D083759
Cal. Ct. App.Jan 31, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (Steve Frye and Alex Maystrenko) alleged they were excluded from a women-only golf clinic organized by Fore the Ladies, Inc. (FTL) and its founder Abby Liebenthal at Goat Hill Park, alleging sex-based discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
- Plaintiffs contacted Defendants prior to the June 13, 2021 event and were told the clinic was only open to women, but that spots might open in the week of the event; Plaintiffs did not attend the event.
- Defendants (FTL and Liebenthal) are a nonprofit focused on promoting women’s participation in golf, describing their activities as advocacy to address longstanding gender inequality in golf.
- Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint, arguing the lawsuit targeted their protected speech on a matter of public interest (gender inequality in golf).
- The trial court denied the motion, holding the discrimination claims did not arise from protected speech but rather from the act of holding a women-only event; Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the anti-SLAPP motion sufficiently identify the challenged causes of action? | Plaintiffs claimed the motion was deficient in specifying which actions/causes it targeted. | Defendants asserted they sought to strike the entire complaint based on protected activity. | Court agreed Defendants identified the challenged actions but moved to substantive analysis. |
| Do the discrimination claims arise from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute? | Frye argued exclusion from the event was discrimination, not speech. | Liebenthal argued all actions (ads, emails, organizing) were public advocacy/free speech on golf inequality. | Court held the claims arose from the act of exclusion, not speech; thus, not protected by anti-SLAPP. |
| Is publicizing/explaining a discriminatory event protected activity if the discrimination is carried out by speech? | Plaintiffs argued speech here was only evidence, not the basis for the claim. | Defendants contended their public statements formed the basis for any alleged discriminatory conduct. | Court held advertising and emails were incidental; the liability-creating act was exclusion based on sex. |
| Was the trial court’s reliance on the "gravamen" of the complaint appropriate under anti-SLAPP jurisprudence? | Plaintiffs supported the focus on the alleged act of discrimination as the complaint's basis. | Defendants challenged this, arguing the gravamen test is disfavored. | Court clarified gravamen can be used for context; core focus is on conduct forming elements of liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (Cal. 2019) (addressing anti-SLAPP motions and highlighting when discrimination claims may relate to protected activity)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State Univ., 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (discrimination claim arises from underlying act, not merely from communications about that act)
- White v. Square, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 1019 (Cal. 2019) (interpreting and reinforcing liberal construction of the Unruh Act to deter discriminatory business practices)
- Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, 11 Cal.5th 995 (Cal. 2021) (burden on anti-SLAPP movant to show claim arises from protected activity)