Such allegations do not support a viable claim for disability discrimination. In alleging defamation, plaintiff's complaint primarily identifies statements of opinion that are not actionable. 44 Cal.App.3d 899, 902. In opposition to this motion, plaintiff himself focuses only on the remaining allegation that he committed improprieties regarding a CAHF 401K plan. Defendants have shown that any comments in that regard were made in the course of an investigation, prompted by CAHF outside counsel, into plaintiff's conduct in connection with the plan.
Statements made during such an investigation are subject to a qualified privilege.
Additionally, plaintiff has failed to show that any statements concerning the investigation and his alleged conduct were published or disseminated in any event. Counsel for defendants are directed to submit formal orders to the Court in compliance with California Rule of Court 391. The Court concludes the vending machines are not illegal slot machines, and are authorized by Gov't Code section 8880.335. Therefore, plaintiff's motion is denied and defendant's motion is granted. The records are privileged, and as the privilege belongs to EDD, the purported waiver by plaintiff is ineffective.