DeCambre v. Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego
235 Cal. App. 4th 1
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Dr. Marvalyn DeCambre, an African‑American pediatric urologist, worked at Rady Children’s Hospital via contracts with Children’s Specialists of San Diego (CSSD) and the Regents; she alleges longstanding race- and sex‑based disparate treatment and harassment during her employment (2006–2011).
- Starting in 2009, complaints about DeCambre’s interpersonal conduct produced investigations, involvement of a well‑being committee, an outside investigator (NBI), counseling requirements and a 2009 "Final Warning." Complaints continued through 2011.
- In May 2011 Rady exercised contractual rights not to renew DeCambre’s services; Regents notified her appointment would end June 30, 2011. Defendants contend nonrenewal flowed from peer‑review findings about patient and staff complaints; no Medical Board report was required.
- DeCambre sued (May 2012) for FEHA claims (retaliation, harassment, discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, wrongful termination), IIED, defamation, UCL and Cartwright Act violations.
- Defendants moved under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. §425.16) and demurred to several causes of action. The trial court granted the anti‑SLAPP motions in full, sustained demurrers to IIED/defamation/UCL/Cartwright claims, denied leave to amend, and awarded defendants attorney fees. DeCambre appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonrenewal arose from peer review protected by anti‑SLAPP (§425.16(e)) | DeCambre: process was not peer review because defendants did not report to Medical Board and/or did not follow peer‑review formality | Defendants: decision flowed from hospital peer‑review bodies (medical staff, executive committee, governing board), so it's an "official proceeding" | Court: Nonrenewal resulted from peer review and falls within anti‑SLAPP protection (Kibler framework) |
| Whether DeCambre’s harassment and IIED claims "arise from" protected peer‑review activity | DeCambre: core injury is ongoing discriminatory/harassing conduct separate from peer review; claims are not based on the nonrenewal | Defendants: these claims are collateral to the nonrenewal and thus arise from the protected peer‑review process | Court: Harassment and IIED claims do NOT arise from protected activity; they target conduct outside peer review and anti‑SLAPP does not apply |
| Whether defamation claim arises from protected activity (statements to prospective employers) | DeCambre: (argued claims based on post‑nonrenewal statements) | Defendants: communications were connected to peer review and protected | Court: Defamation based on post‑termination statements to prospective employers did not arise from protected petition/speech and anti‑SLAPP does not apply; but trial court’s demurrer sustainance affirmed as pleaded statements were nonactionable opinion/common‑interest privileged; remand to consider leave to amend |
| Whether FEHA claims (retaliation, discrimination, failure to prevent), wrongful termination, UCL and Cartwright Act claims arise from protected activity and whether plaintiff showed likelihood of success | DeCambre: termination was discriminatory/retaliatory and not protected; she could prove discrimination/pretext | Defendants: these claims are grounded in the nonrenewal (protected) and defendants offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons (patient/staff complaints) defeating plaintiff’s showing | Court: These claims arise from protected peer‑review/nonrenewal; plaintiff failed to show admissible evidence of pretext or likelihood of prevailing; those causes of action may be struck under anti‑SLAPP |
Key Cases Cited
- Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2006) (hospital peer‑review proceedings qualify as an "official proceeding authorized by law" for anti‑SLAPP protection)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (anti‑SLAPP two‑step analysis; focus on whether defendant's act underlying the claim is protected)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011) (procedural framework for anti‑SLAPP motions and plaintiff's burden to show probability of prevailing)
- Nesson v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 204 Cal.App.4th 65 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (peer‑review related termination can be the gravamen of claims and subject to anti‑SLAPP if termination flows from protected suspension)
- Young v. Tri‑City Healthcare Dist., 210 Cal.App.4th 35 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (accept plaintiff’s pleaded facts at anti‑SLAPP first step; analyze whether gravamen targets protected activity)