Pechkis v. Trustees of CSU (Professor Retaliation)
Two Chico State professors sued CSU alleging retaliation for reporting discrimination. Court denied anti-SLAPP motion, allowing claims for discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower retaliation to proceed.
What Happened
In 2018, two professors at California State University, Chico (CSU, Chico) reported incidents of discrimination to the university administration. The professors, who wish to remain anonymous, alleged that they faced retaliation from the university after reporting these incidents. The retaliation included denial of promotions, unfair performance evaluations, and exclusion from important meetings and decisions.
The professors, with the help of their attorney, filed a lawsuit against the Trustees of CSU (Pechkis v. Trustees of CSU) in Butte County Superior Court. The lawsuit alleged claims of discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower retaliation under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the California Whistleblower Protection Act.
The defendants, represented by the Office of the General Counsel of the California State University system, filed an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The anti-SLAPP motion argued that the professors' claims were based on protected speech and petitioning activity, and that the university's actions were lawful and legitimate. However, on February 10, 2020, the court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, allowing the professors' claims to proceed.
Key Players
Timeline
Outcome
The court's denial of the anti-SLAPP motion allowed the professors' claims of discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower retaliation to proceed. This ruling is significant because it recognizes the importance of protecting employees who report discrimination and retaliation from further retaliation. The case will now proceed to trial, where the professors will have the opportunity to present their evidence and argue their claims.
The outcome of this case has important implications for employees in California who report discrimination and retaliation. It sends a strong message that universities and other employers cannot retaliate against employees who report unlawful activity, and that employees who do so are protected by the law.
Why This Matters
This case highlights the importance of protecting employees who report discrimination and retaliation from further retaliation. It also underscores the need for universities and other employers to take seriously their obligations under the law to prevent and address discrimination and retaliation. The case has significant implications for employees in California who report unlawful activity, and it sends a strong message that retaliation will not be tolerated.
The case also raises important questions about the use of anti-SLAPP motions in employment cases. Anti-SLAPP motions are intended to protect individuals and organizations from frivolous lawsuits that chill their right to free speech. However, in this case, the court found that the professors' claims were not frivolous and that the university's actions were not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.