Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 569

Background

Stanley Wilson, a longtime CNN journalist, alleged CNN denied promotions, gave menial assignments, and fired him for race- and retaliation-based reasons after he took paternity leave and complained about racial treatment; he also alleged CNN told third parties he plagiarized the Baca story.
CNN moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), arguing Wilson’s employment claims and defamation claim arose from conduct in furtherance of protected speech/petitioning on matters of public interest.
The trial court granted CNN’s anti‑SLAPP motion; a divided Court of Appeal reversed in full, holding the statute did not apply to discrimination/retaliation claims and that the defamation claim should survive.
The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve (1) whether anti‑SLAPP applies to employment discrimination/retaliation claims and (2) whether CNN’s private statements about plagiarism were protected.
The Court held the anti‑SLAPP statute can apply to discrimination/retaliation claims when the challenged adverse act itself is an act in furtherance of protected speech/petitioning; it concluded CNN met the first-step burden only as to claims based on Wilson’s termination for alleged plagiarism.
The Court held the private statements to prospective employers about the reason for termination did not concern a public issue and thus were not protected under § 425.16(e)(4).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether anti‑SLAPP applies to employment discrimination/retaliation claims	Wilson: allegations of illicit discriminatory/retaliatory motive make claims non‑protected and therefore outside anti‑SLAPP	CNN: the adverse personnel acts (e.g., firing) can be acts in furtherance of speech/editorial control and thus fall within § 425.16	Anti‑SLAPP can apply if the challenged adverse act itself qualifies as protected conduct; motive allegations do not automatically defeat first‑step analysis
Whether plaintiff’s allegation of illicit motive forecloses anti‑SLAPP protection	Wilson: alleged discriminatory motive means the act is unlawful, so it cannot be protected	CNN: motive is relevant but defendant may establish its prima facie showing of protected activity without disproving motive	A plaintiff’s motive allegations are not dispositive at step one; defendant may show the underlying act is protected even if plaintiff alleges bad motive
Whether CNN’s hiring/firing generally qualifies as protected conduct	Wilson: staffing decisions that are ordinary personnel actions are not protected speech	CNN: editorial control (selection of content producers) is integral to speech and thus protected	Staffing decisions are not categorically protected; only those with a substantial relationship to the organization’s editorial voice (or enforcement of editorial standards) may qualify; CNN failed to show Wilson occupied such a role
Whether private statements to prospective employers about plagiarism are protected	Wilson: statements alleged defamatory and not on public issue	CNN: statements related to journalistic ethics/public interest and therefore protected	Private communications about the reason for termination did not meaningfully contribute to public discussion of a public issue (and Wilson is not a public figure); defamation claim not subject to anti‑SLAPP here

Key Cases Cited

Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (explains two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework and first‑step analysis focusing on defendant’s acts)
Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (defendant need only make prima facie showing of protected activity at step one; validity of activity is for step two)
Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 31 Cal.4th 728 (filing of suit is protected petitioning activity; malicious motive considered at step two)
Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (anti‑SLAPP strikes target only those claims that rest on protected activity)
Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson, 6 Cal.5th 610 (first‑step requires examining whether defendant’s conduct falls within § 425.16(e) categories)
FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (§ 425.16(e)(4) protects speech that contributes to public discussion; private statements face higher burden to show public‑issue connection)
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (elements of disparate‑treatment discrimination claim)
Associated Press v. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103 (First Amendment does not categorically immunize news organizations from generally applicable labor and anti‑discrimination laws)
Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (speech about individual cases can be protected when it contributes to public debate)