Smith v. Williams-Sonoma CA2/2
B305144
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 1, 2021Background
- Smith worked at Williams‑Sonoma (WSI) in inventory/returns; WSI discovered saleable goods had been improperly designated "scrapped."
- WSI’s internal investigation uncovered a scheme led by another manager; 13 employees (including Smith) were terminated and WSI reported suspected theft to the sheriff, prompting arrests; Smith was arrested but not prosecuted.
- Smith sued asserting 13 causes of action: multiple FEHA claims (discrimination, harassment, retaliation), wrongful termination in violation of public policy, emotional distress, defamation, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process.
- WSI moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16); Smith voluntarily dismissed four claims (defamation, malicious prosecution, abuse of process) that the trial court found arose from the police report.
- The trial court struck those claims and ordered removal of allegations about the police report but denied the motion as to Smith’s FEHA, wrongful termination, retaliation, and emotional distress claims.
- On appeal, the court held that both the report to police and the investigatory communications made to prepare that report are protected petitioning/speech, but FEHA and related workplace claims that do not arise from the reporting survive; the case was remanded for amendment to remove report references and to plead specifics of gender‑based claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WSI’s report to police and the preparatory investigation are protected activity under § 425.16 | Smith contended some claims became moot after dismissals and that the gravamen is discrimination, not the report | WSI argued reporting suspected crime and the preparatory investigation are petitioning/speech protected by anti‑SLAPP and privilege | Held: Both the police report and the investigation conducted to prompt official action are protected; allegations arising from them must be stricken |
| Whether FEHA (discrimination/harassment/retaliation) and related workplace claims arise from protected activity | Smith argued these claims arise from gender‑based misconduct and not from WSI’s reporting | WSI argued the FEHA claims are intertwined with the report and thus barred by anti‑SLAPP | Held: FEHA and workplace claims that do not arise from the protected report survive the anti‑SLAPP challenge; offending references to the report must be excised |
| Whether Smith demonstrated a probability of prevailing on claims based on the investigation/report | Smith asserted bad faith investigation and reputational harm from reporting | WSI argued absolute/official‑proceeding privilege and lack of admissible evidence of bad faith | Held: Smith failed to show a probability of prevailing on claims rooted in the investigation/report; those claims are barred by privilege and stricken |
| Remedy / procedural requirements on remand | Smith sought to proceed on remaining causes of action without excising report references | WSI sought full dismissal of claims tied to reporting/investigation | Held: Affirmed striking of claims arising from the report; affirmed denial as to remaining FEHA and related claims; reversed insofar as the trial court failed to strike allegations about the preparatory investigation; remanded for amended complaint removing report/investigation references and pleading specific facts of gender‑based misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (Cal. 2016) (anti‑SLAPP two‑step framework; de novo review)
- Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, 11 Cal.5th 995 (Cal. 2021) (discussion of anti‑SLAPP scope)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (discrimination/retaliation claims not necessarily covered by anti‑SLAPP)
- Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011) (de novo appellate review of anti‑SLAPP rulings)
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999) (communications preparatory to litigation are protected)
- Dove Audio, Inc. v. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, 47 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (pre‑complaint communications intended to prompt government action fall within anti‑SLAPP)
- Hagberg v. California Federal Bank, 32 Cal.4th 350 (Cal. 2004) (privilege for communications made to prompt investigation)
- Williams v. Taylor, 129 Cal.App.3d 745 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (employer statements to police are absolutely privileged)