341 P.3d 284
Wash.2015Background
- Plaintiff Michael Henne, a Yakima police officer, sued the City of Yakima alleging negligent hiring, training, and supervision that created a hostile work environment after coworkers filed complaints and internal investigations occurred.
- Yakima moved to strike under Washington’s 2010 anti‑SLAPP statute, RCW 4.24.525, claiming Henne’s suit was based on coworkers’ reports and internal investigations (speech) and thus subject to the anti‑SLAPP procedure and protections.
- The trial court denied Yakima’s anti‑SLAPP motion and granted Henne leave to amend his complaint; Yakima appealed under the statute’s expedited appeal provision.
- The Court of Appeals held Yakima was a “person” under RCW 4.24.525 but dismissed the appeal as moot based on Henne’s amended complaint; the Supreme Court granted review.
- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding a government entity that is merely the recipient of speech (not the speaker) cannot invoke RCW 4.24.525; it reinstated the trial court’s denial of the anti‑SLAPP motion and the grant of leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yakima (a government entity) may move under RCW 4.24.525 when it was not the speaker | Henne: Yakima is not a “person” entitled to use the anti‑SLAPP remedy and, in any event, Yakima did not engage in the protected communicative activity | Yakima: RCW 4.24.525 defines “person” broadly (includes legal entities), so a municipal corporation may move; protection extends to entities receiving speech when claims are based on that speech | The statute protects speakers engaged in communicative activity; a governmental recipient that did not speak cannot invoke RCW 4.24.525’s moving‑party remedy |
| Whether RCW 4.24.525 protects defendants who are non‑speakers (i.e., recipients or enforcers of others’ speech) | Henne: statute aims to protect exercise of speech and petition; it applies to the speaker/actor, not to a government recipient | Yakima: a claim may be “based on” communicative activity even if directed at the government; thus recipient entities should be covered | Court: statute’s text and legislative findings show protection for participants/speakers; subsection allowing government intervention distinguishes the speaker (moving party) from the government recipient |
| Whether California anti‑SLAPP authority controls Washington interpretation | Henne: Washington’s statute and findings differ; protection is for participants who speak | Yakima: RCW 4.24.525 was modeled on California law; CA allows some governmental defendants to move | Court: California decisions are not controlling; Washington’s legislative findings and text are narrower and emphasize protecting speakers/participants |
| Mootness — whether Henne’s amendment mooted Yakima’s appeal | Henne: amended complaint removed allegations that formed the basis of Yakima’s anti‑SLAPP motion | Yakima: the amended complaint did not clearly eliminate all challenged allegations, so appeal remained live | Court did not treat mootness as dispositive here; reversed Court of Appeals and reinstated trial court denial (concluding Yakima cannot invoke the statute as a non‑speaker) |
Key Cases Cited
- Segaline v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 169 Wn.2d 467, 238 P.3d 1107 (2010) (interpreting earlier Washington anti‑SLAPP immunity and noting government agencies are not “persons” under RCW 4.24.510)
- State v. Wentz, 149 Wn.2d 342, 68 P.3d 282 (2003) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State v. J.P., 149 Wn.2d 444, 69 P.3d 318 (2003) (statutory construction and reliance on plain meaning and legislative intent)
- Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 43 P.3d 4 (2002) (considering statute in context of related statutes to discern legislative intent)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (First Amendment protects against government action and does not protect government speech)