Judge Rejects Disney’s Motion To Dismiss Gina Carano’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit, Says House Of Mouse “Failed To Set Forth An ‘Impenetrable Defense’ Under The First Amendment”
In a major win for the former Star Wars actress’ legal action against the House of Mouse, the judge overseeing the case has fully denied Disney’s previous motion to dismiss the wrongful termination lawsuit filed against them by Gina Carano.
As previously reported, in February, Carano (with financial assistance from Tesla CEO Elon Musk) filed suit against Disney accusing them of not only unlawfully terminating her from her role as Cara Dune in The Mandalorian due to nothing more than the company’s overall disagreement with her personal political opinions, but also treating her male co-workers (namely Pedro Pascal) less harshly in regards to their political speech and defaming her in the eyes of the public.
“[Disney’s] harassment, retaliation, and termination of Plaintiff and refusal to hire her for other promised roles were intended to cause injury to Carano, amounted to despicable conduct undertaken with willful and conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under California law, and amounted to despicable conduct that subjected Carano to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of her rights, thus supporting punitive damages. due to nothing more than the company’s overall disagreement with her personal political opinions, but in doing so also defaming her in the eyes of the public,” argued the actress’ legal team.
In response, Disney sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that, in their opinion, the First Amendment of the US constitution provides them the “right to dissociate its own artistic message from Carano’s outspoken ‘political beliefs.'”
“Disney has a constitutional right not to associate its artistic expression with Carano’s speech, such that the First Amendment provides a complete defense to Carano’s claims,” said the House of Mouse. “Carano’s claims are all barred by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court held in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, the First Amendment embodies a core principle of “speaker’s autonomy” that bars the state from dictating to expressive enterprises what to say, how to say it, and whom to say it through. As the Court further held in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, that principle means that a state cannot force an employer engaged in speech to speak through an employee whose own views or public profile could compromise the employer’s own message, even if the employee does not express her views on the job.”
To this end, Disney then affirmed, “State law can protect employee political activity ‘without violating the employer’s free speech rights’ [this quotation being cited from a 2012 paper by UCLA law professor and constitutional attorney Eugene Volokh].
“What state law cannot do, however, is force entities that do create speech products to speak through writers or singers or actors whose own speech and public profile could, in the employer’s view, compromise the employer’s ability to express itself in its own chosen manner,” they declared. “Carano’s suit contravenes that rule. It is an impermissible effort to invoke state power to override a private entity’s decisions about what to say in its own art and how to say it. The complaint should be dismissed.”
However, it turns out Disney’s argument ultimately fell flat, as their petition to dismiss has now been fully denied.
As ruled by Los Angeles District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett on July 24th, “Where an organization claims protection under “the First Amendment’s expressive associational right,” a court “must determine whether the group engages in ‘expressive association'”.
Here, although [Disney] has indisputably engage in expressive activity—including, but certainly not limited to, producing and disseminating The Mandalorian—they have failed to establish that they engage in expressive association. Furthermore, at this stage in the litigation, the Court cannot conclude, as Defendants urge it to, that [Carano’s] continued
employment by Defendants would inhibit or intrude upon Defendants’ rights to expressive association.”
“[The] Defendants are not members-only, nonprofit organizations,” she continued. “Instead, Defendants are for-profit corporations who, as relevant to this lawsuit, employ actors such as Plaintiff, as well as administrative staff, to create television series and films.”
“Defendants have not identified any evidence—in the Complaint or otherwise—to substantiate a claim that they employ public-facing actors for the purpose of promoting the ‘values of respect,’ ‘decency,’ ‘integrity,’ or ‘inclusion’,” said the Honorable Judge Garrett. “Accordingly, Defendants’ invocation of the supposedly detrimental effects of Plaintiff’s ‘mere ‘presence” as one of Defendants’ employees lacks constitutional import.”
“As an initial matter, Defendants’ argument focuses narrowly on their termination of Plaintiff, without addressing her allegations concerning Defendants’ pre- or post-termination conduct, much of which lacks any obvious expressive or artistic import. Defendants’ affirmative defense is, for this reason alone, far from ‘impenetrable.'”
Following a lengthy deep-dive into the specific case laws which factored into her decision, the Honorable Judge Garrett ultimately declared, “The Court thus denies Defendants’ Motion insofar as it argues that their right to
control their speech bars Plaintiff’s claims.”
“In sum, Defendants have failed to set forth an “impenetrable defense” under the First Amendment,” she concluded. “Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion.”
With this ruling, it appears that barring a settlement between Disney and Carano, the latter’s lawsuit is now on the path to a full-on court trial.
Notably, not only does this spell trouble for Disney on a legal and reputational level, but it also opens them up to the process of discovery.
In other words, skeleton’s in Mickey’s closet could soon be seeing their first glimpse of sunlight in a very long time.
As of writing, Carano has yet to publicly address her latest legal victory.
More About:Uncategorized
Read this Next
