CSU Professors' Retaliation Claims Survive University's Anti-SLAPP Challenge
/
Two married professors say they were harassed and discriminated against, then pushed out of their jobs after speaking up; and when California State University tried to strike their retaliation claims using an anti-SLAPP motion, a California appeals court refused.
Case: Hyewon Pechkis et al. v. Trustees of the California State University
Court: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District
Case No.: C103742 (Butte County Superior Court No. 24CV04200)
Get to Know the Plaintiffs: Pechkis v. Trustees of CSU
Hyewon Pechkis and Joseph Pechkis are a married couple who worked as tenured physics professors at California State University, Chico. Hyewon alleges she was harassed and discriminated against by her department chair based on gender bias and her Korean ancestry and national origin. Despite reporting the conduct to university administration, the couple alleges the university did not intervene, and Hyewon suffered serious mental health consequences that led her doctor to recommend she not work in the same environment as the chair. The couple ultimately resigned and accepted positions at another university.
Get to Know the Defendant: Pechkis v. Trustees of CSU
The Trustees of the California State University govern the CSU system, which includes California State University, Chico, where the Pechkises were employed.
What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?
The Pechkises' complaint, filed in December 2024, asserts six causes of action against CSU. According to the case:
● Hyewon was subjected to harassment and discrimination by her department chair based on perceived gender bias and her Korean ancestry and national origin
● The university failed to intervene despite the couple's reports to administration
● The situation caused serious mental health consequences for Hyewon, with her doctor recommending she avoid working in the same environment as the chair
● The university's inaction allegedly forced both professors to resign and take positions elsewhere
● After their resignation, the university initiated an investigation into Hyewon for an alleged student privacy law violation, which the couple characterizes as retaliatory
● There were also delays in transferring the couple's lab equipment following their resignation
What Was the Main Question in the Case?
The central legal question was whether CSU met its burden under California's anti-SLAPP statute to show that the Pechkises' retaliation claims arose entirely from legally protected activity, such as communications made during an official investigation. The Court of Appeal held that CSU had not met that burden, applying the framework from Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, which requires a claim-by-claim analysis rather than a broad argument that claims are merely "based in part" on protected conduct.
Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?
This is a California case decided under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the state's anti-SLAPP statute, and it has meaningful implications for public employees statewide.
● The ruling limits how broadly public employers, including universities, can use anti-SLAPP motions to strike retaliation claims early in litigation
● It reinforces that courts must analyze each specific claim individually, rather than allowing a defendant to strike an entire cause of action just because part of it touches on protected activity
● The case shows how retaliation can take subtle forms, such as a sudden investigation or delayed equipment transfers, following an employee's protected complaints
● It's an important precedent for California employees at public institutions who fear retaliation will follow after reporting harassment or discrimination
A Brief Overview of the Case
● December 9, 2024: Hyewon and Joseph Pechkis file their complaint against CSU in Butte County Superior Court, asserting six causes of action
● March 2025: CSU files an anti-SLAPP motion seeking to strike the FEHA retaliation and whistleblower retaliation causes of action
● The Butte County Superior Court denies CSU's motion
● March 24, 2026: The Third Appellate District affirms the denial, finding CSU failed to carry its burden under the anti-SLAPP statute
FAQs: Pechkis v. Trustees of CSU
Q: What is an anti-SLAPP motion?
A: An anti-SLAPP motion is a special motion under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 designed to strike lawsuits that target a defendant's free speech or petition rights. It's meant to prevent lawsuits filed to silence protected activity.
Q: Can an employer use an anti-SLAPP motion to get rid of a retaliation claim?
A: Not automatically. As this case shows, courts require the employer to show each specific claim arises from protected activity, not just that some communications involved in the case might be protected.
Q: What does it mean for a claim to "arise from" protected activity?
A: It generally means the claim is based on the protected conduct itself, not just that protected conduct is mentioned or connected to the broader circumstances of the case.
Q: Are public university employees protected by the same discrimination and retaliation laws as private sector workers?
A: Yes. Employees at public institutions like the CSU system are generally protected under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the same as private sector employees.
Q: Can being subjected to an investigation after making a complaint be considered retaliation?
A: It can, particularly if the timing and circumstances suggest the investigation was launched in response to the employee's protected complaint rather than for a legitimate reason.
Q: What should I do if I believe I've faced retaliation after reporting workplace harassment or discrimination?
A: Document the timeline between your complaint and any adverse actions that followed, and consult with an employment attorney about your legal options.
Facing Retaliation After Reporting Harassment or Discrimination?
Pechkis v. Trustees of CSU shows that California courts won't let employers use technical motions to sidestep legitimate retaliation claims. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
