.5th 352 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (distinguishes claims against a public entity for nonprotected implementation acts from claims against individual officials for their investigatory or voting conduct)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (definition of "adverse employment action" requiring material effect on terms/conditions of employment)