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

[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.

 

[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.