In Guarino v. County of Siskiyou, ordered published March 29, 2018, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order granting an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff was county counsel. According to the plaintiff's allegations,i n 2011, the county investigated a complaint by the plaintiff's subordinate that the plaintiff had harassed the subordinate. The investigation was closed by the county with no finding of wrongdoing. At the end of the year, the county appointed the plaintiff for a second term. In 2012, the subordinate resigned and filed a federal suit against the plaintiff and the county. Soon after, the county board of supervisors conducted a closed-session employment review of plaintiff, and instructed him to terminate the premises. Another investigation exonerated the plaintiff. The board voted to rescind the plaintiff's second term. The complaint alleged these board votes were illegal, because they did not follow the procedure under the Government Code for removing a county counsel. The administrative officer then filed an accusation with the county clerk under the Government Code procedure for removing a county counsel. The plaintiff resigned. He then sued the county, the board of supervisors, and the county administrative officer on assorted grounds. The causes of action at issue in the appeal were breach of employment contract and breach of employment contract for constructive discharge.
The appellate court ruled that the first prong of anti-SLAPP was established, because the investigation and the resulting actions of the county, board, and administrative officer were all protected speech. On the second prong, the plaintiff had the burden of showing a probability of prevailing on the merits. He could not make that showing on his breach of contract causes of action, because public employment is held by statute, not contract.
Comments