Case Summary

4894 Unless defendant concedes, or the evidence conclusively establishes, that allegedly protected speech was illegal as a matter of law, plaintiff's allegation that the speech was illegal is not sufficient to prevent application of the SLAPP statute to a cause of action arising from it; to make out a case of whistleblower retaliation, plaintiff must show that s/he was subject to adverse employment action as a result of whistleblowing, so action taken by the former employer after plaintiff's voluntary retirement cannot serve as a basis for liability; statements made to instigate an official investigation are protected by the litigation privilege.

HANSEN v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (Whistleblower Retaliation) 171 CA4 1537 [See: LabC 1102.5; CCP 425.16; GovC 815.2, 821.6; CivC 47; City of Cotati v Cashman 29 C4 69, T/AT 10/02; Soukup v Hafif 39 C4 260, P/AT 9/06; Flatley v Mauro 39 C4 299, P/AT 11/06; Brown v Dept of Corr 132 CA4 520, T/AT 10/05; Hagberg v Cal Fed 32 C4 350, T/AT 2/04]