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

[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.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

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.

It's weird to keep making up things that I haven't said. I never said I was offended.

I'm not even dwelling on what either said because I'm mostly commenting on the legal aspect.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

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

My understanding that a series regular would be under contract and required to show up for filming. Even then, they can be fired. Actors are written out of things all the time. The contract is one sided in that it obligates an actor to show up but doesn't preclude the relationship being terminated.

A recurring character would have a contract for rate of pay, but would be scheduled on a case by case basis. If they wanted her for episode 4 for example she could decline for whatever reason. If they ask her to appear twice, she's not entitled to more appearances.

If there was a mutually agreed upon appearance that was cancelled by Disney, she might have grounds for complaint. But, again, only if the "firing" was based solely on something like race or gender.

She needs to prove that she was actually fired and that the specific reason runs afoul of the law.

 

[Disney Irish]

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.

Its been reported that is what happened, so that is what I'm basing things on. And yes it'll all come out in discovery. Which if it ends up being that way, then Gina will never end up working ever again. As no Studio will want to work with her based on that outcome. Which I believe is the whole thing, as she claims that Disney ruined her career. So she is blaming Disney for her own actions.

However you keep talking about equal treatment as if you know that Gina was treated differently, which you admit you don't know. But then also talking about how Disney appears to be at fault, which again you don't know that.

 

[easyrowrdw]

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.

She's claiming that she was though - political activities, as protected by state law. It's a disputed claim, but as far as I know it has not yet been rejected by the courts.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

She's claiming that she was though - political activities, as protected by state law. It's a disputed claim, but as far as I know it has not yet been rejected by the courts.

She'd have to make a case that her statement constitutes a direct political activity. I don't think it does. She wasn't prevented from running for office or from belonging to a political party.

"employers cannot have policies “forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office” or “controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.”"

 

[flynnibus]

Since many are interested - but can't seem to lookup the California Labor law in question that would protect her..

The labor portion is readable at - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101

And second portion at - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1102

You still cling to this incorrect idea they weren't treated equally

Probably because it was a key claim in her lawsuit... which of course isn't scrutinized or countered yet. But makes for easy pickin for those who need it.

And BTW... this is the Acolyte thread - none of this belongs here... can we move this discussion to some thread I'm sure that already exists on this topic?

 

[erasure fan1]

It's weird to keep making up things that I haven't said. I never said I was offended.

I'm not even dwelling on what either said because I'm mostly commenting on the legal aspect.

Again, I'm projecting. You won't denounce what he said, and you told me I'm sticking up for one of the worst people in the world, even when I said what she did was wrong. So what am I supposed to think? So it seems to me you have real hatred towards her. Is that a wrong statement? I don't like what Pedro posted but I'm not so party biased that I'll say he's up there with Vlady or Kim or any of the warlords killing people on a daily basis.

And you also seem to want no part of answering my questions. You keep using statements like because YOU think it was wrong. 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?

However you keep talking about equal treatment as if you know that Gina was treated differently, which you admit you don't know.

No, you need to pay more attention. I've said from the start, I believe there should be equal treatment. And I've said multiple times I don't know Pedro's side so I don't know if there has been. And that the lawsuit obviously isn't as cut and dry as the resident lawyers here think. Otherwise the dismissal wouldn't have been rejected, so there is something to look at.

Its been reported that is what happened, so that is what I'm basing things on.

As I've said, I haven't seen it or read it. I've also said that doesn't mean it didn't happen, we just haven't seen it. If nothing comes of the lawsuit and Disney did its due diligence legally, great. That still won't change my mind that what Pedro did was equally as egregious as Gina. And that Disney made the situation much worse in the way they handled the situation. If they had just did what I had said, there would be no lawsuit. I'm not sorry if that bothers people but there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

 

[Disney Irish]

No, you need to pay more attention. I've said from the start, I believe there should be equal treatment. And I've said multiple times I don't know Pedro's side so I don't know if there has been. And that the lawsuit obviously isn't as cut and dry as the resident lawyers here think. Otherwise the dismissal wouldn't have been rejected, so there is something to look at.

Just because there wasn't a dismissal automatically doesn't mean there wasn't equal treatment. All it means is that the court found enough merit on face value for it to move forward to the evidentiary stage. That really doesn't mean much. Lawsuits move forward all the time and still get thrown out later.

As I've said, I haven't seen it or read it. I've also said that doesn't mean it didn't happen, we just haven't seen it. If nothing comes of the lawsuit and Disney did its due diligence legally, great. That still won't change my mind that what Pedro did was equally as egregious as Gina. And that Disney made the situation much worse in the way they handled the situation. If they had just did what I had said, there would be no lawsuit. I'm not sorry if that bothers people but there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

And you can have that opinion that what Pedro did was equally as bad as Gina, no one said otherwise. And like you said, there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, just as there is nothing wrong with someone stating the same about your opinion.

But being equally egregious in your mind has nothing to do with the law however. And as long as Disney followed the law in their termination of Gina, it really doesn't matter if you feel that Disney should have fired Pedro or whatever else to him just to make it "equal" in your eyes. All that matters is what is legal or not.

 

[easyrowrdw]

She'd have to make a case that her statement constitutes a direct political activity. I don't think it does. She wasn't prevented from running for office or from belonging to a political party.

"employers cannot have policies “forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office” or “controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.”"

I know. You and I discussed it a few pages ago lol

I just thought it should be clarified, as it is her claim and it's something that isn't found in most discrimination claims. I'm skeptical also but ultimately, it's up to the courts to decide if her claim meets the standards set forth by the law.

 

[erasure fan1]

Just because there wasn't a dismissal automatically doesn't mean there wasn't equal treatment. All it means is that the court found enough merit on face value for it to move forward to the evidentiary stage. That really doesn't mean much. Lawsuits move forward all the time and still get thrown out later.

I didn't say because it wasn't dismissed there wasn't equal treatment. I said it just means it wasn't as cut and dry as made out to be. And that we will find out if there was equal treatment.

But being equally egregious in your mind has nothing to do with the law however. And as long as Disney followed the law in their termination of Gina, it really doesn't matter if you feel that Disney should have fired Pedro or whatever else to him just to make it "equal" in your eyes. All that matters is what is legal or not.

As I said (god I have to say that a lot) the evidence will come out, and if Disney is not guilty, GREAT, it's over. But I'm not going to say it was handled fairly just because you or any of the others here say it was. Because you don't know for sure it was, just as I don't know it wasn't. That's what we will find out. Yes, I expect people to be treated equally and fairly, that shouldn't be some radical way of thinking. I get it, you guys hate her. My stumbling point is you hate Gina for what she did, but not Pedro. That's just a bit hard to understand.

 

[Disney Irish]

I didn't say because it wasn't dismissed there wasn't equal treatment. I said it just means it wasn't as cut and dry as made out to be. And that we will find out if there was equal treatment.

As I said (god I have to say that a lot) the evidence will come out, and if Disney is not guilty, GREAT, it's over. But I'm not going to say it was handled fairly just because you or any of the others here say it was. Because you don't know for sure it was, just as I don't know it wasn't. That's what we will find out. Yes, I expect people to be treated equally and fairly, that shouldn't be some radical way of thinking. I get it, you guys hate her. My stumbling point is you hate Gina for what she did, but not Pedro. That's just a bit hard to understand.

Can you please find where I said or indicated that I gave any opinion on the content of what either Gina or Pedro said?

I have not, so please do not confuse me with others.

I don't hate anyone, unless they've done me or my family wrong. And even then I try not to hate as that takes too much energy that I rather focus on other things.

My only point here is that had Gina just stopped instead of doubling down and continuing, no matter what was said, that none of this would have occurred and she'd still be employed by Disney playing Cara. That is it, I give no opinion on the contents of what was said by either Gina or Pedro.

 

[erasure fan1]

Can you please find where I said or indicated that I gave any opinion on the content of what either Gina or Pedro said?

I have not, so please do not confuse me with others.

Here's the thing. Your opinion on what they've said is in your responses to me. If you argue against what someone is saying, you don't get to claim you have no opinion on the matter. You absolutely do have an opinion. See

My only point here is that had Gina just stopped instead of doubling down and continuing, no matter what was said

I hate to break it to you. But if you didn't have an opinion, than why would you think she needed to stop? Your opinion is she was wrong with what she did. It's ok to say that, I have. And it's ok to say Pedro was wrong as well. There seems to be a strange avoidance here to say he did something wrong. Maybe he did do what was asked of him like you say. But that doesn't mean he never posted the stuff in the first place. So why is it so hard to say, "yup they both were idiots but I appreciate that Pedro stopped"?

 

[Disney Irish]

Here's the thing. Your opinion on what they've said is in your responses to me. If you argue against what someone is saying, you don't get to claim you have no opinion on the matter. You absolutely do have an opinion. See

No, that is you reading an opinion into what I said without me providing that opinion you think I have whether I actually do or not. I did not and continue to not provide an opinion on the content of what was said. As the contents of what was said are irrelevant to me.

I hate to break it to you. But if you didn't have an opinion, than why would you think she needed to stop? Your opinion is she was wrong with what she did. It's ok to say that, I have. And it's ok to say Pedro was wrong as well. There seems to be a strange avoidance here to say he did something wrong. Maybe he did do what was asked of him like you say. But that doesn't mean he never posted the stuff in the first place. So why is it so hard to say, "yup they both were idiots but I appreciate that Pedro stopped"?

At issue to me is not the content of what was said by either Gina or Pedro. To me the issue is the fact that instead of stopping whatever the action was she continued. They both could have been speeding on the Burbank lot, where Pedro stopped and Gina continued to speed. The action itself to me is not the issue.

You seem to think its important and want everyone to acknowledge that Pedro was also guilty of a same transgression. This has been acknowledged multiple times by multiple posters. And I will acknowledge it again here, Pedro shouldn't have posted either. All actors/actresses need to be more aware of their social media presence, and that they can't just say any random thing that pops into their head as they represent not just themselves but the studios they work for. However its not the fact that he also posted something, its the fact that he stopped that is important to me. Had he continued the same as Gina then I'd be inclined to agree with you that he should have been fired as well. Again the contents of the posts aren't at issue with me. I don't care what either of them said. Its the fact that one had a single post and never posted again, the other had multiple (almost to the point of being habitual) posts. That is what lead to her being fired.

Now the only thing left is whether those posts by Gina constitute a protected act or not. And on this I do have an opinion, like others, I don't believe they are. But we shall see.... And by the way before you say it, I would say the same if the roles were reverse and it was Pedro filing that lawsuit. Again the contents of the post don't matter to me in this situation.

 

[erasure fan1]

You seem to think its important and want everyone to acknowledge that Pedro was also guilty of a same transgression.

I'll leave it at this because it really doesn't matter what I say anymore. I don't want everyone to say Pedro was wrong. I want the people who are demonizing Gina and what she did, to acknowledge the same from Pedro. Because if one was wrong, so is the other. And to think it's not, is absolute nonsense. All I can say is for people to own up to their bias.

And as I said, if you oppose what I have said, you have an opinion. I'm not reading into anything. You're hiding behind, "I didn't actually say it so you can't take me to task on it". If a poster said, Disney Irish is totally smart and so knowledgeable. And I said that's not really accurate, you're misinformed. You know what I did there? I said you weren't smart without saying you aren't smart. And if someone then responds to me and says, why do think he's dumb. I then can't say, I never said he was dumb, you're reading into it. Well I could but that would be foolish. I've given my opinion about you wether I said the actual words or not.

 

[flynnibus]

Just because there wasn't a dismissal automatically doesn't mean there wasn't equal treatment. All it means is that the court found enough merit on face value for it to move forward to the evidentiary stage. That really doesn't mean much. Lawsuits move forward all the time and still get thrown out later.

Disney hasn't even responded to the complaint yet! This lawsuit is still in the startup phase. Disney just tried to ask for it to be dismissed first based on their claim of being able to protect their own speech. The whole reasoning can still come back later when they actually flush out and argue what was actually done.

But being equally egregious in your mind has nothing to do with the law however. And as long as Disney followed the law in their termination of Gina, it really doesn't matter if you feel that Disney should have fired Pedro or whatever else to him just to make it "equal" in your eyes. All that matters is what is legal or not.

Her claims go beyond Pedro and reference others to try to substantiate her claim of sexual discrimination too. Her argument (not this poster's) isn't that she didn't just get equal treatment as others.. but she specifically got singled out as a woman vs other examples of men.

But honestly the complaint lacks so much in actual citations of what they claim Disney did.. they just say 'they did X' with very little behind it in the complaint.

 

[flynnibus]

At issue to me is not the content of what was said by either Gina or Pedro. To me the issue is the fact that instead of stopping whatever the action was she continued. They both could have been speeding on the Burbank lot, where Pedro stopped and Gina continued to speed. The action itself to me is not the issue.

Her claims go beyond this too...

The complaint if anyone cares to actually know the examples raised vs hypotheticals...

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney hasn't even responded to the complaint yet! This lawsuit is still in the startup phase. Disney just tried to ask for it to be dismissed first based on their claim of being able to protect their own speech. The whole reasoning can still come back later when they actually flush out and argue what was actually done.



Her claims go beyond Pedro and reference others to try to substantiate her claim of sexual discrimination too. Her argument (not this poster's) isn't that she didn't just get equal treatment as others.. but she specifically got singled out as a woman vs other examples of men.

But honestly the complaint lacks so much in actual citations of what they claim Disney did.. they just say 'they did X' with very little behind it in the complaint.

Which makes it actually worse for her case, but I'll just leave it there. As I rather not get into specific examples.

Anyways I don't see this case going very far beyond where it has, let alone a judgement against Disney.

 

[networkpro]

Not a surprise, but Deadline has posted an article that The Acolyte has been canceled.