• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Gina Carano Sueing for Wrongful Termination from Disney

Jayson1 said:
The Carano case isn't a free speech issue. It's whether or not they treated her with the same standards on her free speech as they do all other Disney employees. Since they say she was let go due to her Nazi metaphor then all you have do is look and see if they are firing or refuse to rehire other Disney employees using Nazi metaphors when talking about politics.

I believe she was not fired. They just didn't renew her contract or sign her to another one. Thus the idea that you can sue to get your job back doesn't make sense if you were no longer even a employee. At best she can maybe get some money for some kind of political discrimination by pointing out all the other Disney employess who have made Nazi comparisons online, yet stay employed.

That to me seems to be where the whole case is. Was she treated equally with other Disney employees when talking about politics.
Click to expand...

Not renewing a contract and being fired is the same, just a different word, i.e. semantics. The effect is the same and it's just a convenient way for an employer to get rid of someone and be able to condescendingly say we didn't fire you ( we just don't want you around us anymore).

As to if she has been treated equally in the strictest sense i believe not but one has to also consider the various public levels. If an office worker with 100 X followers drops some Nazi comparison no one will notice but if his boss learns of it they might still lose their job, this happens on a daily basis with companies all over the world as people take carelessly to social media forgetting that it is read by everybody and in some cases might harm the reputation of the company they work for, which is grounds for dismissal.

Carano was a high profile employee involved in flagship projects with a high enough social media presence that put her on immediate notice to every news outlet that covers this genre and it may even spill into regular news. After the first time i think they have told her to knock it off behind closed doors, she didn't listen and inflamed the situation so she was "let go", i.e. fired. Actions meet consequences, plain and simple.

She has no one but herself to blame. When she signed the Disney contract she knew what Disney is about and what they expect. Behind closed doors executives might think the same but the public image has to remain squeaky clean and follow the current social trend to maximize profit, she got into the way with that.
 
FPAlpha said:
Not renewing a contract and being fired is the same, just a different word, i.e. semantics. The effect is the same and it's just a convenient way for an employer to get rid of someone and be able to condescendingly say we didn't fire you ( we just don't want you around us anymore).

As to if she has been treated equally in the strictest sense i believe not but one has to also consider the various public levels. If an office worker with 100 X followers drops some Nazi comparison no one will notice but if his boss learns of it they might still lose their job, this happens on a daily basis with companies all over the world as people take carelessly to social media forgetting that it is read by everybody and in some cases might harm the reputation of the company they work for, which is grounds for dismissal.

Carano was a high profile employee involved in flagship projects with a high enough social media presence that put her on immediate notice to every news outlet that covers this genre and it may even spill into regular news. After the first time i think they have told her to knock it off behind closed doors, she didn't listen and inflamed the situation so she was "let go", i.e. fired. Actions meet consequences, plain and simple.

She has no one but herself to blame. When she signed the Disney contract she knew what Disney is about and what they expect. Behind closed doors executives might think the same but the public image has to remain squeaky clean and follow the current social trend to maximize profit, she got into the way with that.
Click to expand...

Only problem is I am sure they can find other actors,directors etc who have no doubt used HItler,Nazi Germany etc as metaphors as well. In fact I think some people were complaining about Pedro Pascal doing it as well. As for the no contract thing. I agree that is a kind of semantics argument. Kind of like a football coach being asked to step down or retire when the school wants to get a new coach but wants to save him the dignity of being fired. But is still legal in a sense because nobody is obligated to hire or rehire people if they don't want to. If she no longer had a contract then she is just shit out of luck in her lawsuit I am thinking.
 
Jayson1 said:
Only problem is I am sure they can find other actors,directors etc who have no doubt used HItler,Nazi Germany etc as metaphors as well. In fact I think some people were complaining about Pedro Pascal doing it as well. As for the no contract thing. I agree that is a kind of semantics argument. Kind of like a football coach being asked to step down or retire when the school wants to get a new coach but wants to save him the dignity of being fired. But is still legal in a sense because nobody is obligated to hire or rehire people if they don't want to. If she no longer had a contract then she is just shit out of luck in her lawsuit I am thinking.
Click to expand...

This is why companies are so fond of limited contracts because actually firing someone always runs the risks of lawsuits, even if they win them it still takes away time and money to deal with it. In the movie/TV show business it's even easier because you're only hired for one particular project and both parties go their way once it's done. If it was profitable enough one might agree to sequels or spin offs but that's case by case basis and all actors understand this.

I have not heard anything remotely about Pedro Pascal getting himself in hot water like Carano did, care to elaborate?

It is one thing to use Hitler and Nazi Germany in some context but to use it to describe your employer or whole social behaviours/parts of the population while employed by a company whose customers come from this part of the population is just supreme dumb. I'm honestly asking myself what and if at all consequences she expected and if she thought she's untouchable just because she played a popular side character in a show and preparations were made for a spin off where she would be the lead character?

If she had done that while employed by X or right wing media/whatever counts as "their" movie industry she's be a star for sticking it to the bleeding heart liberals but as it stands she chose her battle with the wrong opponent and lost.
 
I think he once called SW fans, Nazi's and their might have been other stuff. I mean it's the internet. Lots of people toss the Hitler and Nazi insult around these days. Which would likely be Carano's best legal argument. Everyone talks shit so why would she be held to a higher standard. With her I think she knew the consequences but her principles or stubbornness got in the way of doing the smart thing which of course is to shut up and take the money.
 
Out of curiosity, what was it specifically that was done spectacularly? (I read the article but not the actual dismissal denial order.)
 
I read a couple of articles and even I am a little confused. I think what the arguments was is that the Disney's companies first amendment rights as a company is not enough of a reason to dismiss the legal process of moving forward. It's not so much saying that Carano is right so much as the lawsuit is valid and I suppose something that should be decided by a judge or jurors.
 
Jayson1 said:
I read a couple of articles and even I am a little confused. I think what the arguments was is that the Disney's companies first amendment rights as a company is not enough of a reason to dismiss the legal process of moving forward. It's not so much saying that Carano is right so much as the lawsuit is valid and I suppose something that should be decided by a judge or jurors.
Click to expand...
I'm little confused: her contract wasn't just renewed or was terminated before the expiration?
 
"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,'”
So to me, Disney was saying that she wasn't towing the Disney line, and that was one of the reasons to let her go. Judge says, you employ thousands of people with different viewpoints, Gina isn't any different, and you can't claim that as a reason.
 
Other famous ‘didn’t renew contract’ firings in popular media include Jeremy Clarkson and Colin Baker over at the BBC. They’re still characterised as firings in the public eye, with all that entails. (The same is true of Doctor Who’s 1989 ‘cancellation’ itself.)
It’s always interesting how these things are reported, and how fan groups will respond to them.
In genre terms, when a show isn’t renewed, we tend to refer to that as being cancelled or similar. We *never* view it as a simply ‘not renewed’ because of the expectations.
In this case, the same will apply in the public eye — if she’s reported on as ‘being fired’ there’s a decent argument (no idea in law or American law) that that could be seen as reflecting badly on her. (And not gonna touch whether that’s ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or ‘deserved it’ which is all about ideologies — whether of commenters or of her own.)
Her own comments have also been characterised in a particular way, that I am not entirely sure is the only or accurate way to read them at all.
So again, I suppose there’s an argument to be made, and she’s making it.

I thought she was alright in the Mando, but like everything in that show, the excitement and interest kind of waned as it went on.
 
Skipper said:
I'm little confused: her contract wasn't just renewed or was terminated before the expiration?
Click to expand...

I'm confused about that as well. If it has been mentioned I haven't noticed it. It could be that argument is the reason they didn't rehire her was illegal more than the fact they didn't rehire her. They fired her basically by saying what she said was immoral. But if they have other employees who have used similar metaphors and are still employed then maybe they can say she was discriminated against because of politics. The fact that she had been working their and had future plans for future work in that spin-off shows they at least had no reason before in working with her Of course the argument that she doesn't live up to their moral standards as company is a pretty hard argument to make as well considering some of the unethical things the Disney company has done over the years.. Pretty much any argument that involves a corporation saying "We have morals" is pretty hard to believe.

I bet the endgame is it all ending in a settlement. They pay her some money and then the problem finally goes away.
 
Jayson1 said:
I'm confused about that as well. If it has been mentioned I haven't noticed it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if I don't want to renew a contract I don't do it, period. It's a different story if she had been "fired", but I guess a contract with actors is not exactly that of any employee in a company. I have no idea how it works.

Can someone help me?
 
With the contract and not "renew" the contract, that in itself disney can do all day long in my mind. Even if she had a contract, she could still be fired, and if the contract stated that she would get X if she was let go, then, thats what she got.
So, its whatever the contract says. We don't know what it says, if it had a clause that we go for 2 seasons and we decide to pick it up? Contract for 4 seasons, guaranteed 2? No idea

EDIT: Also, if she had an Oral contract, as they do have some force of law to them, maybe she was made some promises to star in another season or show, and they reinged? Don't know.

What the Crux of this story for me is, that they could have just went and not renewed her contract, and said, we parted ways, creative diferences, Etc. Etc., but Disney decided to nuke the site from orbit with saying she doesn't line up with our values etc. So to me its Defamation. She got black balled etc. from what disney said. So to me she has actionable reasons.
And thats basically what the Judge said.. You not renewing a contract based on "Values" doesn't cut the mustard. Your not like a "relegious" company that belives in X and all employees must do X, no your a public company with many different people in it.. Try again.
 
Last edited:
I think one difference is lots of places don't involved contracts. Your on the payroll until your not. A for places that do involved contracts it's not as if they have long term plans with you already established. When I was let go from the newspaper route when I had to go inpatient years ago I was basically just let go as a independent contracter. But it's not like they had a bunch a future plans already established as to what I would do in the future. The fact they had plans of doing a spin-off with her I think might hurt their case.
 
I'm a little surprised that they're actually allowing the lawsuit to move forward, I thought it was pretty much standard practice to fire people over behavior like hers these days.
 
You still I think have to show cause though I am guessing rules are different from state to state. Stating opinions on the internet I am not exactly sure is something that would hold up in many cases but of course it will likely all come down to what kind of judge is involved.
 
Isn't it pretty much standard practice to fire people when offensive comments or videos from them show up online? What would make Gino Carano's case different from all the other times it's happened?
 
JD said:
Isn't it pretty much standard practice to fire people when offensive comments or videos from them show up online? What would make Gino Carano's case different from all the other times it's happened?
Click to expand...

The debatable issue about how offensive the comments are would be one thing. It would be a easier case to make if she used a racial slur or something but instead she used a Nazi Germany analogy which is not even that uncommon these days. Godwin's law is pretty much dead these days. You can't go 5 minutes online or watching something in the media or clickbait that doesn't go to Nazi Germany or Orwell when it comes to cautionary warnings of where our modern day society is headed. The by-product of living in a world that is in constant existential fear of the other side of whatever issues they believe in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top