Former nanny sued parent-employers on four wage-and-hour claims and also for defamation based on statements parents made to a friend the parents involved in an attempt to obtain a release of claims by the nanny in exchange for a severance package.  Held, the statements were not protected speech under the Anti-SLAPP statute since litigation was not then threatened or seriously contemplated.  While every termination of employment may trigger a later lawsuit, the mere possibility of future litigation is insufficient to make negotiations about the terms of the termination protected pre-litigation speech.  Insofar as the Anti-SLAPP motion was brought against the four wage-and-hour claims, it was frivolous, warranting an award of attorney fees to the plaintiff.