Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University

2 Cal. 5th 1057, 217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 130, 393 P.3d 905 (2017)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University

California Supreme Court
2 Cal. 5th 1057, 217 Cal. Rptr. 3d 130, 393 P.3d 905 (2017)

KD

Facts

Sungho Park (plaintiff), who was of Korean national origin, was an assistant professor at California State University, Los Angeles. Park sued the Board of Trustees of California State University (university) (defendant) for discrimination after he was denied tenure. Park alleged that White colleagues with similar or poorer performance records received tenure. Park further alleged that a university dean had made comments that evidenced a discriminatory animus. The university asserted that Park’s suit constituted a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and therefore filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Anti-SLAPP motions targeted claims arising from the defendant’s acts in furtherance of the defendant’s constitutional rights of petition and free speech in connection with public issues. The anti-SLAPP statute identified four specific categories of acts that qualified for protection, including statements made in connection with an official proceeding. To prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion, a defendant had to initially establish that the plaintiff’s claim arose from the defendant’s protected activity. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff to show that his claim had minimal merit. The trial court denied the university’s motion. The court of appeal reversed, ruling that Park’s claim arose out of the university’s protected activities because those activities contributed to its decision to deny Park tenure. Specifically, the appellate court concluded that the communications leading up to the university’s decision occurred in connection with the tenure decision process, an official proceeding. The California Supreme Court granted review.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Werdegar, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership