California Appellate Tracker

Nam v. Regents of University of California

August 2, 2016

A plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation suit against the University where she was a medical resident in anesthesiology did not arise from the University's protected activity in conducting proceedings leading to her discipline and ultimate termination, but rather from the University's allegedly wrongful (and unprotected) antecedent conduct in discriminating and retaliating against plaintiff, which in turn led to the protected disciplinary proceedings.

Disagreeing with Tuszynska v. Cunningham (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 257 and Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1510, this decision holds that a plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation suit against the University where she was a medical resident in anesthesiology did not arise from the University’s protected activity in conducting proceedings leading to her discipline and ultimate termination but rather from the University’s allegedly wrongful (and unprotected) antecedent conduct in discriminating and retaliating against plaintiff, thus leading to the protected disciplinary proceedings. While the plaintiff’s motives in bringing a suit are irrelevant for purposes of determining whether the suit is subject to the Anti-SLAPP statute, it is not true that the defendant’s motives in engaging in the allegedly wrongful conduct is irrelevant to whether the suit is based on protected conduct.

California Court of Appeal, Third District (Raye, P.J.); July 29, 2016; Case No. C074796

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

I Agree

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

California Appellate Tracker

Nam v. Regents of University of California

Categories

San Francisco

Severson & Werson

Orange County

Severson & Werson