Lopez

Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Lopez

Good Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 127·190 Cal. App. 4th 1248·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2109·110 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1460·31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 809
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 15, 2010No. G042984California11,767 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

INTRODUCTION

In 2009, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) informed plaintiff Overhill Farms, Inc. (Overhill), that 231 of its then current employees had provided invalid Social Security numbers. Overhill was advised its use of invalid tax identification information exposed it to the imposition of penalties and criminal liability. Overhill contacted the employees identified by the IRS, advised them that their Social Security numbers were invalid according to the IRS, and provided them the opportunity to correct the erroneous information to avoid the termination of their employment with Overhill. One of the identified employees provided Overhill information showing that the employee’s invalid Social Security number was an error. The remainder of the identified employees either admitted they had submitted an invalid Social Security number and were not authorized to work in the United States, or ignored Overhill’s requests for information; their employment with Overhill was thereafter terminated.

Several of Overhill’s employees, including defendants Teresa Cortez, Alma Salinas Renteria, Bohemia Y. Agustiano Saguilan, Marcelino Arteago, Agapita Padilla and…

Dissenting Opinion

Fybel, J.

I respectfully dissent.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a cherished freedom-the right to speak openly and freely. (U.S. Const., 1st Amend. [“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .”].) Within the past few years, the United States Supreme Court has broadly protected speech in a public forum in the analysis of permissible speech by candidates for judicial office (Republican Party of Minn. v. White (2002) 536 U.S. 765 [ 153 L.Ed.2d 694 , 122 S.Ct. 2528 ]), and of corporations in elections (Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n (2010) 558 U.S. _ [ 175 L.Ed.2d 753 , 130 S.Ct. 876 ]). The anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute provides that it should be construed broadly to protect against “lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the *1273 constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (a).)

Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted because none of defendants’ statements contains actionable defamation. The statements describe Overhill Farms, Inc.’s (Overhill), firing of a large number…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.