Appellant employee sought review of a Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California) that granted summary judgment in favor of appellee former employer in appellant's employment discrimination action alleging age discrimination and breach of employment contract.
Overview
Appellant employee challenged the trial court's summary dismissal of his action alleging age discrimination and breach of employment contract. The trial court affirmed the decision of the trial court. There was no evidence that appellee former employer terminated appellant based on age animus motivation or that the reasons given for appellant's termination were pretextual. Appellee met its burden of establishing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination, asserting that appellant's position was restructured and that appellant did not best fit the restructured position. The person who hired appellant had input into his firing, and the firing was not based on "stray," allegedly discriminatory, remarks. Appellant was an at-will employee pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code § 2922 because his employment was not for specified terms and appellee's employee literature indicated that employment could be terminated at the will of either party absent a contrary written agreement.
Outcome
After the conclusion of the parties closing statements, the jurors were presented with civil jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the summary dismissal of appellant employee's age discrimination and breach of employment contract. Appellant failed to establish that appellee former employee's termination motivation was based on age animus or that the given termination reasons were merely pretextual.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff company, a former employer, sued defendants, a former employee and a magazine, for a variety of tort and contract claims arising from the employee's published interview. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, struck the entire complaint pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) statute. The employer appealed.
Overview
In the magazine interview, the employee stated that working for the employer was "horrible," that he felt used, that he endured around-the-clock pestering, and that he worked like a slave without a break. The court held that the interview was a protected activity because magazines were public fora within the meaning of § 425.16, subd. (e)(3), and the statements concerned an issue of public interest. There was evidence of extensive interest in the company's owner, a prominent businessperson and celebrity of Finnish extraction, among the Finnish public that the magazine served. The court also held that the employer failed to establish a probability of prevailing. As to the contract-based claims, the employee's disclosures did not violate the terms of a confidentiality provision, given that they concerned only the employee's personal experiences, not sensitive economic information such as trade secrets, financial data, customer information, or information about other employees. As to a defamation claim, the challenged statements were nonactionable statements of opinion or were within the protected zone of rhetorical hyperbole under the First Amendment.
Outcome
The court affirmed the order granting the special motions to strike.