Griggs v. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
The trial court denied an employer’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike its employee’s claim for wrongful termination because that claim arose from the employer’s decision to terminate, which the court concluded was not “protected activity” under the anti-SLAPP statute. The employer appeals, arguing that the claim was based upon “protected activity” because the employee alleged that part of what made the termination wrongful was the employer’s conduct in using subterfuge to secure an administrative decision finding the employee responsible for violating federal labor law. The anti-SLAPP statute applies only when the “[protected] activity itself is the wrong complained of” rather than “a step leading to [a] different act[ion] for which liability is asserted.”
Comments on Griggs v. Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters