Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting Inc.
221 Cal. App. 4th 1510
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Kyle Hunter filed FEHA discrimination claims alleging CBS refused to hire him as a weather anchor due to gender and age; CBS moved to strike under 425.16 and the trial court denied.
- Hunter’s complaint described CBS selecting young, attractive female anchors (Johnson and Taft) for KCBS/KCAL prime-time weather roles and excluding Hunter from consideration.
- CBS submitted declarations detailing the importance of weather anchors to ratings and the duopoly’s hiring process, including auditions and objective criteria; Hunter was not considered for KCAL’s opening.
- The trial court held CBS’s hiring decisions did not arise from protected activity and denied the anti-SLAPP motion; CBS appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the core injury-producing conduct was CBS’s employment decisions (the selection of weather anchors), which constitutes protected activity, and remanded to assess the merits on the second prong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Hunter's FEHA claims arise from protected activity under 425.16? | Hunter asserts the gravamen is discrimination, not protected activity. | CBS contends the act is CBS’s hiring decisions, protected as in furtherance of free speech. | Yes; hiring decisions constitute protected activity. |
| Are CBS’s hiring decisions in connection with a public issue or public interest? | Hunter argues private employment decisions are not of public interest. | CBS argues weather reporting is of public interest and so is connected to it. | Yes; the hiring decisions were in connection with weather reporting, a public issue. |
| If protected activity, must the case proceed to evaluate merits on the second prong? | Hunter maintains sufficient evidence supports likelihood of success on the merits. | CBS argues evidence is insufficient and merits are unlikely. | Remand to determine whether Hunter demonstrated a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 193 Cal.App.4th 133 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (acts that help advance First Amendment rights qualify as protected activity)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (merits prong preserves remedies for protected-activity claims)
- Tuszynska v. Cunningham, 199 Cal.App.4th 257 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (distinguishes acts challenged from discriminatory motive; anti-SLAPP shields only the acts arising from protected activity)
- Alta Loma DF v. 154 Cal.App.4th 1273, 154 Cal.App.4th 1273 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2007) (discrimination claims not categorically excluded; focus on underlying acts)
- Martin v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 198 Cal.App.4th 611 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (pretext for retaliation; distinctions between protected statements and non-protected conduct)