SPOILER: The Acolyte -- Disney+ Star Wars -- begins June 5, 2024

[erasure fan1]

Absolutely not the case. If a person is fired for being late, that is for cause. At-will doesn't require cause, an employee can be let go for any legal reason.

Sure one could try to bring a case in that situation but it would be hard to prove wrongful termination, especially in an at-will state while being fired for cause, just because another person didn't also get fired for also being late.

Sorry but it's as simple as simple can be to prove. I have timecard records of every one of my employees. So it's just a matter of going in and looking at the records. You can very easily see each employees track record. You absolutely can't pick and choose who you target to enforce the rules on. At will doesn't protect against discrimination.

 

[Disney Irish]

Sorry but it's as simple as simple can be to prove. I have timecard records of every one of my employees. So it's just a matter of going in and looking at the records. You can very easily see each employees track record. You absolutely can't pick and choose who you target to enforce the rules on. At will doesn't protect against discrimination.

And looking at those same records would show the employee was fired for cause. There is no wrongful termination in that situation. You cannot claim they weren't fired for cause when the cause is documented no matter what happened or didn't happen to another employee.

As for discrimination, that would be hard to prove in such a situation again in an at-will state when fired for cause.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sorry but it's as simple as simple can be to prove. I have timecard records of every one of my employees. So it's just a matter of going in and looking at the records. You can very easily see each employees track record. You absolutely can't pick and choose who you target to enforce the rules on. At will doesn't protect against discrimination.

The tardy are not a protected class.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Sorry but it's as simple as simple can be to prove. I have timecard records of every one of my employees. So it's just a matter of going in and looking at the records. You can very easily see each employees track record. You absolutely can't pick and choose who you target to enforce the rules on. At will doesn't protect against discrimination.

If a company has lay-offs and needs to reduce staff, and the staff are all equally good employees, then the employer is forced to chose to fire 'at random.'

I believe you're confusing firing someone because they have a certain characteristic that you can't use as your reason to fire them, e.g., the elderly, women, racial minorities. If you "randomly" fire one of them because of that trait, then that is illegal. If they have that trait and you fire them, you need to make sure there's no history of singling out people with that trait.

Businesses tend to keep records of job performance and evaluations to show that they didn't target someone with that trait because even if it wasn't a firing based on prejudiced, you can be sued if it looks like it. And even if you would win that suit, no company wants to deal with that litigation. So, then tend not to fire truly "at will" to avoid litigation.

But, they can fire at will.

Local state laws nothwithstanding.

 

[erasure fan1]

And looking at those same records would show the employee was fired for cause. There is no wrongful termination in that situation. You cannot claim they weren't fired for cause when the cause is documented no matter what happened or didn't happen to another employee.

As for discrimination, that would be hard to prove in such a situation again in an at-will state when fired for cause.

It's not hard to prove. A reputable business has a paper trail. The problem is funding it, not proving it. Here's a snip from a legal site

Another important consideration is whether you have made exceptions for other employees in the past. For example, did you give lighter discipline, such as a suspension or a written warning, to an employee who committed the same offense earlier this year? If you now fire a different employee for the same thing, then you might be subject to a lawsuit from the later employee.

The tardy are not a protected class.

Never said they were. It's not about being tardy. It's about consistency in enforcing policies.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's not hard to prove. A reputable business has a paper trail. The problem is funding it, not proving it. Here's a snip from a legal site

Funny how you don't link to the site where the quote comes from, its by an author from Ohio not California.

How to Reduce Legal Risk When Firing an Employee

Employers can avoid expensive lawsuits by identifying risky terminations and knowing when to contact a lawyer.

www.nolo.com

So that doesn't apply to California law across the board. Find me something from California that say the same thing. Because its not the same across all at-will states.

Never said they were. It's not about being tardy. It's about consistency in enforcing policies.

Your discrimination claim only covers protected classes, being late is not a protected class. That is the point that @lazyboy97o was making. So that part of your argument falls apart.

Also an important point to bring up about the Gina case is that she was under an employment contract. This trumps the at-will employment of the state. And you can be sure that Disney has a code of conduct in their employment contracts. And it covers termination as a result of breaking that code of conduct. This will come out in discovery.

 

[erasure fan1]

If a company has lay-offs and needs to reduce staff, and the staff are all equally good employees, then the employer is forced to chose to fire 'at random.'

I believe you're confusing firing someone because they have a certain characteristic that you can't use as your reason to fire them, e.g., the elderly, women, racial minorities. If you "randomly" fire one of them because of that trait, then that is illegal. If they have that trait and you fire them, you need to make sure there's no history of singling out people with that trait.

Businesses tend to keep records of job performance and evaluations to show that they didn't target someone with that trait because even if it wasn't a firing based on prejudiced, you can be sued if it looks like it. And even if you would win that suit, no company wants to deal with that litigation. So, then tend not to fire truly "at will" to avoid litigation.

But, they can fire at will.

Local state laws nothwithstanding.

We're not talking about layoffs. And yes you can fire at will, but If you fire someone for a reason. You need to be consistent in that enforcement. I'll take the word of my company hr/legal team rather than some people on a Disney forum.

 

[easyrowrdw]

We're not talking about layoffs. And yes you can fire at will, but If you fire someone for a reason. You need to be consistent in that enforcement. I'll take the word of my company hr/legal team rather than some people on a Disney forum.

Consistency is the best approach for avoiding litigation and the fairest approach as well. Inconsistency is not necessarily illegal. It becomes illegal when it discriminates against a protected class (race, sex, religion, etc.) or has a disproportionate impact on a protected class. Alternatively, if Disney had set procedures for handling these situations and they failed to follow them, they could be liable for wrongful termination (even in an at-will situation).

 

[lazyboy97o]

We're not talking about layoffs. And yes you can fire at will, but If you fire someone for a reason. You need to be consistent in that enforcement. I'll take the word of my company hr/legal team rather than some people on a Disney forum.

HR and legal’s job is to protect the company, and that includes protecting it from you and other employees. Policies can be considered contractual, but can also be written to give wide latitude.

You specifically mentioned consistency in relation to discrimination. Being late in and of itself is not a defining characteristic of a protected class. It is not on its own grounds for a discrimination claim. A company wants consistency because people have biases and prejudices. The problem is that you can find patterns in inconsistency, and patterns along certain protected lines means big trouble for the company.

The case that people want to keep bringing up though is not general employment. It’s a very specific type of employment, one where certain types of discrimination are not just still allowed but still widely expected.

 

[flynnibus]

What's funny is that California is an at-will employment state. Making a post on social media doesn't invalidate that at-will employment status, even if its within an employees right to make such a post.

At-will really isn't the topic here because California has specific labor protections that supersede at-will justifications. Termination at-will is not unbounded. The question is really if the action falls under the protected activities of the labor act and if that law is in fact constitutional in that it doesn't interfere with rights Disney may have from the federal level.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

We're not talking about layoffs. And yes you can fire at will, but If you fire someone for a reason. You need to be consistent in that enforcement. I'll take the word of my company hr/legal team rather than some people on a Disney forum.

Do you think they were inconsistent? They addressed multiple issues with her and allowed her to adjust her behaviour.

By all accounts Pedro was given the same opportunity.

Both were given the opportunity(s) to correct their behaviour.

He learned from his alleged mistake. She did not. Their is no inconsistency.

 

[erasure fan1]

Do you think they were inconsistent? They addressed multiple issues with her and allowed her to adjust her behaviour.

By all accounts Pedro was given the same opportunity.

I don't know if they were or weren't. I've not seen an apology from Pedro. I've not seen reports of him having to go to dei training... Maybe he did, we should find out in discovery. The only thing I know is he shut his Twitter down. I don't remember seeing Disney make any statement that Pedros comments were abhorrent and unacceptable like they did for Gina. So was it equal treatment? Like I said we will see.

He learned from his alleged mistake. She did not. Their is no inconsistency.

You just really can't say he did wrong. It's NOT alleged, it's fact. That's pretty telling of the side you're coming from on this. As I've said many times, Gina shouldn't have used her comparison. Just as Pedro shouldn't have used his. If you can't admit what Pedro did was wrong, you need to step back and take a long look in the mirror.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I don't know if they were or weren't. I've not seen an apology from Pedro. I've not seen reports of him having to go to dei training... Maybe he did, we should find out in discovery. The only thing I know is he shut his Twitter down. I don't remember seeing Disney make any statement that Pedros comments were abhorrent and unacceptable like they did for Gina. So was it equal treatment? Like I said we will see.

You just really can't say he did wrong. It's NOT alleged, it's fact. That's pretty telling of the side you're coming from on this. As I've said many times, Gina shouldn't have used her comparison. Just as Pedro shouldn't have used his. If you can't admit what Pedro did was wrong, you need to step back and take a long look in the mirror.

You keep fixating on "equal treatment". They're not required to condemn him just because YOU think he made an equally offensive statement. They're not even required to condemn him if it could somehow be established he did so.

They can condemn Carano all they want. They are not obligated to comdemn Pascal. They get to decide what speech is contradictory to their values.

But hey, keep fighting the good fight for her. This obsession many have with making a hero out of the worst people is really weird.

 

[erasure fan1]

But hey, keep fighting the good fight for her. This obsession many have with making a hero out of the worst people is really weird.

Ahhh, I get it. She doesn't align with your "side". Got it. She's "the worst" but in your eyes, Pedro is almost saintly. At least I have clear enough vision to know they're both wrong.

And by the way, I'm not fighting the good fight for her. I've said more than a few times what she said was stupid. I didn't know condemning what someone said was making someone a hero. I guarantee that if Gina had posted that same thing as Pedro, you'd condemn it.

You keep fixating on "equal treatment". They're not required to condemn him just because YOU think he made an equally offensive statement.

Yes, look at me, mr bad guy for thinking people should be treated equally! Oh man what a horrible idea! You shouldn't compare people to slave owners and genocidal maniacs because of who they voted for. What a terrible mindset to have!

 

[Disney Irish]

Ahhh, I get it. She doesn't align with your "side". Got it. She's "the worst" but in your eyes, Pedro is almost saintly. At least I have clear enough vision to know they're both wrong.

And by the way, I'm not fighting the good fight for her. I've said more than a few times what she said was stupid. I didn't know condemning what someone said was making someone a hero. I guarantee that if Gina had posted that same thing as Pedro, you'd condemn it.


Yes, look at me, mr bad guy for thinking people should be treated equally! Oh man what a horrible idea! You shouldn't compare people to slave owners and genocidal maniacs because of who they voted for. What a terrible mindset to have!

Except the part that you gloss over in your "everyone should be treated equally" rant is they were both treated equally, but both didn't react equally.

Pedro made a tweet that was deemed bad. When asked by Disney to stop, he did and took down the tweet, and as you acknowledge he even shutdown his account.

Gina made a tweet that was deemed bad. When asked by Disney to stop, she didn't, she doubled down and kept continuing to tweet more of the same type of tweets that were previously deemed bad.

So Disney responded in kind by firing her for not complying with their request to stop.

One of these things is not like the other, as they say, and its not on Disney's side. Equal treatment doesn't mean requiring equal punishment if one didn't comply with the requested corrective actions, which is something that you fail to recognize. Both were treated the same, and both had equal opportunity to correct their actions. One did, they other didn't. The one that didn't was terminated when the requested corrective action wasn't completed.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Ahhh, I get it. She doesn't align with your "side". Got it. She's "the worst" but in your eyes, Pedro is almost saintly. At least I have clear enough vision to know they're both wrong.

And by the way, I'm not fighting the good fight for her. I've said more than a few times what she said was stupid. I didn't know condemning what someone said was making someone a hero. I guarantee that if Gina had posted that same thing as Pedro, you'd condemn it.


Yes, look at me, mr bad guy for thinking people should be treated equally! Oh man what a horrible idea! You shouldn't compare people to slave owners and genocidal maniacs because of who they voted for. What a terrible mindset to have!

I don't know if you're projecting or just making things up. I never said she was the worst or that he is saintly. You're arguing against a straw man that exists only in your head.

For someone concerned with semantics you're particular to describe her comments as merely "stupid".

You still cling to this incorrect idea they weren't treated equally. She was given many chances in response to many things. She was treated generously.

At the end of the day, she's a fool because she torpedoed any chance of having a long career in the Star Wars universe. One of the most popular and enduring franchises of all time. That is the dream for a working actor, especially one with a little less range who probably won't be doing a lot of serious drama type films.

She's someone who won't take personal responsibility. She compared her so-called political prosecution to genocide. She's suing despite the fact that she had every opportunity to be quiet, and didn't. She's a professional victim and people are falling for her nonsense.

Even Roseanne had the good sense to go away relatively quietly when Disney dropped her like a hot potato for racism.

 

[Phroobar]

Doesn't the problem steam from Disney not following HR protocol? There are certain things you can/can't do when firing someone. Whoever fired her should have just said they no longer require her services and not publicly go into why. Now there is a huge mess.

 

[erasure fan1]

The one that didn't was terminated when the requested corrective action wasn't completed.

Again I don't know what Pedro was asked to do or not. That's why I said we should find out in discovery. You keep talking like you actually know something. I've said I don't know. And if we find out what you're saying is true, great. We've only heard from Gina's side. Hopefully we can find out the whole story. But I've seen no apology from Pedro or this corrective action you speak of. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, as I've said. Well, we do know he never apologized.

I don't know if you're projecting or just making things up. I never said she was the worst or that he is saintly.

Projecting of course. I'm assuming that since you are so offended that I think what he did is wrong. You have to feel the opposite.

At the end of the day, she's a fool because she torpedoed any chance of having a long career in the Star Wars universe. One of the most popular and enduring franchises of all time.

Hey we can agree.

She compared her so-called political prosecution to genocide.

If she compared someone who supported a certain candidate to slave owners and and one of the worst groups in history that was responsible for said genocide. Would that have been ok to you?

For someone concerned with semantics you're particular to describe her comments as merely "stupid".

It wasn't stupid? Or was that not harsh enough for one of the worst people in the world? I guess at least I can say she was wrong.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Doesn't the problem steam from Disney not following HR protocol? There are certain things you can/can't do when firing someone. Whoever fired her should have just said they no longer require her services and not publicly go into why. Now there is a huge mess.

She was a recurring character. She wasn't an employee on payroll as far as I know. You can't fire someone from a job they don't hold. Disney was never under any obligation to bring her character back.

Disney has argued that they have a first amendment right not to associate with her. She wasn't "fired" for being part of a protected class. If they announced they fired her based solely on skin colour for example, she might have a case.

 

[Phroobar]

She was a recurring character. She wasn't an employee on payroll as far as I know. You can't fire someone from a job they don't hold. Disney was never under any obligation to bring her character back.

Disney has argued that they have a first amendment right not to associate with her. She wasn't "fired" for being part of a protected class. If they announced they fired her based solely on skin colour for example, she might have a case.

How do you fire someone not on your payroll? I think she was under contract for season 2 and they terminated the contract.