Gina Carano Fired After Social Media Post

[dalton_vol]

Disney makes a lot of bad mistakes because they are ran by stubborn idiots. If they had half a brain, they would settle on this to prevent the discovery you are alluding to.

This is why I am worried about the SEC signing up with ESPN/ABC instead of CBS or NBC. ESPN is a sinking ship financially and the SEC is now in bed with them.

The sec will be fine. Somebody will buy ESPN or they'll move to a different platform. Fact is disney is losing constantly from the loss against Florida to Gina. They're a damaged brand, yet they continue to Butch Jones themselves.

 

[dalton_vol]

Disney makes a lot of bad mistakes because they are ran by stubborn idiots. If they had half a brain, they would settle on this to prevent the discovery you are alluding to.

This is why I am worried about the SEC signing up with ESPN/ABC instead of CBS or NBC. ESPN is a sinking ship financially and the SEC is now in bed with them.

I don't think Gina wants to settle

 

[n_huffhines]

Disney has no leg to stand on. Especially after all the comments other actors made. Any halfway objective judge should rule in favor. The discovery should be pretty good

Seems like a loss for free speech. The recent precedent was this is protected speech (for the company*).

It's wild that Republicans, who have always claimed to be for right-to-work would be happy about someone suing their employer for not re-signing an employee (to be clear, she was not fired) because of her publicly expressed politics. I don't see how she actually wins. Hooray for jamming up the courts over BS.

But yeah, this is America....where we lie about loving freedom.

Disney Cites Supreme Court’s NetChoice Decision In Fighting Gina Carano’s SLAPP Suit

Remember that SLAPP suit, financed by Elon Musk, that actor Gina Carano filed against Disney after they chose not to renew her contract for the Mandalorian? That’s the one where Carano seems to be …

www.techdirt.com

 

[volbound1700]

I don't think Gina wants to settle

Everyone typically settles for the right price. You are correct that she might be stubborn and doing a political statement.

Still, discovery is a major headache and you typically want to avoid it if feasible.

 

[volbound1700]

Seems like a loss for free speech. The recent precedent was this is protected speech (for the company*).

It's wild that Republicans, who have always claimed to be for right-to-work would be happy about someone suing their employer for not re-signing an employee (to be clear, she was not fired) because of her publicly expressed politics. I don't see how she actually wins. Hooray for jamming up the courts over BS.

But yeah, this is America....where we lie about loving freedom.

Disney Cites Supreme Court’s NetChoice Decision In Fighting Gina Carano’s SLAPP Suit

Remember that SLAPP suit, financed by Elon Musk, that actor Gina Carano filed against Disney after they chose not to renew her contract for the Mandalorian? That’s the one where Carano seems to be …

www.techdirt.com

You would have legitimacy if you took the same approach about all of the political persecutions by the Democrats both within and outside their party that slog down our court systems regularly.

Also, it isn't like the Courts don't collect fees to cover their costs.

 

[RockyTop85]

Seems like a loss for free speech. The recent precedent was this is protected speech (for the company*).

It's wild that Republicans, who have always claimed to be for right-to-work would be happy about someone suing their employer for not re-signing an employee (to be clear, she was not fired) because of her publicly expressed politics. I don't see how she actually wins. Hooray for jamming up the courts over BS.

But yeah, this is America....where we lie about loving freedom.

Disney Cites Supreme Court’s NetChoice Decision In Fighting Gina Carano’s SLAPP Suit

Remember that SLAPP suit, financed by Elon Musk, that actor Gina Carano filed against Disney after they chose not to renew her contract for the Mandalorian? That’s the one where Carano seems to be …

www.techdirt.com

Idk about the Techdirt article, I don’t think it’s a joke lawsuit.

I remember being shocked that the case didn’t get tossed so I went and read the complaint. It’s based on a California law that seems pretty on-point.

I think it’s kind of like the Trump fraud case where people who haven’t looked at New York law think “well of course they have to prove a concealed crime” but New York courts haven’t interpreted the statute that way.

People assume businesses can fire people because of public controversy, but California has this law that prohibits firings based on political activity.

So, unless it is unconstitutional to apply the law to Disney, then I think she has a chance to win.

After Masterpiece Cake Shop and 303 Creative, I have a hard time seeing how the judge found that it was constitutional. Maybe I’ll try to find the order at some point.

 

[volbound1700]

Idk about the Techdirt article, I don’t think it’s a joke lawsuit.

I remember being shocked that the case didn’t get tossed so I went and read the complaint. It’s based on a California law that seems pretty on-point.

I think it’s kind of like the Trump fraud case where people who haven’t looked at New York law think “well of course they have to prove a concealed crime” but New York courts haven’t interpreted the statute that way.

People assume businesses can fire people because of public controversy, but California has this law that prohibits firings based on political activity.

So, unless it is unconstitutional to apply the law to Disney, then I think she has a chance to win.

After Masterpiece Cake Shop and 303 Creative, I have a hard time seeing how the judge found that it was constitutional. Maybe I’ll try to find the order at some point.

Great analysis. To me, it seems like winning or not is immaterial. Disney just doesn't need its reputation slung into the mud with something that comes up on Discovery (plus it is just a waste of company resources).

They should settle and get out of it. I get that in some conversative circles, Disney's reputation is bad, but I still think Disney's reputation, overall, is still respectable. Keep in mind, they landed the SEC Contract and Tennessee games are now on Disney.

Inside Out 2 just killed it at the box office so Disney still does somethings right. I can also add that Alien Romulus (Alien Franchise is now owned by Disney) was also a big hit.

Disney has definitely done stupid/greedy things and I am not a fan of their CEO as a business person.

One note, is LucasArts being sued or Disney? I would think the actual lawsuit is against LucasArts/Film or whatever they call themselves now days.

 

[n_huffhines]

Idk about the Techdirt article, I don’t think it’s a joke lawsuit.

I remember being shocked that the case didn’t get tossed so I went and read the complaint. It’s based on a California law that seems pretty on-point.

I think it’s kind of like the Trump fraud case where people who haven’t looked at New York law think “well of course they have to prove a concealed crime” but New York courts haven’t interpreted the statute that way.

People assume businesses can fire people because of public controversy, but California has this law that prohibits firings based on political activity.

So, unless it is unconstitutional to apply the law to Disney, then I think she has a chance to win.

After Masterpiece Cake Shop and 303 Creative, I have a hard time seeing how the judge found that it was constitutional. Maybe I’ll try to find the order at some point.

She wasn't fired.

 

[RockyTop85]

She wasn't fired.

If not, the claim would have been dismissed or will be at the motion for summary judgment.

 

[n_huffhines]

If not, the claim would have been dismissed or will be at the motion for summary judgment.

Yeah, she was not under contract. There was a plan in place to do a spin-off show, but they never had a contract and they just chose not to go forward.

I guess we'll see them battle it out over the validity of a verbal contract?

 

[dalton_vol]

She wasn't fired.

She wasn't re-signed for her beliefs. if they get discovery, it could be bad for disney.

 

[n_huffhines]

She wasn't re-signed for her beliefs. if they get discovery, it could be bad for disney.

That's one way of looking at it. Maybe I don't know enough about it, but how do they prove it was for her beliefs? Is Disney on the record saying they don't like her beliefs?

All Disney should have to do is invoke their freedom of association to not partner with somebody who publicly expresses ideas they do not want associated with their brand. This is not a scandal. This is how businesses and organizations should operate....unless of course there is proof this is discriminatory in some way.

 

[n_huffhines]

Also, it should be pointed out that Carano's own agency dropped her, and so did her legal representation.

Sometimes people say **** so stupid that few want to do business with them, and this was one of those times.

 

[volbound1700]

That's one way of looking at it. Maybe I don't know enough about it, but how do they prove it was for her beliefs? Is Disney on the record saying they don't like her beliefs?

All Disney should have to do is invoke their freedom of association to not partner with somebody who publicly expresses ideas they do not want associated with their brand. This is not a scandal. This is how businesses and organizations should operate....unless of course there is proof this is discriminatory in some way.

If Disney was in Tennessee you would have a point. They are in California which has unique employment laws as RockyTop85 pointed out.

Who knows if Gina is going to win or not. I think it still could be a stretch but Discovery is going to really be bad for Disney. Stupid that they are not trying to settle and avoid that.

 

[RockyTop85]

Also, it should be pointed out that Carano's own agency dropped her, and so did her legal representation.

Sometimes people say **** so stupid that few want to do business with them, and this was one of those times.

This is true. A California jury is likely not going to feel a lot of sympathy for her.

FWIW, it does not look like Disney used that in their motion to dismiss but did specifically raise it in their answer. It looks like they’re already doing some discovery and mediation and it would likely be included in a motion for summary judgment, so I’m much less optimistic about her chances after reading their motion to dismiss and the response.

As far as the verbal contract, they are legally enforceable in some states, but my hazy recollection is that even in those jurisdictions the proponents of the verbal contract are rarely able to establish the elements of a contract or damages. Emails would be more important.

The biggest remaining question for me would be how California law defines termination and whether there are any rules that were written to apply to the film industry where this sort of repetitive short-term employment is a common practice.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68228150/carano-v-the-walt-disney-company/

 

[KB5252]

If this the comment that people got upset about? Or was there more?

“Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views,”

I really didn't see anything wrong with that, seems pretty accurate to me.

 

[RockyTop85]

If this the comment that people got upset about? Or was there more?

“Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views,”

I really didn't see anything wrong with that, seems pretty accurate to me.

In the context of her other posts and similar posts of other people, a lot of readers, including Disney and her talent agency, interpreted it as comparing covid-19 criticisms of conservatives to the holocaust.

 

[CobbVol]

If this the comment that people got upset about? Or was there more?

“Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views,”

I really didn't see anything wrong with that, seems pretty accurate to me.

No, it was before that. It started when she decided to not support BLM on social media, then not listing her pronouns in her biography, and after the 2020 election wanting the election process to be cleaned up and have laws against voter fraud.

 

[n_huffhines]

No, it was before that. It started when she decided to not support BLM on social media, then not listing her pronouns in her biography, and after the 2020 election wanting the election process to be cleaned up and have laws against voter fraud.

Disney moved on from her Star Wars project because she didn't support BLM? Where are you getting this from?

The reality seems to be Disney did nothing to acknowledge the BLM thing. I can't find anything saying they did or said anything about her BLM comments. Somehow you are flipping that into a reason they disavowed her, when that seems to be pure speculation, and we have absolutely no reason to believe that is true. Disney had no problem calling her out for stuff they wouldn't tolerate.

 

[KB5252]

In the context of her other posts and similar posts of other people, a lot of readers, including Disney and her talent agency, interpreted it as comparing covid-19 criticisms of conservatives to the holocaust.

I guess I would need to see the statements she made in context with the posts she was referring to. But as it stands with what I know she appears to be at least partly right.

 

[CobbVol]

Disney moved on from her Star Wars project because she didn't support BLM? Where are you getting this from?

The reality seems to be Disney did nothing to acknowledge the BLM thing. I can't find anything saying they did or said anything about her BLM comments. Somehow you are flipping that into a reason they disavowed her, when that seems to be pure speculation, and we have absolutely no reason to believe that is true. Disney had no problem calling her out for stuff they wouldn't tolerate.

I am saying that was when it probably started.

 

[n_huffhines]

I guess I would need to see the statements she made in context with the posts she was referring to. But as it stands with what I know she appears to be at least partly right.

Being right isn't at issue here. The court isn't going to decide if what she said is true or not.

 

[KB5252]

Being right isn't at issue here. The court isn't going to decide if what she said is true or not.

I was only speaking as to the critique/criticism she received on social media.

As far as law stuff, that's a universe I don't understand except for criminal offenses in Tennessee. Unfortunately, there I know more than a person should.

 

[RockyTop85]

I guess I would need to see the statements she made in context with the posts she was referring to. But as it stands with what I know she appears to be at least partly right.

I would think a jury would be allowed to see more of her comment history than just the one post.

I hadn’t thought about this before, but now that I do, I think it’s interesting that the subculture of hysteria about government power grabs and never letting us go back to normal that existed in 2020/2021 is not treated with the same derision as the concern about risk of exposure to Covid has been treated. You still have people on this forum who use getting vaccinated or wearing masks as an insult but I don’t know that I’ve seen anybody make fun of the people like Carano who were publicly *****ing their pants over emergency public health measures that turned out to be as temporary as those who actually read the enabling statutes predicted they would be.

 

[n_huffhines]

I would think a jury would be allowed to see more of her comment history than just the one post.

I hadn’t thought about this before, but now that I do, I think it’s interesting that the subculture of hysteria about government power grabs and never letting us go back to normal that existed in 2020/2021 is not treated with the same derision as the concern about risk of exposure to Covid has been treated. You still have people on this forum who use getting vaccinated or wearing masks as an insult but I don’t know that I’ve seen anybody make fun of the people like Carano who were publicly *****ing their pants over emergency public health measures that turned out to be as temporary as those who actually read the enabling statutes predicted they would be.

Yeah, this is a great point.

Literally, nobody has ever walked back all that fear-mongering. The idea that we would just tolerate pandemic living forever and ever (and that some conspiring minds wanted that...never got a who and why deeper than "control") never seemed plausible to me, and this is coming from somebody who has a very healthy fear of government overreach.