MORROW v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Part II
In granting school superintendent's anti - SLAPP motion against high school principal's invasion of privacy and defamation claims, trial court properly held that superintendent's statements concerning principal's handling of student violence on his school's campus, his leadership abilities, and his retirement plans were constitutionally protected, where incidents of student violence on high school campus were serious and triggered involvement of city officials; statements mentioned principal's private retirement plans only to the extent they directly concerned school district's solution to student violence; and statements were not the equivalent of a personnel evaluation under collective bargaining agreement that would trigger personnel exception to Brown Act. Court properly found that principal failed to demonstrate probability of prevailing on his claims because any private facts included in superintendent's disclosures were logically relevant to the newsworthy subject of the violence at high school and district's response to it. Superintendent's statements explaining district's response to a matter of widespread concern were protected by the executive officer privilege of Civil Code Sec. 47. Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding as improper lay opinion as to legal conclusions the statements by school district employee that collective bargaining agreement barred superintendent from making statements to the press about personnel matters such as job performance and retirement plans; district officials have recognized in discussions that personnel matters may only be discussed in a closed session of the school board, subject to the provisions of Brown Act; superintendent's statements to press regarding principal were "false and unfortunate"; and superintendent knew that making those statements was proscribed by the California Constitution, Brown Act, and collective bargaining agreement.
Comments on MORROW v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Part II