Park Works!

Bonni v. St. Joseph Heath Sys., No. G052367 (D4d3 Jul. 26, 2107)

This is an employment dispute where a hospital employee alleges of discrimination and retaliation in connection with some alleged whistleblowing activity. The hospital has a peer review process, under which the Employee was terminated. As many have in the past, the Hospital argued that the peer review was protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute, and thus that the claims should be dismissed.

Court of Appeal cases had been inconsistent and confused about this issue for awhile, but then came Park. There, the Supreme Court explained that discrimination and retaliation claims “arise from” the acts of discrimination and retaliation, not from whatever formalized process—like a tenure program or peer review—that some quasi-public employers use to adjudicate employment decisions. While statements made during those processes might be evidence of the discriminatory or retaliatory motives of the employer, the claims don’t arise from them in a way that triggers the anti-SLAPP statute. As the court here explains, “Discrimination and retaliation claims are rarely, if ever, good candidates for the filing of an anti-SLAPP motion.”

Finding no reason to distinguish Park, the court holds that the motion was granted in error.

Reversed.