California teacher fired for ‘flirtatious’ texts with former student

The Bishop’s School, located in La Jolla, CA, and its head placed a teacher on administrative leave, then terminated his employment after learning about a “flirtatious” text message exchange between the teacher and a former student.

The teacher – the plaintiff in the case of Bishop v. The Bishop's School – worked for the school for 16 years. In March 2019, he entered into a contract whereby he would serve as an English teacher at the school for the 2019–2020 academic year. The student involved graduated in June 2019.

That September, the teacher and the student exchanged messages that the parties characterized as “flirtatious.”

The head of the school sent the teacher a letter explaining the basis for the school’s decision to terminate him “for good cause.” The letter said that the teacher discredited himself, violated the school’s policies and expectations for conduct, failed to abide by the school’s guidance and directives, and breached the trust required of the school’s teachers.

The teacher filed a complaint. The school’s student-run newspaper then published an article that included a quote from the school head relating to the case.

The teacher brought an amended complaint making the following allegations:

• The school’s termination of his employment breached the contract between them
• The termination letter from the school and its head contained false and defamatory statements about his conduct that meant to and did harm his reputation, including by making it impossible for him to be hired as a teacher
• The school head’s statement to the student newspaper was false, defamatory, malicious, and damaging

The defendants – who were the school and its head – filed a demurrer to the complaint and an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion seeking to strike the entire complaint under section 425.16 of California’s Code of Civil Procedure.

In the demurrer, the defendants challenged the contract claim since the teacher failed to identify a provision of the employment agreement that they allegedly breached and challenged the defamation claims because he failed to identify specific defamatory language, because the letter was unpublished, and because the statements were truthful and privileged.

In the anti-SLAPP motion, the defendants argued that the teacher’s claims were not likely to prevail and were challenging speech and conduct that engaged public interest matters, including the protection of children from a teacher’s inappropriate conduct and the maintenance of the necessary integrity and trust among the school and its teachers, staff, students, and their parents.

The trial court granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion relating to the defamation claims and denied it relating to the contract claim. The trial court overruled the school’s demurrer regarding the contract claim and deemed it moot regarding the defamation claims.

The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, First Division partly affirmed and partly reversed the trial court’s order partly granting and partly denying the anti-SLAPP motion.

According to the appellate court, the teacher’s allegations about the school head’s newspaper article quote were entitled to protection under the anti-SLAPP law. But his allegations about the termination letter or about the termination itself were not entitled to such protection, the court said.

The newspaper quote deserved anti-SLAPP protection because it amounted to speech in connection with student safety, an issue of public interest, and because there was some degree of closeness between the speech and the issue of public interest, the Court of Appeal explained.

As for the termination letter and the termination itself, although they also implicated an issue of public interest, they were not deserving of anti-SLAPP protection because they did not contribute to the public debate, the appellate court said.

In the end, the Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court properly granted the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion relating to the newspaper quote since the teacher failed to show that he was likely to succeed in this defamation claim and failed to present evidence that the school head made a false and defamatory statement.