Source: https://caselaw.lexroll.com/2019/02/12/symmonds-v-mahoney-no-b283529-cal-app-2-1-2019/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:54:01+00:00

Document:
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Rafael A. Ongkeko, Judge. Reversed.
Fox Rothschild, Lincoln D. Bandlow, Sadaf Bathaee, Rom Bar-Nissim, and Laurie Baddon for Defendants and Appellants.
Bohm Law Group, Lawrance A. Bohm, Zane E. Hilton, Bradley J. Mancuso, and Brandon P. Ortiz for Plaintiffs and Respondents.
Defendants Edward Joseph Mahoney, also known as Eddie Money, and Eddie Money Entertainment, Inc. (collectively, defendants) appeal from the trial court’s order denying a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute.
Mahoney is a singer and songwriter who performs in concerts across the country. In 2015 he terminated his drummer, plaintiff and respondent Glenn Symmonds, who subsequently sued defendants for discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and medical condition. Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion arguing that Mahoney’s decision as to which musicians performed with him was an act in furtherance of the exercise of his constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest, and thus protected under section 425.16.
The trial court denied the motion, finding that Symmonds’ cause of action arose from defendants’ discriminatory conduct, not the decision to terminate him, and thus Symmonds’ claim did not implicate Mahoney’s free speech rights.
We hold that defendants met their burden to establish that Mahoney’s decision to terminate Symmonds was protected conduct. Accordingly, we reverse and remand so the trial court may conduct the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis and determine whether Symmonds has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits of his claim. We deny Symmonds’ requests for attorney fees and sanctions.
On May 20, 2016, Symmonds and his coplaintiff, Tami Landrum, filed their first amended complaint (FAC), the operative pleading in this case. The FAC asserted 22 causes of action; only the first, for discrimination based upon age, disability, and medical condition in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), is at issue in this appeal. We thus limit our summary of the allegations to those underlying that claim. The first cause of action was asserted by Symmonds alone against all defendants; this appeal does not address any of the causes of action asserted by Landrum.
Mahoney hired Symmonds in 1974 as part of his band, an employment relationship that lasted “off and on for approximately 41 years.” Symmonds performed as a drummer for Mahoney during live concerts and in studio, and performed “before shows with [Mahoney’s] ‘unplugged’ band, for which he received separate compensation.” He also managed and sold band merchandise, such as t-shirts, compact discs, and posters, at a booth following performances.
Sometime in 2015 Mahoney laid off the entire band. Months later, Mahoney rehired the band, but not Symmonds. Symmonds believed his age (he was approximately 61 years old, disabilities, and medical condition (i.e., his cancer and back surgery) were “substantial motivating reasons for his termination.” Symmonds alleged that the drummer hired to replace him was younger and not disabled, but “less skilled and qualified” than Symmonds.
On June 29, 2016, defendants filed a special motion to strike Symmonds’ first cause of action under section 425.16. Defendants argued that under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Mahoney had the right to select whomever he wished to perform music with him, and Symmonds’ first cause of action implicated that right. Defendants argued that Symmonds’ claim arose in connection with an issue of public interest given the media’s and the public’s interest in Mahoney and his music. In support, Mahoney submitted a declaration stating that he had written and performed several hit songs, sold millions of records, had more than 300,000 followers on Facebook, and had appeared in a television commercial referencing one of his songs in 2012. Defendants also submitted news articles dated between 2003 and 2016 concerning Mahoney and his music.
Defendants further argued that Symmonds would be unable to produce evidence demonstrating a probability of prevailing on the merits. Defendants asserted that Mahoney’s decision to lay off the band was motivated by his desire to perform with his adult children during the summer of 2015. Defendants claimed that Symmonds reacted negatively to that decision by attempting to discredit Mahoney with fans and concert promoters, and Mahoney accordingly chose not to rehire him.
Symmonds opposed defendants’ motion, arguing that his first cause of action “ar[ose] from a discriminatory animus towards [Symmonds] that was ongoing long before [Mahoney’s] decision regarding who played in his band,” and therefore was not subject to section 425.16. Symmonds also disputed defendants’ characterization of events and put forth evidence purportedly undercutting Mahoney’s explanations for his conduct.
Defendants filed a reply along with a list of 72 objections to Symmonds’ declaration in support of his opposition.
Having concluded that Symmonds’ first cause of action did not implicate conduct protected under section 425.16, the trial court did not reach the question of Symmonds’ probability of prevailing on the merits and did not address defendants’ objections to Symmonds’ declaration.
Symmonds argues that defendants’ special motion to strike was untimely. We reject this argument.
The original complaint in this action was filed on October 19, 2015, and included causes of action for age and disability discrimination and wrongful termination, similar to the FAC. Symmonds contends that defendants therefore should have brought their anti-SLAPP motion within 60 days of the filing of the original complaint, not the FAC, and the filing in June 2016 was untimely.
The record does not indicate that Symmonds challenged the timeliness of the motion in the trial court, and the trial court did not expressly address the issue. We may assume, however, that the trial court implicitly exercised its discretion to allow filing of the motion despite the expiration of the 60-day deadline. (See 425.16, subd. (f).) To the extent Symmonds believes this was in error, his remedy was to file his own notice of appeal, which he did not do. (Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655, 665 [“ ‘ “ ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal’ ” ’ ”].) Even were we to reach the merits, Symmonds presents no argument in his appellate brief that the trial court abused its discretion.
Again, to prevail at the first step of anti-SLAPP analysis, “the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16.” (Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 384.) Thus, in reviewing the trial court’s denial of defendants’ special motion to strike, we must address two questions: (1) From what activity does Symmonds’ first cause of action arise, and (2) is that activity protected by section 425.16?
Defendants argue that the activity underlying the first cause of action was Mahoney’s decision to terminate Symmonds, a decision Mahoney contends was in furtherance of his free speech rights in connection with an issue of public interest. The trial court found, and Symmonds argues on appeal, that the activity underlying the cause of action was Mahoney’s discriminatory conduct, not the termination itself, and that conduct was not in furtherance of Mahoney’s free speech rights.
For the reasons that follow, we agree with defendants. We begin with the second question, and explain why Mahoney’s decision to terminate Symmonds was protected activity. We then explain why we conclude that Symmonds’ first cause of action arose from that protected activity.
“Music, as a form of expression and communication, is protected under the First Amendment.” (Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781, 790; see also McCollum v. CBS, Inc. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 989, 999 [“First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and expression extend to all artistic and literary expression,” including “music” and “concerts”].) Courts have held that acts that “advance or assist” the creation and performance of artistic works are acts in furtherance of the right of free speech for anti-SLAPP purposes. (Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 133, 143 (Tamkin) [writing, casting, and broadcasting popular television show are acts in furtherance of free speech].) A singer’s selection of the musicians that play with him both advances and assists the performance of the music, and therefore is an act in furtherance of his exercise of the right of free speech.
Here, selection of a drummer is analogous to a “casting decision[ ]” regarding who is to perform music during a concert or studio performance, and thus is “an act in furtherance of the exercise of free speech.” (Hunter, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 1521).
Symmonds cites cases, including Wilson, that criticized Hunter for ignoring the employer’s allegedly discriminatory motive when assessing whether the employer’s conduct was protected activity. (See Nam v. Regents of University of California (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1176, 1188-1189 (Nam) [disagreeing with Hunter’s conclusion that “the employer’s motive to discriminate was irrelevant in determining whether the defendant met its threshold burden to prove the conduct arose from protected activity”]; Wilson, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 834‑835 [same, citing Nam]).
We agree with Hunter’s reasoning in light of Navellier. To the extent that Nam and Wilson suggest that a defendant’s discriminatory motive negates protections that otherwise would apply to the defendant’s conduct under section 425.16, those decisions assessed the “ ‘claimed illegitimacy of the defendant’s acts’ ” at the first stage of anti-SLAPP analysis, in contravention of Navellier. (Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 94.) We respectfully decline to follow them.
Here, defendants have made a prima facie showing sufficient to establish that Mahoney’s music and concerts were of interest to the public. Mahoney’s declaration put forth evidence that he had sold millions of records and had hundreds of thousands of people following him on social media. Defendants also submitted news articles from different media outlets dated as recently as 2016 discussing Mahoney and his music, including the concert tour in which Mahoney performed with his children and from which he excluded Symmonds. Moreover, the FAC itself alleged that Mahoney “continue[d] to perform at concerts across the country,” indicating that Mahoney’s music and performances were of interest to the public.
In sum, we conclude that Mahoney’s decision to terminate Symmonds and replace him with another drummer constituted protected conduct for purposes of the first step of anti-SLAPP analysis.
Symmonds notes that he was not only Mahoney’s drummer, but also worked for him as merchandise manager and a pre-show performer. Symmonds contends that “[i]n no way would these other jobs be considered ‘protected speech.’ ” Symmonds’ loss of those additional positions, however, stemmed from the decision to terminate him as drummer; Symmonds does not allege that Mahoney made separate decisions as to each position, just that Mahoney laid Symmonds off with the rest of the band and then declined to rehire him. In other words, Symmonds’ termination as merchandise manager and pre-show performer was derivative of, and inseparable from, the decision to terminate him as drummer. Thus, even if some of Symmonds’ work for Mahoney had no connection to Mahoney’s free speech rights (an issue we do not decide), it does not affect our conclusion that the decision to terminate Symmonds implicated those rights for anti-SLAPP purposes.
Symmonds’ employment discrimination claim required him to prove the following elements: “ ‘(1) he was a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position he sought or was performing competently in the position he held, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.’ ” (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 1067-1068). Here, the allegation that Mahoney fired Symmonds supplied the third element, the “ ‘adverse employment action, such as termination.’ ” (Id. at p. 1067.) As we have discussed, the termination was conduct in furtherance of the First Amendment; thus, under the analysis outlined in Park, Symmonds’ claim arose from that protected conduct because the conduct supplied one of the elements of the claim.
The Wilson majority was correct that the plaintiff news producer’s cause of action depended on his allegations of discrimination and could not stand in their absence. A plaintiff asserting employment discrimination, however, must also allege an adverse employment action. (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 1067-1068.) To the extent that adverse employment action is an act in furtherance of the employer’s free speech rights in connection with an issue of public interest, therefore, under Park the employment discrimination claim necessarily arises from protected conduct. The discrimination cannot be considered separately from the adverse employment action for anti-SLAPP purposes, as the Wilson majority did.
In defense of the trial court’s ruling, Symmonds also cites Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 851 (Bonni), review granted November 1, 2017, S244148, a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal involving a surgeon’s claim of whistleblower retaliation. (Id. at p. 854.) Similar to Wilson, Bonni held that the suit was not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute because “the basis for a [whistleblower] retaliation claim . . . is the retaliatory purpose or motive for the adverse action, not the adverse action itself.” (Bonni, at p. 861.) Again, in light of Park we cannot agree that an employment discrimination claim does not arise from the adverse employment action when that action is a necessary element of the cause of action.
In so concluding we do not suggest that employment decisions as a general matter are acts in furtherance of the right to petition or free speech for anti-SLAPP purposes. For example, in Park, the Supreme Court first rejected the argument that a university’s tenure decision was protected because the process that led to it was communicative. (Park, supra, 2 Cal.5th at pp. 1068-1070.) The court also rejected the university’s argument, based on Hunter, that the tenure decision itself “implicate[d] the public interest as much as decisions concerning who should appear in a news broadcast and thus are equally entitled to protection.” (Park, at p. 1071.) The court called this a “mismatched analogy” because, unlike the defendant in Hunter, the university had failed to “explain how the choice of faculty involved conduct in furtherance of University speech on an identifiable matter of public interest. . . . It has not explained what University expression on matters of public interest the retention or nonretention of this faculty member might further.” (Park, at p. 1072.) Park illustrates that, irrespective of motive, a cause of action based on an adverse employment decision is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute unless the decision itself implicates rights protected under section 425.16.
Here, as we have explained, Mahoney’s decision to terminate Symmonds or, put another way, not to have Symmonds perform music with him, did implicate Mahoney’s free speech rights. Thus, this case, unlike Park, presents a circumstance in which the adverse employment action itself is conduct within the purview of the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Rall v. Tribune 365 LLC (Jan. 17, 2019, B284566) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2019 Cal.App.Lexis 52 *31-33] [blogger’s wrongful termination claim against newspaper arose from newspaper’s protected activity of choosing not to publish blogger’s work].) The trial court erred in finding that defendants had not met their burden at the first step of anti-SLAPP analysis.
As Justice Chin stated in his concurrence in Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, a sexual harassment case brought by a writer’s assistant on a popular television program, “[b]alancing the compelling need to protect employees from sexual harassment with free speech rights can, in some contexts, present very difficult questions.” (Id. at p. 296 (conc. opn. of Chin, J.).) The same can be said for cases like this one, in which antidiscrimination protections run up against an employer’s free speech rights. As Hunter, Nam, Wilson, and Bonni demonstrate, reasonable minds may differ on the proper resolution. The Supreme Court has granted review in both Wilson and Bonni, so further guidance may be forthcoming. Until the Supreme Court speaks definitively, however, we are bound by Navellier and Park, which mandate that we reverse the trial court.
As for the second step of the anti-SLAPP analysis, defendants argue that Symmonds cannot show a probability of prevailing on the merits of his claim because Symmonds has failed to put forth admissible evidence establishing that Mahoney terminated him for discriminatory reasons. Defendants also point to their own evidence submitted in support of their anti-SLAPP motion, which they claim establishes that Mahoney terminated Symmonds for legitimate reasons. Symmonds argues that he put forth sufficient evidence to meet his prima facie burden.
Because the trial court denied defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion at the first step of the analysis, it did not address whether Symmonds met his burden under the second step, nor did it rule on defendants’ objections or the admissibility of the parties’ evidence. Under similar circumstances, the court in Hunter held “the more prudent course is to remand the matter to the trial court” to conduct the second step analysis in the first instance. (Hunter, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 1527.) We follow that course here.
As the trial court correctly noted, and Symmonds reiterates on appeal, Symmonds’ first cause of action was not based solely on his termination, but also on allegations of harassment and failure to accommodate Symmonds’ disability. Defendants did not direct their anti-SLAPP motion at those additional allegations. (See Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 393 [anti-SLAPP motion “may be used to attack parts of a count as pleaded”], italics added.) On appeal, defendants characterize those allegations as “conduct . . . prior to the adverse employment action,” that is, the termination. (Italics and boldface omitted.) Both harassment and failure to accommodate a disability, however, constitute unlawful employment practices in their own right. (See Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1) [unlawful to harass an employee on basis of, among other things, age, disability, and medical condition]; id., subd. (m)(1) [unlawful to fail to make reasonable accommodation for an employee’s known disability].) Defendants make no argument on appeal, nor did they in the trial court, that those independent claims implicate rights protected under section 425.16; indeed, in their reply in support of the special motion to strike, they characterized the allegations of conduct prior to the firing as “unprotected activity” for anti‑SLAPP purposes.
Given the absence of any argument from defendants that the allegations of harassment and failure to accommodate a disability implicate protected activity, on remand the trial court should disregard those allegations when conducting its anti-SLAPP analysis, except insofar as they may be pertinent to assessing the probability of Symmonds’ prevailing on his claim that Mahoney terminated him for unlawfully discriminatory reasons. (See Baral, supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 396.) We express no opinion as to whether those allegations would be subject to the anti-SLAPP statute had defendants so argued, nor do we express an opinion as to whether they are sufficient to plead a cause of action.
Symmonds requests that we “make an affirmative determination” that defendants’ special motion to strike “was frivolous or undertaken solely to cause unnecessary delay,” thus entitling Symmonds to costs and reasonable attorney fees under section 425.16, subdivision (c)(1). Symmonds cites no authority for the proposition that an appellate court may make that determination in the first instance. The trial court may make such a determination, if appropriate, upon remand.
Symmonds also requests that we impose sanctions on defendants for filing their appeal, which he asserts was “frivolous” and “solely for the purpose of causing delay.” Symmonds’ request is procedurally improper. Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.276(b)(1), a request for sanctions on appeal must be raised in a separate motion; “[s]anctions cannot be sought in the respondent’s brief.” (Cowan v. Krayzman (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 907, 919.) Symmonds also has failed to “include a declaration supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.276(b)(1).) Regardless, defendants’ appeal clearly has merit given our reversal of the trial court’s order. Symmonds’ request for sanctions is denied.
The trial court’s order denying defendants’ special motion to strike is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Defendants are awarded their costs on appeal.

References: § 12900
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12940
 v.