Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.
217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 130
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Sungho Park, a Korean-origin tenure-track assistant professor at Cal State Los Angeles, was denied tenure in 2013 and sued for national-origin discrimination and failure to provide a discrimination-free workplace under FEHA.
- The Board of Trustees moved to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (§ 425.16), arguing Park’s suit "arose from" protected speech/petitioning (communications during the tenure process).
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the complaint challenged the tenure denial itself (an adverse employment action), not protected communications, so the Board failed step one of the anti-SLAPP test.
- A divided Court of Appeal reversed, holding the tenure decision necessarily rested on protected communications in an official proceeding and thus the claim arose from protected activity.
- The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether claims challenging a governmental decision can be struck as SLAPPs merely because communicative steps led to or communicated that decision.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal: a claim may be struck only when the defendant’s protected speech or petitioning is itself the wrong complained of (i.e., supplies an element of the claim), not when it merely evidences motive or precedes the actionable decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What nexus is required for a claim to "arise from" protected activity under § 425.16? | Park: The claim arises from the tenure denial (adverse employment action); communications are only evidence of discrimination. | Board: Because the tenure decision arose from and was communicated through deliberations and statements, the suit "arises from" protected communications. | A claim arises from protected activity only when the defendant’s protected speech/petitioning itself is the basis of liability (i.e., supplies an essential element), not when it merely leads to or evidences the actionable conduct. |
| Can an entity’s governmental decision (e.g., tenure denial) be treated as protected activity because it was produced through or expressed by communications in an official proceeding? | Park: The decision is not protected merely because statements or deliberations preceded it; governance acts are not per se petition/speech. | Board: Tenure decisions are intertwined with protected communications and thus are protected. | Government decisions are distinct from communicative acts; decisions themselves are not automatically protected simply because they were reached after or via protected communications. |
| Do precedents (e.g., Kibler, Hunter) require treating decisions and communications as inseparable for anti-SLAPP purposes? | Park: Kibler addressed whether certain statements qualify as in connection with an official proceeding, not whether decisions are protected; Hunter (news hiring) is not analogous. | Board: Kibler and related cases show deliberations and decisions are indistinguishable and protected. | Kibler does not support treating decisions as per se protected; Hunter is distinguishable and the Board did not show the tenure decision furthers protected institutional speech. The Court disapproves cases to the extent they conflate decisions with preceding communications. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (a claim "arises from" protected activity only when the protected act supplies elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (defendant must show plaintiff’s asserted injury stems from conduct within § 425.16(e))
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (prior litigation constituted the act giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims where elements depended on that litigation)
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999) (broad statement of anti-SLAPP purposes and protected activities)
- Kibler v. Northern Inyo County Local Hospital Dist., 39 Cal.4th 192 (Cal. 2006) (addresses whether statements in connection with peer review are part of an ‘‘official proceeding’’ under § 425.16(e), not whether decisions are categorically protected)
- White v. Western Title Ins. Co., 40 Cal.3d 870 (Cal. 1985) (distinguishing causes based on privileged communications from those based on underlying conduct)
- San Ramon Valley Fire Prot. Dist. v. Contra Costa County Emp. Retirement Assn., 125 Cal.App.4th 343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (government decisions are not automatically exercises of free speech or petition)
- Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera, 181 Cal.App.4th 1207 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguish speech as evidence from speech as basis for liability)
- Dep’t of Fair Employment & Housing v. 1105 Alta Loma Road Apartments, LLC, 154 Cal.App.4th 1273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (communications may be evidence of discrimination; liability arises from the discriminatory act)
- Nam v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (discrimination claims arise from adverse employment actions, not from communications evidencing motive)
- Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., 221 Cal.App.4th 1510 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (news organization’s staffing decisions treated as conduct in furtherance of protected speech; distinguished by the Court)