Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Page 1
Workplace Order Banning Abortion Protestor Based on Act Outside Clinic Is Proper—C.A.
Opinion Says Abortion Protestor Who Bumped Employee While Trying to Block Purported Attempts to Interfere With Conversations With Potential Client Before Entering Facility Properly Restrained
By a MetNews Staff Writer
An anti-abortion activist, who bumped into an employee of a Redlands-based clinic with his stomach during efforts to block her from interrupting a conversation between another protestor and a potential client outside the gated premises, was properly subjected to a workplace violence restraining order requiring him to stay 100 yards away from the facility for three years, the Third District Court of Appeal held yesterday.
In an unpublished opinion, written by Justice Stacy E. Boulware Eurie and joined in by Acting Presiding Justice Ronald B. Robie and Justice Elana Duarte, the court rejected the protestor’s assertion that the fact that the incident occurred on public property outside the gated facility precluded the imposition of an order designed to address violence in the “workplace.”
However, the court declined to address any potential First Amendment arguments, saying that those “claims are forfeited on appeal because [the defendant] did not sufficiently preserve them in the trial court by obtaining rulings on those issues” and opining:
“Although [the restrained party] mentioned the First Amendment in his response to the petition, it appears he did not mention it again. He did not respond in writing to [the clinic’s] trial brief contention that the First Amendment argument was a ‘diver[sion]’ because [his] ‘conduct, not his speech, [was] at issue.’ Nor do the phrases ‘First Amendment’ or ‘free speech’ appear in his oral argument at the contested hearing.”
Frequent Protestor
The question arose after Chad Hunt, a frequent protestor at the Women’s Health Specialist (“WHS”) clinic in Redding, blocked an employee (identified only as “L.M.”) who was walking toward a vehicle stopped just outside the facility’s gated parking lot as the driver was speaking with another activist in September 2024. When L.M. tried to maneuver around him, Hunt mirrored her movements and bumped her three times with his stomach.
A month later, WHS filed a petition seeking a workplace violence restraining order (“WVRO”) requiring Hunt to stay at least 100 yards away from L.M. and the facility under Code of Civil Procedure §527.8, which specifies:
“Any employer…of an employee who has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence from any individual, that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing on behalf of the employee and, at the discretion of the court, any number of other employees at the workplace….”
Hunt opposed the petition, arguing that he “did nothing to warrant” such an order as the contact was “inadvertent” and saying that a restraining order would deprive him of “his First Amendment right to protest in a traditional public forum—the public sidewalk—outside of…WHS’s abortion facility.”
On Jan. 2, 2025, Shasta Superior Court Judge Benjamin Hanna granted WHS’ request, finding that the location “can reasonably be construed as the workplace,” that the clinic had proven that a battery occurred because Hunt had “caused his body to come into contact with” L.M., and that “the fact that [Hunt] feels very strongly…with respect to the types of business that [WHS] is involved in…creates a concern…that there could be future acts of violence.”
2023 Decision
Hunt cited the 2023 decision by Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in North Coast Village Condominium Association v. Phillips, in which a condominium association sought a WVRO against a resident based on allegations that she was stalking the president of the group’s board.
Focusing on language indicating that §527.8 is not intended to protect employees from conduct that lacks a physical nexus to the office, even when the activity “stem[s]” from the employment relationship, Hunt argued that the case supports his assertion that the WVRO against him was improper. Rejecting this view, Boulware Eurie wrote:
“Whether the batteries occurred on the driveway leading to WHS’s parking lot or on the public street just off the driveway, at minimum, they occurred ‘near’ the parking lot, which undoubtedly was part of WHS’s physical workplace, given L.M.’s testimony that escorts were expected to accompany clients until they left the parking lot.”
Turning to the plain terms of the section, she opined:
“Further, the operative language of the statute—‘can reasonably be construed to be…the workplace’—clearly is meant to have a broad scope. If the Legislature had intended a narrower scope, it would have…used more definitive language instead.”
Broad Scope
She added:
“Given that broad scope, there were multiple factors here that militated in favor of a conclusion that the location of the incident ‘can reasonably be construed’ to be L.M.’s workplace: (1) it happened on or just off L.M.’s employer’s driveway; (2) L.M. was on duty at the time; (3) consistent with her responsibilities that day, L.M. was trying to (a) remind the…client that ‘she didn’t have to stop’ as she was pulling out of WHS’s parking lot and (b) protect the [party] from ‘a lot of negative energy’; and (4) the conflict with C.H. was motivated by the abortion services that WHS provided.”
As to whether the trial judge abused his discretion in finding that future violence was likely to recur, she remarked:
“We do not interpret the trial court’s statements…as C.H. asserts—that the trial court ruled that a single act of unlawful violence is sufficient to find future harm if the incident arises out of disagreement over something that is a topic of great public interest. Rather, we interpret the trial court’s observation that C.H. ‘feels very strongly about’ the abortion services that WHS provides as illuminating the trial court’s factual finding that it was likely C.H. would return to the scene of the ‘unlawful violence’ he engaged in.”
The case is Women’s Health Specialists v. C.H., C102979.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company