Murray

I. Background A. The Allegations in the Complaint and Cross-complaint2 According to allegations in the complaint, Murray began working at LRI in or about October 2021. A year later, two female colleagues “began making sexually harassing comments . . . , including asking to see pictures of [Murray’s] penis, despite [his] protesting the behavior.” Not long after, “one of those same co-workers . . . hit [Murray] in the buttocks without his consent.” When Murray complained to LRI, the company did not take appropriate action. Instead it required him to complete a sexual harassment prevention course and then terminated his employment. Thereafter Murray

sued LRI, claiming retaliatory discharge.3 In response to Murray’s complaint, LRI filed an answer and cross- complaint in which it denied the allegations of the complaint and asserted two causes of action—one for equitable indemnity and one for contribution— against Murray and several unnamed Roe cross-defendants. According to the allegations of the cross-complaint, Murray and the Roe cross-defendants had

All unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. SLAPP is an acronym for a strategic lawsuit against…