Okorie v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., B268733

Background

Okorie, a longtime LAUSD teacher, alleged a pattern of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by Principal Hughes and LAUSD after 2013, including pre-investigation comments, write-ups, reassignment to home and to an ESC “teacher jail,” and investigatory communications following a 2014 molestation allegation.
LAUSD removed Okorie from class, demanded return of district computers (later recovered via warrant), and investigators and police executed a search warrant at his home; Okorie was not terminated.
Plaintiffs (Okorie and his wife) pled multiple claims: FEHA claims (race/national origin discrimination, gender discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent), IIED, defamation, and a § 1983 claim based on the search.
Defendants brought a special motion to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16), moving to strike the entire complaint as arising from protected communicative conduct tied to the internal investigation.
The trial court granted the anti‑SLAPP motion; the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the gravamen of the asserted claims was protected speech/communicative conduct integral to the claims and that Plaintiffs failed to show a probability of prevailing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims arise from protected activity under the anti‑SLAPP statute	Okorie: complaint includes both protected and unprotected acts; mixed allegations mean the motion should be denied	LAUSD: the gravamen/principal thrust targets protected statements and investigatory communications, so anti‑SLAPP applies to the claims	Court: gravamen analysis valid here; the complaint’s core targets protected communicative conduct tied to the investigation, so the anti‑SLAPP statute applies
Whether protected conduct was merely incidental or integral to Plaintiffs’ claims	Okorie: the protected speech was only part of an accumulation of adverse acts; not the wrong itself	LAUSD: the speech/communications are the injury‑producing conduct (humiliation) alleged throughout the complaint	Court: protected statements and investigatory conduct were integral, not incidental, to the asserted claims
Whether Plaintiffs established a probability of prevailing on their remaining claims (race/national origin discrimination, failure to prevent, IIED, harassment, § 1983)	Okorie: submitted declarations (including his own) and character witnesses to show merit and factual disputes	LAUSD: Plaintiffs offered only self‑serving, uncorroborated evidence; defenses and nondiscriminatory explanations undermine any prima facie showing; § 1983 improper against LAUSD	Court: Plaintiffs failed to present admissible, probative evidence of discriminatory animus or extreme outrageous conduct; § 1983 claim against LAUSD barred; no likelihood of success shown
Whether the trial court erred in evidentiary rulings on defendant’s investigator’s declaration	Okorie: challenges to evidentiary rulings (not adequately argued on appeal)	LAUSD: evidentiary rulings were proper or not properly challenged	Court: appellate challenges were forfeited for lack of developed argument; court declined to review

Key Cases Cited

Simpson Strong‑Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (Cal. 2010) (legislative history and purpose of anti‑SLAPP statute; SLAPP definition)
Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (anti‑SLAPP motion may target particular acts within pleaded counts; framework for mixed allegations)
Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (speech that merely leads to or evidences a decision is collateral; anti‑SLAPP does not reach a claim where the decision, not the speech, is the wrong complained of)
Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (anti‑SLAPP standard: both prongs — protected activity and lack of minimal merit — must be satisfied)
Miller v. City of Los Angeles, 169 Cal.App.4th 1373 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (internal investigations and investigatory reports constitute protected official proceedings under anti‑SLAPP)