Disney Star Wars General Discussion

[Scandale du Jour]

That introduction is silly and cringey, but everything after shows that they're serious. I just read through all 59 pages and have to say that her suit seems stronger than I originally thought.

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/gina-carano-disney-suit-feb-6-2024.pdf

She has no case. It is all political theater at the end of the day. I mean, that clown Musk is involved.

She was warned many times, including by Favreau, and she kept posting her bullshit. She has a right to an opinion, she won't be put in jail for it, but when you go against your employer's social media policy, you will get fired.

 

[Osprey]

She has no case. It is all political theater at the end of the day. I mean, that clown Musk is involved.

She was warned many times, including by Favreau, and she kept posting her bullsh*t. She has a right to an opinion, she won't be put in jail for it, but when you go against your employer's social media policy, you will get fired.

Did you even read it? If not, you're just judging it based on your own prejudices and contributing to the political theater.

From pages 49-53:

146. Section 1101 of the California Labor Code provides:
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

149. Section 1102 of the California Labor Code provides:
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

155. Section 1105 of the California Labor Code provides:
Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the injured employee from recovering damages from his employer for injury suffered through a violation of this chapter.

62. Section 98.6 of the California Labor Code provides in
pertinent part:
(a) A person shall not discharge an employee or in any
manner discriminate, retaliate, or take any adverse
action against any employee or applicant for
employment because the employee or applicant engaged
in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the
conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of
Division 2, … or because of the exercise by the employee
or applicant for employment on behalf of himself,
herself, or others of any rights afforded him or her.
(b)(1) Any employee who is discharged, threatened with
discharge, demoted, suspended, retaliated against,
subjected to an adverse action, or in any other manner
discriminated against in the terms and conditions of his
or her employment because the employee engaged in
any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the
conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of
Division 2, … shall be entitled to reinstatement and
reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused
by those acts of the employer.

In other words, Disney violated California law by interfering with her political expression and, eventually, firing her for it, and owes her reinstatement and reimbursement.

The suit also gives evidence that fellow Disney employees and Mandalorian co-stars (Pedro Pascal, Carl Weathers and Mark Hamill) all expressed similarly controversial political opinions on X/Twitter and were not sanctioned by Disney. She claims that she was singled out for her politics and for her gender (the latter of which seems like the weakest of the three claims in her suit).

There's more, but that's the gist of the suit. She definitely appears to have a case. I, too, originally thought that Disney had the right to fire her, but it seems that they didn't under California law.

 

[RandV]

In other words, Disney violated California law by interfering with her political expression and, eventually, firing her for it, and owes her reinstatement and reimbursement.

Consider me extremely skeptical, but while I'm not going to spend anymore thought process on this the key distinction to be made is what specifically constitutes a 'political expression'. Personally I wouldn't consider going say anti-vax or anti-mask during a global pandemic a "political expression". For a more concrete example, someone identifying as a 'sovereign citizen' gets pulled over for speeding and also doesn't have a license or insurance doesn't actually get to hide against a 'my politics!' shield to avoid consequences.

Also to generalize it's well know that while they put on a family friendly face if you mess with Disney the Mouse will **** you up. With Disney's vast & experienced legal team I doubt they would simply be unaware of California law. Or that Carano has such a slam dunk case that it took Musk coming in as an angel investor to get it going.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Did you even read it? If not, you're just judging it based on your own prejudices and contributing to the political theater.

From pages 49-53:




In other words, Disney violated California law by interfering with her political expression and, eventually, firing her for it, and owes her reinstatement and reimbursement.

The suit also gives evidence that fellow Disney employees and Mandalorian co-stars (Pedro Pascal, Carl Weathers and Mark Hamill) all expressed similarly controversial political opinions on X/Twitter and were not sanctioned by Disney. She claims that she was singled out for her politics and for her gender (the latter of which seems like the weakest of the three claims in her suit).

There's more, but that's the gist of the suit. She definitely appears to have a case. I, too, originally thought that Disney had the right to fire her, but it seems that they didn't under California law.

She was not fired for political opinions. She was fired for spewing conspiracy theories and hate.

I know, in this day and age, some people would like to consider that a simple "political expression".

 

[blueandgoldguy]

I will give the prequel trilogy some credit. When it comes to the most nonsensical script, worst dialogue, worst acting and worst special effects, episodes 1 - 3 are "the best" (or is that worst?) of the three trilogies.

Fun fact - the newest trilogy sold more tickets than the prequel trilogy.

 

[PunchImlach is Alive]

Did you even read it? If not, you're just judging it based on your own prejudices and contributing to the political theater.

From pages 49-53:




In other words, Disney violated California law by interfering with her political expression and, eventually, firing her for it, and owes her reinstatement and reimbursement.

The suit also gives evidence that fellow Disney employees and Mandalorian co-stars (Pedro Pascal, Carl Weathers and Mark Hamill) all expressed similarly controversial political opinions on X/Twitter and were not sanctioned by Disney. She claims that she was singled out for her politics and for her gender (the latter of which seems like the weakest of the three claims in her suit).

There's more, but that's the gist of the suit. She definitely appears to have a case. I, too, originally thought that Disney had the right to fire her, but it seems that they didn't under California law.

California is at-will employment state. Disney can fire her for just about any reason they want, even for what you consider to be "political expression."

She claims that she was singled out for her politics and for her gender (the latter of which seems like the weakest of the three claims in her suit).

Well I'm glad you brought up gender here and admit it's the weakest claim because that's the only reasonable grounds she would have for this case to have any merit. This case is over before it even started. Lawyers get their billable hours and maybe Gina gets a few more culture warriors to show up for her next Ben Shapiro masterpiece.

 

[Osprey]

Consider me extremely skeptical, but while I'm not going to spend anymore thought process on this the key distinction to be made is what specifically constitutes a 'political expression'. Personally I wouldn't consider going say anti-vax or anti-mask during a global pandemic a "political expression". For a more concrete example, someone identifying as a 'sovereign citizen' gets pulled over for speeding and also doesn't have a license or insurance doesn't actually get to hide against a 'my politics!' shield to avoid consequences.

Also to generalize it's well know that while they put on a family friendly face if you mess with Disney the Mouse will **** you up. With Disney's vast & experienced legal team I doubt they would simply be unaware of California law. Or that Carano has such a slam dunk case that it took Musk coming in as an angel investor to get it going.

The lawsuit isn't really about her opinions on vaccines or masks. "Vaccine" appears only once in the entire document and "mask" doesn't appear at all. The lawsuit is mainly about her opinions on other political topics (such as the election). Just for the sake of argument, though, I'd say that criticism of vaccine and mask mandates does count as political expression because criticism of the government's laws and handling of issues is political opinion, but, again, that's not really what the lawsuit is about.

As for the second part, I don't think that we should assume that Disney (who has lost legal battles before, including recently) is on the right side of the law just because they have a vast and experienced legal team or that Carano doesn't have a good case just because she hasn't sued until now. As you pointed out, Disney is a very intimidating foe and has virtually unlimited resources. They may've just ignored the law and figured (correctly, for a time) that she wouldn't have the resources to fight it. Surely, if this were a sexual harassment case, no one would dare suggest that the victim must not have a strong case if she didn't sue one of the most powerful companies in the world when she would've had to do it alone and out of her own pocket.

She was not fired for political opinions. She was fired for spewing conspiracy theories and hate.

I know, in this day and age, some people would like to consider that a simple "political expression".

Conspiracy theories that involve politics are political opinions. The idea that voter fraud influenced an election is a conspiracy theory and a political opinion. Any expression that involves politics legally counts as political speech (link).

As for hate, I've never seen any hate in her posts. Instead, what I've seen is her repeatedly speaking out against hate in response to a lot of hate being directed at her. The lawsuit includes many screenshotted examples of both.

Also, the post from Feb 10th, 2021 that got her fired later that day was not a conspiracy theory or hateful. It was just a reference to the Jews being hated and attacked for being Jews, because she felt that she was being attacked on Twitter for her political views. It was also no worse than posts that Pedro Pascal made that also invoked Jews and Nazis, so, however you characterize what she was ultimately fired for, her co-star wasn't for similar posts, which she claims is discrimination. Again, the lawsuit includes screenshots.

California is at-will employment state. Disney can fire her for just about any reason they want, even for what you consider to be "political expression."

I just quoted the actual sections of California law that say otherwise.

 

[PunchImlach is Alive]

I just quoted the actual sections of California law that say otherwise.

You can ignore reality if you want but California is well known as being an at-will employment state. If you have Google, this isn't even hard to verify. If you can show me how this case magically surpasses that bar, go right ahead.

 

[Cas]

I just quoted the actual sections of California law that say otherwise.

Now can you quote the relevant case law that determines how to interpret those statutes?

 

[MadDevil]

Nicely done Empire magazine.

 

[RandV]

The lawsuit isn't really about her opinions on vaccines or masks. "Vaccine" appears only once in the entire document and "mask" doesn't appear at all. The lawsuit is mainly about her opinions on other political topics (such as the election). Just for the sake of argument, though, I'd say that criticism of vaccine and mask mandates does count as political expression because criticism of the government's laws and handling of issues is political opinion, but, again, that's not really what the lawsuit is about.

I'm just guessing on what she might be posting about on social media, but I'll also point out here is that while I only loosely know how lawsuits work to make an analogy what you've read here as you said in it's entirety and are basing your opinion on is the offensive playbook. I'm sure Musk hired good lawyers, and it's they're job to spin things to make a convincing argument. It's pretty much the job of any lawyer that if you just read one side then you'd agree with them.

But what we don't have yet is the defensive playbook, Disney's counter argument to whatever they're claiming. I'd imagine it will go something like...

offense: she made these posts (political) and they fired her for it!
defense: no she was making these posts (conspiracy nonsense) and after repeated warnings was fired for it.

And the key part is they both have to show their receipts. Now I'm very pro-labour so if Disney wrongly fired her then sure I'm all for a lawsuit, but considering how dumb social media and culture war nonsense has made everything I remain highly skeptical about the whole lawsuit.

 

[Osprey]

You can ignore reality if you want but California is well known as being an at-will employment state. If you have Google, this isn't even hard to verify. If you can show me how this case magically surpasses that bar, go right ahead.

"At-will" employment states have exceptions so that you can't fire people on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, disability and so on. California adds political expression. They take precedence over "at-will" termination, not the other way around.

State and federal laws have placed several important restrictions on the reasons for which an employer may terminate their employee. So, even though at-will employees may be terminated without cause, employers that have a cause must comply with the relevant laws on the matter. Examples of unlawful reasons :
* Firing an employee because of their race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, or other protected characteristic;⁠
* Firing an employee for their political beliefs or affiliations;⁠
* Firing an employee because the employee requested time off that they are legally-entitled to take; or
* Firing an employee because the employee reported a violation of the law.⁠
- Source: What “At-Will” Employment Means Under California Law (2023 Guide)

I'm just guessing on what she might be posting about on social media, but I'll also point out here is that while I only loosely know how lawsuits work to make an analogy what you've read here as you said in it's entirety and are basing your opinion on is the offensive playbook. I'm sure Musk hired good lawyers, and it's they're job to spin things to make a convincing argument. It's pretty much the job of any lawyer that if you just read one side then you'd agree with them.

But what we don't have yet is the defensive playbook, Disney's counter argument to whatever they're claiming. I'd imagine it will go something like...

offense: she made these posts (political) and they fired her for it!
defense: no she was making these posts (conspiracy nonsense) and after repeated warnings was fired for it.

And the key part is they both have to show their receipts. Now I'm very pro-labour so if Disney wrongly fired her then sure I'm all for a lawsuit, but considering how dumb social media and culture war nonsense has made everything I remain highly skeptical about the whole lawsuit.

Sure. My opinion, based on the filed lawsuit, is that she has a good case, not that her firing was wrongful or that Disney won't have a good case, as well. Before this week, I thought that Disney had the right to fire her. Now, I'm not sure.

I am pretty sure that repeatedly warning her won't matter if they weren't allowed to fire her for it in the first place, though. Even warning her against political expression is against California labor law.

I imagine that their defense will be either that those sections of the labor law don't apply in this case (i.e. that her posts don't qualify as "political expression," as you suggested) or that they fired her for other reasons, such as declining to participate in the sensitivity training which they wanted her to attend. It might be hard to argue the latter, though, because the announcement of the firing indicated that it was because of the content of her posts.

I'm interested to hear Disney's side of the story. I generally support the ability of companies to fire without cause and don't necessarily agree with all of the restrictions on that, but the law is the law and, like you, it seems, I'm open to whatever the verdict ends up being.

BTW, if you aren't sure what she posted, you might care to spend a half hour reading through the lawsuit (which I linked on the last page). It's a surprisingly easy read without legalese and with lots of screenshots. Yes, it's her side of the story, but we should want to hear that and it's a good summary of what she and others were saying on social media.

 

[PunchImlach is Alive]

"At-will" employment states have exceptions so that you can't fire people on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, disability and so on. California adds political expression. They take precedence over "at-will" termination, not the other way around.


Sure. My opinion, based on the filed lawsuit, is that she has a good case, not that her firing was wrongful or that Disney won't have a good case, as well. Before this week, I thought that Disney had the right to fire her. Now, I'm not sure.

I am pretty sure that repeatedly warning her won't matter if they weren't allowed to fire her for it in the first place, though. Even warning her against political expression is against California labor law.

I imagine that their defense will be either that those sections of the labor law don't apply in this case (i.e. that her posts don't qualify as "political expression," as you suggested) or that they fired her for other reasons, such as declining to participate in the sensitivity training which they wanted her to attend. It might be hard to argue the latter, though, because the announcement of the firing indicated that it was because of the content of her posts.

I'm interested to hear Disney's side of the story. I generally support the ability of companies to fire without cause and don't necessarily agree with all of the restrictions on that, but the law is the law and, like you, it seems, I'm open to whatever the verdict ends up being.

BTW, if you aren't sure what she posted, you might care to spend a half hour reading through the lawsuit (which I linked on the last page). It's a surprisingly easy read without legalese and with lots of screenshots. Yes, it's her side of the story, but we should want to hear that and it's a good summary of what she and others were saying on social media.

The only person looking at this within the context of political expression is you. And that's comically not going to hold up in court.

 

[Osprey]

The only person looking at this within the context of political expression is you. And that's comically not going to hold up in court.

It may not hold up, but you argued that someone can be fired for political expression in California because it's an at-will employment state, which isn't true.

 

[67 others]

Consider me extremely skeptical, but while I'm not going to spend anymore thought process on this the key distinction to be made is what specifically constitutes a 'political expression'. Personally I wouldn't consider going say anti-vax or anti-mask during a global pandemic a "political expression". For a more concrete example, someone identifying as a 'sovereign citizen' gets pulled over for speeding and also doesn't have a license or insurance doesn't actually get to hide against a 'my politics!' shield to avoid consequences.

Also to generalize it's well know that while they put on a family friendly face if you mess with Disney the Mouse will **** you up. With Disney's vast & experienced legal team I doubt they would simply be unaware of California law. Or that Carano has such a slam dunk case that it took Musk coming in as an angel investor to get it going.

Gina Carano's family is rich enough to have equally expensive legal teams mate.

They own Caesars entertainment. Which is 50 casinos/resorts in vegas

The whole "musk backing" thing is just for show and publicity to get it into the public eye and on social media

 

[Osprey]

Now can you quote the relevant case law that determines how to interpret those statutes?

I decided to look into this.

Over 60 years ago the California Legislature, recognizing that employers could misuse their economic power to interfere with the political activities of their employees, enacted Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102 to protect the employees' rights.

These statutes cannot be narrowly confined to partisan activity. As explained in Mallard v. Boring (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 390, 395 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 171]: "The term 'political activity' connotes the espousal of a candidate or a cause, and some degree of action to promote the acceptance thereof by other persons." (Italics added.) The Supreme Court has recognized the political character of activities such as participation in litigation ( N.A.A.C.P. v. Button (1963) 371 U.S. 415, 429 [9 L.Ed.2d 405, 415-416, 83 S.Ct. 328]), the wearing of symbolic armbands ( Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969) 393 U.S. 503 [21 L.Ed.2d 731, 89 S.Ct. 733]), and the association with others for the advancement of beliefs and ideas ( N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama (1958) 357 U.S. 449 [2 L.Ed.2d 1488, 78 S.Ct. 1163].) Measured by these standards, the struggle of the homosexual community for equal rights, particularly in the field of employment, must be recognized as a political activity.
- Source: https://casetext.com/case/gay-law-students-assn-v-pacific-tel-tel-co#p487

That's from the majority opinion on a California case involving gay discrimination. It notes that "political activity" is broadly defined and includes espousing a cause that doesn't need to be partisan in nature. Even being openly gay and wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War were determined to be protected political expression.

There's also this court opinion from just last year:

However, the court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a “rule, regulation, or policy” under § 1101 by alleging in the SAC that defendant used his termination “as an example to all other employees of the Company as an implicit warning that anyone that dared to speak out publicly and criticize the politics of the Black Lives Matter movement would be summarily terminated.” (See Doc. No. 49 at ¶ 69); Surdak v. DXC Tech., No. 5:22-cv-00921-SB-KK, 2022 WL 18142545, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022) (finding that “a reasonable jury could conclude that [the employer] disagreed with the political views expressed in or suggested by the tweet [concerning Lyndon Baines Johnson] and wanted to punish Plaintiff for, or discourage other employees from, expressing similar speech”); Nava, 2013 WL 3961328, at *8 (explaining that if plaintiff alleged that he “was fired for his particular political perspective . . . [of] being against same-sex marriage . . . it may be inferred that . . . [the employer] was in effect declaring that the espousal or advocacy of such political views will not be tolerated-then [the employer's] action constituted a violation of Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102”).

Moreover, stepping back from defendant's granular perspective, the court finds that plaintiff's tweet at issue in this case can be considered facially political in nature when construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff... The foregoing allegations, particularly when construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, are sufficient to allege that plaintiff's tweet was political speech regarding a specific cause, and that plausibly constitutes political activity under §§ 1101 and 1102.
- Source: https://casetext.com/case/napear-v-bonneville-internatl-corp

That's a case brought by the Sacramento Kings radio host, who was fired because he posted an opinion on Twitter about BLM, which makes it very similar to Carano's case. To summarize, the judge, referencing the earlier case that I just quoted, among others, ruled that posting about BLM on social media can be considered political activity under the same statutes that Carano's lawsuit references. It's not a ruling that he was illegally terminated, since he requested a trial by jury, but it's a ruling that he has a case for illegal termination that can go ahead to trial for a jury to decide, similar to Carano's case.

 

[johnjm22]

Being a complete layman, it does sound like Carano could potentially have a case.

I'm sure Disney's lawyers will have well constructed arguments to counter. They might be able to say she was never technically "fired" at all.

Regardless of what happens, I thought it was dishonest and unprofessional for Disney to publicly say Carano was "denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities."

On the other hand, Gina should know that when you're saying/doing controversial things, you're putting your employer in a difficult situation.

 

[johnjm22]

Also to generalize it's well know that while they put on a family friendly face if you mess with Disney the Mouse will **** you up. With Disney's vast & experienced legal team I doubt they would simply be unaware of California law. Or that Carano has such a slam dunk case that it took Musk coming in as an angel investor to get it going.

Doesn't Disney get into legal disputes all the time and have to settle?

Off the top of my head I can think of three. The Scarlet Johansson lawsuit, the TSG financier lawsuit, and unpaid royalties to writers.

And these are all fairly recent.

Edit: I just looked it up. They're also being sued by 9000 women for unequal pay and a judge just ruled the suit could move forward under CA law.

 

[Sad People]

Some Star Wars fans are straight up embarrassing dude, holy ****.

 

[Power Man]

 

[x Tame Impala]

Some Star Wars fans are straight up embarrassing dude, holy ****.

The loyalty bought for a lifetime despite only making two great movies and one good movie from 1977-1983 and then a bunch of mediocre content sure is surprising.

EDIT: Acolyte does look pretty cool

 

[SmytheKing]

There's no case because she was never fired. Her contract for the show was fulfilled and that's that. If her argument is that they didn't give her a show that was in development, well a lot of actors are gonna have a claim...

Plus, she wasn't fired for political speech. For one, she's repeatedly claimed she wasn't being political. Two, they'll say she wasn't retained because of insubordination.

Lastly, they'll settle just to make it go away.

 

[Osprey]

There's no case because she was never fired. Her contract for the show was fulfilled and that's that. If her argument is that they didn't give her a show that was in development, well a lot of actors are gonna have a claim...

Plus, she wasn't fired for political speech. For one, she's repeatedly claimed she wasn't being political. Two, they'll say she wasn't retained because of insubordination.

Lastly, they'll settle just to make it go away.

You don't need to be "fired" to file for damages under the sections of California law that the suit cites. Also, her argument is that she wasn't given a show in development for reasons that are illegal, so most other actors wouldn't be able to make the same claim.

Regardless of what you or she calls it, her employment was terminated for conduct that the courts have ruled counts as political speech. That's what matters, and it's illegal to pressure and threaten her for it, so "insubordination" wouldn't be an effective defense.

I think that Musk wants to stick it to Disney and she wants vindication, so I'm not so sure that they'll be willing to settle.

 

[SmytheKing]

You don't need to be "fired" to file for damages under the sections of California law that the suit cites. Also, her argument is that she wasn't given a show in development for reasons that are illegal, so most other actors wouldn't be able to make the same claim.

Regardless of what you or she calls it, her employment was terminated for conduct that the courts have ruled counts as political speech. That's what matters, and it's illegal to pressure and threaten her for it, so "insubordination" wouldn't be an effective defense.

I think that Musk wants to stick it to Disney and she wants vindication, so I'm not so sure that they'll be willing to settle.

I hate this website on mobile and it refreshing in the middle of posts. Long story short: this is a nuisance lawsuit that will be settled because it’s cheaper and easier to comfort a crying baby than it is to let them go on and on.

 

[Osprey]

I hate this website on mobile and it refreshing in the middle of posts. Long story short: this is a nuisance lawsuit that will be settled because it’s cheaper and easier to comfort a crying baby than it is to let them go on and on.

You're assuming that they're willing to settle, but Musk seems to want to drag Disney through the mud and Carano wants vindication, so I'm not sure that settling will be enough for them. It won't matter how convenient it is for Disney to settle if the other side isn't willing to.