Aber sued Comstock for sexual harassment among other things. This did not sit well with Comstock, who sued Aber back, claiming defamation among other things.
Aber then filed a motion to strike Comstock's cross-claim. She claimed his lawsuit was a "SLAPP" or a retaliatory action against Aber. The trial court agreed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
If someone sues you and you return the favor, your lawsuit may be subject to a motion to strike as a "SLAPP" (strategic lawsuit against public participation). To overcome the anti-SLAPP motion, you have to prove that you have a good chance of winning your case. Comstock apparently did not do that, which is why his suit was dismissed. If you file a lawsuit that is dismissed as a SLAPP, you owe the other side attorney's fees. So, be careful before filing cross claims. It's probably wise to win your case first and then sue for malicious prosecution.
Anyway, what makes this case even more interesting is that the Court of Appeal held that the harassment victim's pre-litigation statements made to company HR investigators were covered by the anti-SLAPP statute as protected conduct. That means, for example, that if an employee participates in a sexual harassment investigation and reports misconduct against another employee, any defamation lawsuit will be examined as a potential SLAPP. Even witnesses who report to HR likely will be protected from retaliatory defamation lawsuits brought by the accused harasser. While that is good news for witnesses and victims of discrimination or harassment, it is bad news for those who are wrongly accused of harassment, who will have a tougher time protecting themselves from career-ending accusations.
This case is Aber v. Comstock and the opinion is here.
This case is Aber v. Comstock and the opinion is here.