Dear Lord, you aren't getting caught up in the "right" thing as well are you?
Let's put it into another term. If I am saying things a company doesn't like and they fire me for it, they are within their legal bounds to do so. Now, if I bring a lawsuit providing proof others were saying the same nasty things, or even worse, than I was, do I have a civil case?
Yes, I do and you know it. I might not win, but surely that gets its day in court. Because a judge isn't going to summarily dismiss such a thing as "sour grapes" or the good old "well, that's different." I'd dare say a judge would like to know what standards are in place and furthermore, if they are applied evenly across the board. If it turns out I was singled out for termination because they didn't like what I was saying, but turned a blind eye to other comments just as egregious as mine made in public, I have a case.
Now, slightly different paradigm here as AJ isn't technically an employee of YT. But...
He is getting paid for the number of clicks he produces on YT. Which makes him a de facto employee (if one could bring that argument) of YouTube. Hence, they have to show they are equal (in a civil case) in their application of justice. it certainly is a gray area in the law since he technically isn't an employee, but is being paid by that company for works he provides. I'd almost bet it gets heard on that basis alone to find the definition of "employee" and whether it applies to YouTube or not since they are paying folks.
