Cal State professors’ retaliation claims survive university’s bid to strike

The Trustees sought to have the two retaliation causes of action thrown out under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to protect against lawsuits that target the exercise of free speech or petition rights. They argued that the claims rested, at least in part, on communications between Chico State employees and employees at another campus relating to the investigation, and that those communications were protected activity.

The appellate court was not persuaded. Writing for a unanimous panel, Acting Presiding Justice Robie held that the Trustees had not met their burden. Under California law, a party seeking to strike claims under the anti-SLAPP statute must show that each specific claim arises from protected activity. The Trustees instead took a broad approach, arguing that the mere presence of protected speech somewhere in the causes of action was enough. The court found that reasoning insufficient, noting that the retaliation claims also rested on conduct such as the alleged constructive discharge, which courts have recognized as potentially unprotected activity. The Trustees did not explain why each individual claim within the challenged causes of action involved protected conduct, and the court declined to do that work for them.

The court also pushed back on the idea that launching an internal investigation automatically shields everything connected to it. Adopting that view, the court noted, could effectively gut harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims against public employers by allowing any employer to invoke investigation-related protections regardless of motive.

The decision means the case will return to the Superior Court of Butte County, where the underlying claims remain unresolved.

For HR professionals, the case underscores a familiar but critical point. How an organization responds once an employee reports harassment matters as much as the initial complaint itself. Allegations of retaliatory investigations, interference with future employment, and constructive discharge are the kinds of claims that, if proven, can carry serious consequences. The court’s willingness to let these claims proceed is a reminder that procedural maneuvers will not substitute for substantive responses to workplace misconduct.