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

[lazyboy97o]

They cite specific precedent that organizations cannot be compelled to associate with groups that don't share their values.

Something her benefactor is also suing to change.

 

[TsWade2]

My brother hates it. And he blames the DEI wokeness for it. His words, not mine!

 

[easyrowrdw]

From what I’ve seen her lawyers are going to use a state law against Disney:

Mandalorian actor’s lawsuit against Disney invokes unique California law

California Labor Code protects workers’ right to participate in political events outside of work.

www.legaldive.com

How this plays out is anyone’s guess.

Ah, that's interesting. At a federal level, I wouldn't see her having much of a case. I'm not familiar with that California law though.

I don't really care if her character is there or not. As far as I'm concerned, the show has been going downhill ever since they killed the "I have spoken" guy.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Ah, that's interesting. At a federal level, I wouldn't see her having much of a case. I'm not familiar with that California law though.

I don't really care if her character is there or not. As far as I'm concerned, the show has been going downhill ever since they killed the "I have spoken" guy.

The law says that 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.”

She came under fire for ill advised comments that minimized the holocaust and suggesting being hated for one's political views was comparable to that genocide.

Her argument that those comments constituted engaging in politics is a stretch, to put it mildly.

By her logic, linking ones politics to any offensive statement turns it into a "political activity". It would be a free pass to say anything without consequences.

The notion that Disney is required to employ her after those comments is ludicrous.

 

[easyrowrdw]

The law says that 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.”

She came under fire for ill advised comments that minimized the holocaust and suggesting being hated for one's political views was comparable to that genocide.

Her argument that those comments constituted engaging in politics is a stretch, to put it mildly.

By her logic, linking ones politics to any offensive statement turns it into a "political activity". It would be a free pass to say anything without consequences.

The notion that Disney is required to employ her after those comments is ludicrous.

I think you've hit the crux of it. I imagine the context might speak to her intentions/motive, which would help inform the question as well. The law seems vague/broad on its face, but perhaps there's more detail elsewhere that establishes definitions or parameters for the protections. I'll be (mildly) interested to see how it plays out in the courts.

 

[erasure fan1]

She came under fire for ill advised comments that minimized the holocaust and suggesting being hated for one's political views was comparable to that genocide.

Exactly the same as Pedro. That's the issue. You can be mad at Gina for her comments, they were ill advised. My issue has always been, why does Pedro get a pass? Everyone seems to dump on Gina. But yet Pedro can compare half the country as the equivalent to a genocidal maniac because they support a certain candidate. And that is fine? That's the problem and if anyone can't see that, they need to take a step back and reassess.

 

[Willmark]

I think you've hit the crux of it. I imagine the context might speak to her intentions/motive, which would help inform the question as well. The law seems vague/broad on its face, but perhaps there's more detail elsewhere that establishes definitions or parameters for the protections. I'll be (mildly) interested to see how it plays out in the courts.

Discovery is going to be interesting in this case.

 

[Phroobar]

No one should ever get their political views from actors. You know they are being paid for what they say.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Exactly the same as Pedro. That's the issue. You can be mad at Gina for her comments, they were ill advised. My issue has always been, why does Pedro get a pass? Everyone seems to dump on Gina. But yet Pedro can compare half the country as the equivalent to a genocidal maniac because they support a certain candidate. And that is fine? That's the problem and if anyone can't see that, they need to take a step back and reassess.

You don't have to think it's fine. This isn't about what any of us think about various statements, but rather the legal issues at play.

As I pointed out from the legal filings, Disney has demonstrated precedent that states they are allowed to disassociate from someone based on that person's views/statements. Disney gets to decide that based on their own values. It doesn't matter if we disagree with them or find them hypocritical.

It's telling that Disney cited legal decisions about cases featuring conservative organizations.

Disney Argues It Had a First Amendment Right to Fire Gina Carano for Offensive Posts

Disney moved to throw out Gina Carano's lawsuit on Wednesday, arguing it had a First Amendment right to fire her over her offensive posts.

variety.com

 

[MisterPenguin]

Exactly the same as Pedro. That's the issue. You can be mad at Gina for her comments, they were ill advised. My issue has always been, why does Pedro get a pass?

Pedro doesn't. He stopped when asked.

Gina kept going.

Gunn deleted and apologized.

Gina kept going.

 

[erasure fan1]

You don't have to think it's fine. This isn't about what any of us think about various statements, but rather the legal issues at play.

As I pointed out from the legal filings, Disney has demonstrated precedent that states they are allowed to disassociate from someone based on that person's views/statements. Disney gets to decide that based on their own values.

I don't care what side Disney wans to take. Don't mistake what I'm saying as defending Gina. You say they've demonstrated precedent that they can disassociate because of her political views. My question is are they allowed to discriminate against them? Maybe they can, there's a lot of loopholes especially with a big corporation like Disney. Personally I don't think it's as cut and dry as you and others think. Now wether anything comes of it, who knows.

The facts as I can see, until more info comes out in court, is Disney is very much in the wrong. Now did they break the law, maybe, maybe not, neither of us is a lawyer on the case. But there was obviously enough there for them to proceed with the case.

Pedro doesn't. He stopped when asked.

Gina kept going.

Gunn deleted and apologized.

Gina kept going.

I don't remember him apologizing for comparing a certain political backing with slave owners and genocide. He deleted his Twitter if I remember correctly. But he was never put in front of the firing squad like Gina was. And we all know why wether people want to admit it or not, but hey both were in the thick of it.

 

[Willmark]

I don't care what side Disney wans to take. Don't mistake what I'm saying as defending Gina. You say they've demonstrated precedent that they can disassociate because of her political views. My question is are they allowed to discriminate against them? Maybe they can, there's a lot of loopholes especially with a big corporation like Disney. Personally I don't think it's as cut and dry as you and others think. Now wether anything comes of it, who knows.

The facts as I can see, until more info comes out in court, is Disney is very much in the wrong. Now did they break the law, maybe, maybe not, neither of us is a lawyer on the case. But there was obviously enough there for them to proceed with the case.

I don't remember him apologizing for comparing a certain political backing with slave owners and genocide. He deleted his Twitter if I remember correctly. But he was never put in front of the firing squad like Gina was. And we all know why wether people want to admit it or not, but hey both were in the thick of it.

Same and this isn’t as cut and dry as it’s being made out to be.

We have only heard Gina’s side (which does not paint Disney in a good light) with what happened behind the scenes. Based on what she has said in terms of meetings, zoom calls etc? I want to see/hear the HR records because if true she very much does have a case no matter how some try to downplay it.

It might very well come to nothing as you allude to. I’m of the same mind. I’m also mindful that Disney at that timeframe it happened was caught up in a lot of societal movements (can’t say more here obviously) that people thought might continue.

I don’t think her speech is the issue. What I think is and what her lawyers seem to be focusing on is how Disney handled it.

Listening to it, it’s being presented as “she just wasn’t brought back.” Sure that’s the party line. I’m very interested to see if Disney’s public statements match what was said to her behind the scenes.

I’m guessing they don’t.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I don't care what side Disney wans to take. Don't mistake what I'm saying as defending Gina. You say they've demonstrated precedent that they can disassociate because of her political views. My question is are they allowed to discriminate against them? Maybe they can, there's a lot of loopholes especially with a big corporation like Disney. Personally I don't think it's as cut and dry as you and others think. Now wether anything comes of it, who knows.

The facts as I can see, until more info comes out in court, is Disney is very much in the wrong. Now did they break the law, maybe, maybe not, neither of us is a lawyer on the case. But there was obviously enough there for them to proceed with the case.

I'm not saying they can dissociate from her because of her political views. Their argument is they can do so because "the First Amendment protects Disney’s decision to dissociate itself from some speech but not from other, different speech."

She is arguing based on a law that says "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.”"

They had a problem with her comments about the Holocaust, not a problem with her running for office or having a political affiliation. She compared the Holocaust to being a member of a political party. By her logic one could say number of offensive things and then protect oneself from consequences by simply saying "offensive thing is comparable to being a member of X political party"

I don't buy that argument.

What do people want here? Disney, a public facing company, being forced to continue to work with someone no matter what they say in public?

 

[easyrowrdw]

I don’t think her speech is the issue. What I think is and what her lawyers seem to be focusing on is how Disney handled it.

Listening to it, it’s being presented as “she just wasn’t brought back.” Sure that’s the party line. I’m very interested to see if Disney’s public statements match what was said to her behind the scenes.

I’m guessing they don’t.

Process is often important in these types of situations. Following different procedures for different people opens a company up to lawsuits and potential liability. But treating people differently isn't inherently illegal; it needs to be tied to a protected class. Political affiliations and activities are not typically protected, but this California law is different.

Still, I don't think the process questions will matter if she cannot make the case that her statements fit within the parameters of the law.

 

[erasure fan1]

They had a problem with her comments about the Holocaust, not a problem with her running for office or having a political affiliation. She compared the Holocaust to being a member of a political party.

But they didn't have a problem with comparing someone voting for a certain political party equivalent to Nazis and slave owners? Sounds like....I don't know, discrimination. I'm not sure why there's such a need to defend Disney and Pedro.

What do people want here? Disney, a public facing company, being forced to continue to work with someone no matter what they say in public?

No, what they want is consistency. You keep wanting to ignore what Pedro did as if it doesn't matter or isn't relevant. Like I said, my whole thought on this could change once we have all the information, which neither of us have. As it stands, from what we know, she was fired for political affiliation and Pedro was kept because of his. From an optics standpoint it looks bad. From a legal standpoint, we'll see. If Disney cut ties with both of them, I really wouldn't have any issues.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I don't care what side Disney wans to take. Don't mistake what I'm saying as defending Gina. You say they've demonstrated precedent that they can disassociate because of her political views. My question is are they allowed to discriminate against them? Maybe they can, there's a lot of loopholes especially with a big corporation like Disney. Personally I don't think it's as cut and dry as you and others think. Now wether anything comes of it, who knows.

The facts as I can see, until more info comes out in court, is Disney is very much in the wrong. Now did they break the law, maybe, maybe not, neither of us is a lawyer on the case. But there was obviously enough there for them to proceed with the case.

I don't remember him apologizing for comparing a certain political backing with slave owners and genocide. He deleted his Twitter if I remember correctly. But he was never put in front of the firing squad like Gina was. And we all know why wether people want to admit it or not, but hey both were in the thick of it.

Again, they argue:

“The First Amendment protects Disney’s decision to dissociate itself from some speech but not from other, different speech,” the company’s lawyers wrote. “The First Amendment mandates deference to the speaker’s own decisions about what speech to associate with, even if others might consider those decisions ‘internally inconsistent’… Carano thus cannot stake out a discrimination claim by alleging that Disney accorded different treatment to different statements by different actors.”

Disney is under no obligation to agree or disagree with both actors' words. They could have flat out said they agreed 100% with Pedro and not Gina, as is their right.

Disney gets to decide how to react to either incident(s), regardless of any outside opinion that both are the same.

 

[flynnibus]

Can you imagine being an employer in california… see your cashier on the evening news at a neo nazi rally… then have to accept him being the face of your company the next day?

 

[Disney Irish]

Can you imagine being an employer in california… see your cashier on the evening news at a neo nazi rally… then have to accept him being the face of your company the next day?

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. An employer in that state can terminate any at-will employment contract for such posts as they enjoy the same 1A rights as the employee, which is exactly what Disney is arguing.

 

[erasure fan1]

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. An employer in that state can terminate any at-will employment contract for such posts as they enjoy the same 1A rights as the employee, which is exactly what Disney is arguing.

At will still has plenty of legalities you need to follow. If I I want to fire someone because they are constantly late for work. Great, I can 100% do that. But there's this little thing called consistently. If I fire worker A for being late, but worker B is also late all the time and I don't fire him as well. That's grounds for wrongful termination. You can not, in no way, pick and choose who you enforce the rules on. At will isn't going to protect you.

Now businesses do it anyway all the time. Because most people don't have the resources to go after a big company and they know it. With the Gina case, she absolutely has the financial backing to push forward.

 

[erasure fan1]

Can you imagine being an employer in california… see your cashier on the evening news at a neo nazi rally… then have to accept him being the face of your company the next day?

You mean exactly like what Disney/lucasfilm did?