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

[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?

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

You can’t exactly require consistency of an arrangement that doesn’t even require a reason in the first place.

 

[Disney Irish]

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.

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.

The reverse is also true, where in an at-will state the employee can leave for any reason without fear of retribution.

 

[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.