Two fifth grade students, ages 10 and 11, attended a four-day overnight science camp that the Los Alamito Unified School District organized and the Pali Institute, Inc. (Pali) operated. Multiple camp counselors introduced themselves to the students using “they/them” pronouns, asked students to state their preferred pronouns, and discussed issues relating to transgender and sexual identity. Students slept in a dormitory supervised by a counselor who used they/them pronouns. When the students asked to call their parents to discuss these matters, counselors denied the requests, citing a Pali policy that prohibited phone calls home. The students alleged that these experiences caused them severe emotional distress.
After returning home from the camp, the students and their families sued Pali and the District for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. They alleged that Pali and the District intentionally, or at least negligently, exposed them to age-inappropriate content without parental consent and should have allowed the students to call their parents.
Pali filed a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. An anti-SLAPP motion allows a defendant to seek early dismissal of claims that arise from constitutionally protected speech on matters of public interest, unless the plaintiff can show the claims have minimal merit. Pali argued that the claims arose from camp counselors’ communications about gender identity, a topic of broad public concern, and therefore qualified as protected speech.
The student plaintiffs opposed the anti-SLAPP motion and argued that their claims arose not from speech but from Pali’s failure to disclose information to parents and its refusal to allow children to contact their families. Plaintiffs also requested attorney fees, arguing that Pali’s anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous. The trial court denied Pali’s anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the claims did not arise from protected activity, and denied the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee request. Pali appealed, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed.
The court of appeal described the two-step framework for analyzing anti-SLAPP motions. First, the defendant must show the challenged claims arise from protected speech or conduct on an issue of public interest. If the defendant meets that burden, the second step requires the plaintiff to show the claims have at least “minimal merit.” To do so, the plaintiff must present admissible evidence that, if true, would establish each element of the claim and support a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.
First, the court of appeal concluded that the camp counselors’ discussions about gender identity qualified as protected speech on an issue of significant public interest. The court of appeal rejected the students’ attempt to frame their claims as concerning only failure to disclose information to parents and phone call policies. It found that the allegations of emotional distress arose, at least in part, from the counselors’ gender identity discussions. Therefore, portions of the emotional distress claims arose from protected activity. However, the court of appeal also found that claims based solely on Pali’s no-call-home policy, sleeping arrangements, or nondisclosure of counselor identities did not arise from protected activity and therefore fell outside the anti-SLAPP statute.
At the second step of the analysis, the court of appeal held that the students failed to show “minimal merit” for the claims tied to protected activity. The students failed to substantiate their claims because they did not present admissible evidence of Pali’s conduct and the students’ emotional distress. The students relied only on a declaration from one student’s mother, much of which consisted of inadmissible hearsay.
The court of appeal reasoned that, even if the declaration was admissible, the allegations did not establish liability as a matter of law. Exposing students to discussions of gender identity in a school-related setting did not amount to outrageous conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It also did not create a breach of duty sufficient to support a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court of appeal explained that recognizing such liability would conflict with California’s public policy, which protects gender identity and promotes inclusion in education. The court of appeal further affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ attorney fees because Pali’s anti-SLAPP motion had partial merit and was not frivolous.
The court of appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part. It ordered the trial court to vacate its order that had denied Pali’s anti-SLAPP motion. The court of appeal instructed the trial court to grant the anti-SLAPP motion on the claims that relied on gender identity discussions and on Pali’s alleged failure to disclose those discussions to parents. It instructed the trial court to deny the anti-SLAPP motion on the remaining claims, which involved the no-call-home policy, sleeping arrangements, and nondisclosure of counselor identities. In addition, the court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ attorney fee request and awarded Pali its costs on appeal.
Sandoval v. Pali Institute, Inc. (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 616.