A federal judge has indicated that Gina Carano’s lawsuit against Disney and Lucasfilm regarding her termination from “The Mandalorian” will move forward, as the court examines whether the First Amendment permits private companies to sever ties with employees whose views clash with their corporate values.
During a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett expressed skepticism about the arguments presented by Disney’s attorney, Daniel Petrocelli. He contended that the lawsuit should be dismissed, asserting that the company has the right to dissociate from a prominent performer whose views could alienate fans of the beloved Star Wars franchise.
Petrocelli urged the court to rule in favor of Disney on First Amendment grounds, suggesting that such a decision should be made before the discovery phase of the litigation. However, Judge Garnett countered, stating, “I’m not convinced there are no disputed facts.” She highlighted allegations that Carano’s termination was a strategic move by Disney to divert attention from its own controversial business decisions, including a high-profile contract dispute with actress Scarlett Johansson and backlash over Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law.
Carano’s lawsuit centers on claims of wrongful termination and discrimination, asserting that she was fired for expressing conservative opinions on social media. The former MMA fighter starred in the first two seasons of “The Mandalorian,” but was not under contract for the third season or any other Disney project, according to court documents.
The controversy erupted in 2021 when Lucasfilm announced that Carano would not return to the series following a social media post in which she drew a parallel between the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust and the current political climate. In her post, she stated, “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.” She further questioned, “How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”
Carano’s lawsuit alleges that Disney violated California labor laws that prohibit employers from directing employees’ political activities and punishing them for their political speech. At the hearing, Carano’s attorney, Gene Schaerr, emphasized that the comments in question were made on Carano’s personal social media accounts, separate from her work on the show.
“Nothing she said was on the show or on set,” Schaerr stated, as Carano sat at the defense table in the courtroom. However, Disney maintained that it has broad discretion regarding the viewpoints its employees express, arguing that the First Amendment protects its right to choose employees who align with its values.
Disney’s legal team referenced a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the right of parade organizers to exclude groups whose messages they do not wish to convey. They argued that this principle extends to their ability to select employees who reflect their corporate ethos, even if such choices may conflict with state anti-discrimination laws.
In a notable case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts of America, allowing the organization to dismiss an openly gay assistant scoutmaster based on its constitutional right to free expression. Disney contended that it should similarly be shielded from state laws that would compel it to employ individuals whose views contradict its message of respect, integrity, and inclusion.
“The messenger is part of the message,” Petrocelli argued, suggesting that if Carano had made inflammatory comments, such as denying the Holocaust, it would further justify Disney’s actions.
In response, Schaerr countered that free speech rights cannot be used as a defense against violations of discrimination laws. He emphasized that the ruling in the Boy Scouts case was based on a fully developed factual record, not at the motion to dismiss stage, and insisted that the normal litigation process must be allowed to unfold.
“I don’t necessarily disagree with you,” Judge Garnett replied, acknowledging the complexity of the arguments presented.
Carano’s supporters include Elon Musk, who is financing her lawsuit through his platform, X. Musk has pledged to cover legal expenses for users who claim they have faced discrimination due to their activities on the platform.
The lawsuit has garnered significant attention, as it highlights the ongoing cultural and political battles within Hollywood and corporate America. Carano’s claims of discrimination and wrongful termination have sparked discussions about the limits of free speech in the workplace and the responsibilities of employers to uphold their stated values.
In her complaint, Carano alleges that Disney and Lucasfilm engaged in a campaign of harassment and defamation against her for refusing to conform to their viewpoints on various social issues, including Black Lives Matter and gender identity. She asserts that while she faced repercussions for her conservative beliefs, her male co-stars were not subjected to the same scrutiny for their politically charged statements.
Carano’s lawsuit also details how Disney allegedly pressured her to meet with representatives from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination and demanded a public apology for her social media posts. According to the complaint, after Carano declined to comply with these demands, she was terminated from “The Mandalorian” and other projects within the Star Wars franchise.
The suit further claims that Disney engaged in a “post-termination smear campaign” against Carano, citing the removal of an episode of “Running Wild with Bear Grylls,” in which she appeared, from the show’s lineup. Although the episode eventually aired, Disney reportedly omitted any mention of her name and likeness in promotional materials.
Carano’s termination also led to her being dropped by her talent agency, UTA, and her transactional lawyer, compounding the impact of her dismissal from the series. In her statement, Carano expressed her belief that she and others have been unjustly targeted for their views, stating, “Some of us have been unjustly singled out, harassed, persecuted and had our livelihoods stripped away because we dared to encourage conversation, asked questions, and refused to go along with the mob.”
As an at-will employee, Carano faces significant challenges in seeking damages for her termination, as private sector workers often lack the protections afforded to public employees under the First Amendment. However, with Musk’s backing, Carano has expressed gratitude for the support she has received, stating, “I am honored that my case has been chosen to be supported by the company that has been one of the last glimmers of hope for free speech in the world.”
The lawsuit has emerged against a backdrop of heightened tensions surrounding issues of free speech, political correctness, and corporate accountability. As the case progresses, it will likely continue to draw attention to the intersection of personal beliefs and professional conduct in the entertainment industry.
As the legal battle unfolds, the implications of Carano’s lawsuit could resonate beyond the courtroom, potentially influencing how companies navigate the complexities of employee expression and corporate values in an increasingly polarized society.
Source: THR, Esq.
