Employment Law: Abber V. Comstock

Lisa Aber, an employee of Wolters Kluwer United Sates, sued her employer and two of its employees, Michael Comstock and James Cioppa, alleging sexual harassment, failure to prevent sexual harassment, and sexual battery. She alleged that on June 5, 2010 Cioppa, who was her supervisor and Comstock tried to get her drunk and convince her to have sex with them, implying that her job would be secure if she did so . Comstock filed a cross-complaint, alleging defamation, which explained that the ree Wolters Kluwer employees had drinks at a restaurant on the night of June 5. Aber filed a special motion strike the cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute, and the trial court granted the motion dismissing Comstock's cross-complaint in its entirety.
     Affirmed. Under the anti-SLAPP statute, the court must first decide whether the defendant, here, cross-defendant Aber, has shown that the challenged cause of action arises from protected activity. If the court does find such a showing has been made, it must then determine whether the plaintiff, here, cross-complainant Comstock, has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. Here, Comstock alleged in his cross-complaint that Aber made false statements to the police, health care practitioners, and Wolters Kluwer employees about him. Each of the statements, which were made in the course of alleging a harassment claim, were deemed to be protected activities. Also, Comstock failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of his claim because he failed to submit admissible evidence that Aber made defamatory statements about him. As such, the trial court properly granted Aber's motion to strike the cross-complaint.
Opinion by Justice Richman

For More Information Contact us at
http://www.beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/