LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - A linguistics professor colleagues described as “difficult for virtually everyone to work with” must pay some $80,000 in fees to Seyfarth Shaw over a lawsuit she filed, then voluntarily dismissed, accusing the employment law firm of submitting a biased and defamatory report on discrimination claims she initiated.
Natalie Operstein complained of harassment by colleagues to the human resources director at California State University, Fullerton in 2014, requesting a legal investigation. The school hired Seyfarth Shaw and assigned then-partner Colleen Regan to interview three colleagues and compile a report. Regan interviewed the three but Operstein herself refused an in-person interview, insisting she would only answer written questions.
In her report to the school, Regan wrote: “I conclude by reading the email traffic that much of Dr. Operstein’s conduct and email communication was the opposite of collegial. She regularly accused her coworkers of violations and infractions of policy, and of defaming her and violating her rights, all with no apparent basis.”
Operstein sued the law firm and Regan in 2020, accusing them of bias and defamation. The law firm moved to dismiss the case under California’s anti-SLAPP (for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, which courts have held protects court filings and other statements by lawyers in connection with official proceedings.
After Los Angeles County Judge Harry Jay Ford III issued a tentative ruling to dismiss three of the 11 claims in Operstein’s lawsuit, she voluntarily dismissed the entire complaint. Seyfarth Shaw then moved to recover $78,889 in fee as allowed under the anti-SLAPP law. The judge awarded only $64,000 in fees, citing the claims that he was inclined to keep alive.
Seyfarth appealed and California’s Second District Court of Appeal, in an Oct. 20 decision, ordered the trial court to award the entire amount Seyfarth was seeking. Courts don’t have to award fees if a plaintiff withdraws her complaint, the appeals court said, but if the court determines a defendant is the “prevailing party,” fees are mandatory.
In this case, the defendants “were not Operstein’s employer. They did not terminate her. Plaintiffs are attacking defendants’ conduct in an official proceeding authorized by law to address workplace misconduct,” the court ruled.
“Every witness interviewed stated that Dr. Operstein is well-regarded as a scholar and researcher, and appears to be a fine teacher,” the court concluded. “However, since the beginning of her employment at CSUF, she has been difficult for virtually everyone to work with. At least one administrative support employee has requested never to work with her again, and many others find her behavior odd, and even threatening.”