Using Elon Musk's money, Gina Carano (AKA Cara Dune in seasons 1 and 2 of The Mandalorian series) is suing Disney & Lucasfilm over her "firing" in February 2021. We had Matt Cameron, current co-host of Opening Arguments, join to help us break this thing down. How does Carano allege she was harmed, and what exactly are her claims for relief here? Is this suit just a nothingburger or is there actually some meat on this thing? Feel free to email us at lydia@seriouspod.com or thomas@seriouspod.com! Please pretty please consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/wherethereswoke!
Anywhere you see diversity, equity, and inclusion, you see Marxism and you see woke principles being pushed.
Wokeness is a virus more dangerous than any pandemic hands down.
The woke monster is here and it's coming for everything.
Instead of go-go boots, the seductress green M&M will now wear sneakers.
Hello and welcome to Where There's Woke.
This is episode 41.
I'm Thomas.
That's Lydia.
How you doing?
I'm Lydia.
I'm good.
Yeah.
Confirm.
Yeah.
Thanks for confirming what I said.
You're welcome.
That's good.
They might not have believed me otherwise.
You don't know.
I'm just a voice, so.
And we've got a very special episode because we are also joined by co-host of Opening Arguments, Matt Cameron.
How you doing?
Yay!
Hey, Smith.
So I'm feeling better than a guy that just did the Kessel Run in 11 par 6.
I gotta tell you.
Having a night.
Uh, Lydia has no idea what that is.
I know some of this stuff.
Lydia, you've seen a Star War, right?
I have seen several Star Wars.
She just has a normal person brain that doesn't care about it.
I watch it as a movie, yes.
I don't absorb the canon, I guess.
Yeah, no, I just watched it as a kid so much it's like, yeah, of course I know everything, like all the lines and stuff.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Right.
I mean, it's like the Kessel Run.
None of the names of anybody.
That's not true.
I mean, okay, I don't know the names of a lot of them.
That's true.
People may have heard the outtake on the last episode by now.
We're doing a lot of Star Wars stuff.
I don't know why.
We didn't do it.
Matt did.
Oh wait, Gina Carano.
No, I did it.
Allegedly.
Okay.
Well, yeah, let's talk about ex MMA fighter who apparently has also acted terribly in some things.
Yeah, a handful of things.
Gina Carano.
So I think a lot of people saw this.
Gina Carano is suing Disney for firing her.
A few years ago.
Some quick background.
In 2018, Gina Carano was cast in The Mandalorian playing Cara Dune.
Cara Dune?
Cara Dune?
Who cares?
Who cares?
Not real Star Wars.
Thank you, Star Wars.
She's gone now.
She appeared in season one about, you know, a few episodes in and then became a pretty big character from what I understand in season two.
I don't think we ever watched season two because it was The Mandalorian.
I think we did.
I don't know.
I don't.
I didn't.
Yeah.
And then in late 2020, after Black Lives Matter and protests and everything, on Twitter, she specifically never issued any public support for Black Lives Matter.
And it seemed to really rub a lot of people the wrong way.
They kind of tried calling her out on it.
She just never said anything.
That was all it was?
No, that's the beginning.
Then there was this encouragement to include pronouns in everybody's bios.
And I've seen this reported a few different ways.
I've seen some people say that, you know, Twitter fans were calling on her to put her pronouns in her bio.
She later says that Disney directed her to put her pronouns in her bio.
But either way, she wasn't doing it for the longest time and then I guess got fed up at some point and put beep bop boop.
Yeah, I don't think anyone would have cared if she just didn't put her pronouns in her bio, would they?
I don't have mine in my bio.
with her to help educate her as to like why this freaking matters and what she did was really messed up.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't think anyone would have cared if she just didn't put her pronouns in her bio, would they?
I don't have mine in my bio.
Does it matter that much?
Yeah, I don't know.
And that's why I'm saying like there's different reporting.
So there is some claims that if you go out of your I get that, but it's weird.
Why didn't she just not say anything?
I'm sure.
Yeah, I don't know.
Disney's response in this, I think, is going to tell us a lot more than the facts in this.
Yeah, yeah, I think that's true.
We'll learn a lot.
She ended up apologizing for that and got rid of them.
Again, it was From her conversation with Pedro Pascal, who I believe she throws under the bus in the lawsuit.
Matt, you'll walk us through that a little bit.
And then in February 2021, so a few months later, she posted a series of things on Instagram.
One was a meme that hating someone for their political views is like the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust.
Yeah.
Ben Shapiro characterizes this as othering people leads to murder.
And why is that such a bad thing for her to have said?
I don't know.
It's a very weird thing.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Leads to murder?
Yeah.
Is he really just criticizing Nazis based on their political views by calling them murderers?
That is...
Wow.
Rich.
Wow.
And she also included stuff about, like, anti-masking at the time, too.
And, you know, just kind of, like, these mocking sort of memes.
And basically, like, the fan base had had it.
And there was a hashtag, Fire Gina Carano, that was trending.
And in that same month, February, Lucasfilm announced that she would not be in any future projects, and she was also dropped from United Talent Agency the exact same day.
The post was a big part of this, but I said, you know, she also mocked face masks a lot.
During COVID, she believed in voter fraud during the 2020 presidential election and was tweeting about that a lot.
I mean, you can cut through a lot of this by being just like, she sucks, and finally we found out she sucks.
She sucks.
My favorite thing about the Gina Carano thing is, because I vaguely witnessed, I think, most of this.
Yeah.
Just casually, because I don't care about anything she does, really.
But what I love is, she's not like a good actress or something.
Like, she's only cast because she was an MMA fighter.
And so it's weird to be like- She can do her own stunts.
Yeah, which is not even a big deal, because they actually have stunt people that can do stunts.
Unfortunately, you can't have a stunt actor, you know?
It's easier to go the other way, you know?
So what I thought was funny about it was like, it's a hell of a gamble to take with, you're already a stunt casting, so to speak.
It's not like she's invaluable to the Mandalorian or anything that she's ever done.
And what I love is there's just so little talent on the right that they're stuck with the shittiest celebrities.
And so then like, you know, Ben Shapiro has to sign her on to make a bunch of movies for his website and they're terrible.
Oh yeah, no.
And that's what I was going to mention as well.
One week after this, right, so she's dropped from Lucasfilm.
One week later, she announces that she's going to be developing films with The Daily Wire.
Yeah, and we know how good those are.
The film that they were going to do is called White Knuckle, and it's about revenge by a survivor of an attempted murder by a serial killer.
However, This ended up being canceled because she refused to comply with masking and vaccine requirements in the industry.
And she was like, I would sooner rot in hell.
Not really.
But she was like, I'm not making this movie if I'm going to be forcing people to wear masks or get the vaccine.
And then apparently Jeremy Boring recalls this interaction he had with her where she was like, screw it.
I'll leave the union.
Let's go up to Montana and just make a different movie where they can't get us.
Yeah, it says where they can't get after us, like Hollywood can't get after them.
So they made a Western called Terror on the Prairie, and that came out in June 2022, and nothing since then.
And it was a Best Picture Award winner.
We all feel foolish.
Actually, I found a review of it.
Movie Guide, the popular Christian review site, praised it for a very strong, very Christian moral worldview, but also, of course, noticed that it was stilted, unmemorable, and boring.
Even they didn't like it.
Oh, it's the best.
All right, let's see.
On Worth It or Woke, let me pull up what they thought about it.
Oh, Worth It or Woke, yeah.
WorthItOrWoke.com is my favorite.
Every time you mention that, I forget it existed, and then I'm excited again, because it's so good.
Worth It or Woke.
Under Woke Elements, it says, none.
Terror on the Prairie is an intentionally non-woke film.
While it would be understandable for some to assume that having a woman in the lead of a gritty Western thriller is woke, It is not in this case.
Geez.
Yeah.
Wow.
Oh my God.
Carano's character is a traditional Frontiers woman and mother who relies on her husband for protection.
Oh my God.
Oh, that's the best.
What if they take this MMA fighter, whose only thing she offered as an actress was fighting, and they're like, yeah, but we have to do Christian-y stuff, so you just sit there, and then the man will do everything.
What if that, honestly, that's, I can't think of a worse punishment for her than that.
Oh God, what a mess.
She gets to shoot a gun at least, I assume.
Yeah, maybe, yeah, if something happens to her husband, you know, and her husband says it's okay.
It's probably a requirement for any movie in Montana.
First she has to ask permission.
Can I shoot this?
And then he's like, yeah, OK.
Yeah.
Jesse Watters described her as one of the up and coming, you know, rising stars of Hollywood.
So, you know, before her star fell.
But when she was let go, she actually spoke with Tucker Carlson pretty much right after.
And I sent you the link if you want to.
Play that?
It's clipped together because it's from his, like, Tucker Carlson weekend or something.
Today, I don't know.
Some weird daytime thing.
When I wouldn't hashtag trans rights and I wouldn't put my pronouns in, like, they kept on pressuring.
And finally, I just said, I'm not, I'm not doing this, you know, like, I'm not, like, what are the pronouns?
I didn't even know what people were talking about.
I was just not clued in.
All I know is I'm against it.
The pronouns thing.
What are pronouns?
That's been happening for, like, Like seven, eight years now, right?
But no one has ever explained its purpose.
I didn't know.
You're just supposed to know.
Yeah.
And if you don't know, you're a bigot.
Yeah.
Well, then I put beep bop boop in my... Beep bop boop.
Yeah.
So that, if I'm translating, that just means middle finger to you, right?
Well, that just meant I can put anything I want in my bio.
I can do whatever I want.
That's all that was.
Because you thought it was a free country.
Yeah, because I thought it was a free country.
But it's not a free country because you can't fire someone from your studio if you don't want to.
Lockdowns, masks, vaccinations and pronouns way before anybody was even like saying a word about it.
And so I was a little bit ahead.
I'm sure if I would have done that now, it wouldn't have been a big deal.
But because I was talking about this when nobody else was talking about it, especially nobody else in my industry, it was like, Lucasfilm called me and they were like, okay, we're going to need you to go on a Zoom call with 45 of our LGBTQ community.
And we have to get you on the phone with these people.
We need to have you watch all of these movies about the trans lives documentaries.
And I was like, okay, I'll watch your documentaries and I'll talk to your people.
But I'm not going to get on a Zoom call with 45 different people who can have their phones out videotaping me.
And I feel like that's extremely abusive.
If somebody made me go on a Zoom call with 45 people, I would quit.
It doesn't matter which 45 people.
That's just awful.
Or I might do it because it would be such chaos that it's like, what's even gonna happen?
Zoom call with seven people is chaos.
45?
Are you kidding me?
Way too much.
Fine.
Can't do it.
We've just become fascinated in the last two years by bravery and where it emerges in people you would never expect it to emerge in.
That's a brave woman and a really interesting conversation.
It's on Tucker Carlson today, tomorrow 7am on Fox News.
I had to make sure you got that.
I haven't seen such bravery since Tucker interviewed Vladimir Putin.
Yeah.
And gosh, I hope we, I don't know if there's anything to cover in that interview, but I just love how even Putin, like afterwards talking shit on him, it's my favorite thing in the world.
He's like, I thought this guy was going to ask me hard questions and he didn't.
It's so good.
It's the bravest thing this woman who fights in a cage has ever done.
Yeah.
She lost her job and, you know, was pretty quiet in the years in between until recently when Elon Musk on Twitter basically issued a statement and said, if you feel like you lost your job or have been discriminated against because of your speech.
Oh, yeah.
Reach out to me and I will pay for your lawyers, basically.
And Gina Carano responded and Elon Musk took her up on it and now he's paying for her lawsuit.
Wow.
And so here we are.
Yeah.
God, just when you think that guy can't waste any more money.
Yeah.
Well, actually, Matt's here to tell us it's a humdinger of lawsuit and she's going to win.
She's going to take Disney's launch over.
I can't wait to hear it.
This money was well spent, let me tell you.
Well, we figured since Matt doesn't have enough work between defending immigrants who are getting railroaded by the system and also doing episodes of opening arguments seemingly every day, you know, we thought he had nothing but time.
So maybe he could come help us with this lawsuit.
Yep.
Well, I had fun.
This is a fun read.
So what's going on?
Let me tell you first of all about Donald M. Falk, the lawyer responsible for this garbage.
The best money that Elon Musk could spend.
He appears to be someone who's known as a class action killer.
I'm not sure why he was hired on this one, but he's taken up a lot of conservative causes, including vaccine stuff and employment discrimination stuff you'd expect from the right, basically.
But I had to look him up immediately because of the introduction, which I assume that you've taken a look at.
This is the dumbest introduction I've ever seen to a legal document.
And I have to, just a quick word here as a practitioner, this is stupid and dangerous to do something like this.
So he starts off saying, a short time ago in a galaxy not so far away, the defendants made it clear that only one orthodoxy and thought, speech, or action was acceptable in their empire.
And it goes on from there.
I wanna barf, it's so bad.
I know, it gets worse.
After two highly acclaimed seasons on the Mandalorian as Rebel Ranger Cara Dune, Carano was terminated from her role as swiftly as her character's peaceful home planet of Alderaan had been destroyed by the Death Star in an earlier Star Wars film.
It's so bad.
Do you get law points for those little?
No.
No, okay.
I was having so much fun imagining when I read this, some 87-year-old female judge who's just never seen a Star War and is just like, what are you talking about?
What is this?
That was definitely a really good time.
Because I know people who have never seen a Star Wars, they're out there.
It's like the most popular media property in the world.
My law partner Nicole, I love her.
She's never seen a Star Wars.
There's certainly plenty of people who haven't seen any new Star Wars that are going to be pretty confused as to what this is.
And they're not missing that much.
Did she play the baby Yoda?
Is that who she is?
I don't know.
This guy got paid probably like $2,500 an hour to write this or something.
I mean, this is just... I also wanted to note canonically, he just makes a mistake here.
Even though the force is female, that's in quotes, defendants chose to target a woman while looking the other way when it came to men.
We'll get to that.
But The Force is female is not canon.
The Force is gender neutral.
That's a t-shirt.
That's literally a t-shirt that people wear.
And I have no problem with saying the Force is female, but that's not like an actual Star Wars canonical thing.
So you've already made a mistake.
I mean, I'm sure he thinks this is like the capstone of his career, this introduction.
Yeah.
Let's be honest, he's just accepting a large check from a guy who does not know how to not waste money, apparently.
That's the one, Elon Musk.
And so he's probably just having fun with it.
It's not like he's going to get disbarred.
We've seen, no one can get disbarred.
It actually doesn't exist.
For an introduction like this, I could see a bar complaint, but that's just me.
In my world, but you know, the rule of law still reigns over the defendant's empire.
I mean, it just goes on.
I mean, just the idea of comparing Disney, which is not like the best corporation, but it's still just an American corporation, comparing it to like a genocidal intergalactic, you know, empire with stormtroopers and I don't know.
We're at least three years away from that being real.
Yeah, right.
Exactly.
No, that's right.
Before Disney is integrated into our empire.
Yeah.
So this is a federal suit and brought in federal court because there's multiple states involved.
It is civil action completely arising from California labor law.
And I will say up front, I'm not a California labor lawyer.
I'm not an entertainment lawyer.
I've done some research on this.
It's not that complicated.
The issues raised in here are actually somewhat novel.
So this is a case that people are watching because so far as I can tell, I wasn't able to find any other major cases under this statute.
Or someone who'd been fired based on social media posts, basically, for an actor, somebody in Hollywood.
Now, the reason it really matters that she is in Hollywood and is an at-will actor for a TV show is that, I think we know, but you have special provisions in your contract when you're an entertainer, right?
And especially when you're doing movies and TV, it's very common.
And I really want to know up front what was in her contract that is not in here.
Her contract's not attached, right?
That would be important.
It really would seem to be, because typically there are sort of what they call morality clauses, which obviously if you go murder somebody then you're off the movie.
That's pretty easy.
But there's also usually clauses about if you do things that undermine the project that you're working on or somehow denigrate the studio or whatever.
And same with any employer, obviously.
I love my staff, but if one of them lost their minds and started tweeting about how we should have mass deportations, I think I'd have reason to fire them.
It's bad for the business.
But that's just their political view.
They're allowed to do whatever, or are we the evil empire, Matt?
I guess I'm Darth Vader because I don't think my employees should be tweeting about mass deportations.
Yeah, it gets so tiresome to even point it out, but like the obvious hypocrisy of cancel culture is the worst, cancel culture is the worst, how dare you?
But you're not allowed as an employer to not want to associate with someone?
Isn't that the most basic conservative tenet of anything?
They want people, employers, to have so many rights that they can hire children to work in mines, but they can't fire Gina Carano, damn it.
And they're also obsessed with freedom of contract, right?
And what is freedom of contract if not to end the contract?
So off the bat, that's the major problem that I saw with this case is we don't know what her terms of employment were.
She's coming out and saying that she had the right to say all this stuff, but I'm not sure that she necessarily did, and I think it's pretty well accepted.
Do you think that if the contract were good for her, it would have been included?
Like, as an exhibit or whatever?
I think so.
As an attachment?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, right.
Disney will be responding soon enough.
I'm sure they'll be happy to provide it, and I'm sure they'll be making some arguments along those lines.
It looked to me like they had a long time to respond, though.
When I was looking at the docket, it looked like they weren't going to be due until, like, May?
Yeah, I'm sure.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was, like, a while.
And I was like, come on, people.
I mean, it took a couple of years for it to strike back in the other situation.
Skipping ahead here.
So essentially the factual allegations you've just laid out with a sort of series of social media posts that sort of escalated up to the point where she posted the big one on February 10th, 2021, in which she essentially compared.
And what's interesting about that post is when you read it there, it's not explicitly political.
It's just sort of saying some people are getting treated like Jews in Germany.
And she actually says, I thought that was a little strange, in the complaint, it actually acknowledges this wasn't a political post.
But yet she's being fired for political opinions.
All the way through here, I've never seen so many tweets in one complaint.
It's just going through all of these different social media posts and it's just like such an online filing.
Like it's just from very online people.
And of course it has to in the complaint because you have to show all these things, but literally like the responses to her and retweets and things that Carl Weathers was posting and you know, it's just a lot.
The reason this is 59 pages is because there's so many screenshots.
I think it would probably be 15 without all the screenshots.
So let's just look at the claims very quickly because these are a stretch.
I will work from the one I think is the most ridiculous, which is the last one.
She's alleging sex discrimination under California section 12940, which is something that exists in every state, obviously, that employers can't discriminate based on a long list of characteristics.
It's a very long list.
It's been added to over time.
I think they're all characteristics we would understand and appreciate.
Politics, of course, are not included on that list, but gender and sex is.
It's not?
Because I remember covering this at some point where it's like, it's not necessarily politics, but like political activity or something.
Is that in there?
No, that's coming.
That's a different code.
This is just the basic sort of protected classes.
And the reason that she's trying to bring a sex discrimination claim is because that puts her into the most protected class, right, into this statute.
And that would be very good for her.
But the way that she's trying to prove sex discrimination is by saying, well, I was tweeting about how maybe trans people aren't great.
And Pedro Pascal was tweeting about how great trans people are.
So what?
He's getting treated differently.
Oh, my.
Yeah.
One of the other things that that has been brought up, too, is that, well, you know, Pedro Pascal compared Jews in concentration camps with the treatment of undocumented migrant children at ICE detention facilities.
So.
Hey, me too.
Yeah.
So, you know, he's saying that and I'm saying this.
So why am I getting in trouble?
Right.
No, it's really.
I thought when you mentioned Carl Weathers, I immediately thought, oh, is the argument she's going to make is like this guy.
I don't know what he tweeted, but like, oh, he tweeted some crazy crap.
He didn't get fired.
He's a man.
I tweet crazy crap.
I did get fired.
I'm a woman.
I thought that's what it was going to be.
That is what she's saying.
Oh, OK.
Carl Weathers, I don't think so.
Did he?
No, that's in there, too, I think.
Yeah, no, he did.
So even Carano's male co-star, the late Carl Weathers, posted this exact same message.
It wasn't the exact same message.
And he also retweeted something about how one party was controlling the media in Germany and whatever else.
But he wrote, Who gets to decide what is appropriate for me or my child to read?
The Nazis knew how both to control and eradicate.
Interesting playbook to emulate.
What's next?
Who's next?
It's not exactly the same as what she said.
It's kind of weird.
I don't know what he was talking about.
There's no context in this.
I didn't look the tweet up, so I don't know what he was actually talking about.
I think I'm just going to read very quickly the actual Instagram post that caused all the trouble for her.
Because she was getting into firefights online all the time, but then she goes and posts this.
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?
Yes.
Yeah.
Great work.
Great work.
This is, how is that any different?
So this is just stupid.
I think you can fire somebody for being stupid.
I don't think that's a good class.
She's not a good actor and her job was to be an actor and the only thing she could do is bring like, you know, audience who like her, you know, and if she loses that, I mean, it really almost doesn't matter what it is if you just, I mean, I don't know what the contract looks like, but I would think in a typical employment, and maybe this isn't, I don't know, you'd just be like, hey, your job here is to be liked by the audience that we need to like you.
And you're not doing that.
So bye.
You're making trouble.
So the sex discrimination thing is going nowhere, I don't think.
But she had to try, because that's the only way that she could actually be within a protected class, is if they could find that they treated Carl well.
Yeah, because asshole's not a protected class.
She searched up and down the document, couldn't find asshole, and so had to go with that.
Can I just point out, in a mix of all of the, well, Mark Hamill said this, Pedro Pascal said this, Carl Weathers said this, there's a typo in item 139 where it says that Mark Hamill described Donald Trump as Voldemir Putin's puppet, by the way.
Voldemir?
Yeah, that's pretty good.
Voldemir, yeah.
Like Voldemort and Vladimir combined?
That's what I'm here for.
I'm here with my red pen, you know?
That's what Elon Musk is paying for.
Sex discrimination, I mean, again, it's an insult, obviously, to anyone who's actually suffered discrimination at work.
I mean, that's just, it's ridiculous.
So let's go through the less ridiculous ones.
Because these are actually interesting questions, and I don't think they necessarily, I'm going to predict it's possible that, obviously, Disney's going to bring a motion to dismiss.
I think it's possible this survives a motion to dismiss because there are factual issues here.
And I think that there might be discovery to get into to try to figure out the actual motivation.
Because the first two claims have to do with California Labor Code 1101, And my first thought when I read this is, is it really political activity to be tweeting about some of the things she's tweeting about?
of policy, controlling or directing or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
And my first thought when I read this is, is it really political activity to be tweeting about some of the things she's tweeting about?
And actually it is.
Really?
Okay.
Because like I said, from past opening arguments, I thought there was a thing where that was mainly like voting, but also maybe that was a different state.
I think California is actually, they try to protect a lot, which is good.
They do.
It's very broad.
I think it's broader than we have here.
I didn't actually compare it to Massachusetts.
But there's a case in 1979 where some gay activists brought a claim against Pacific Telegram and Telegraph, I guess a phone company.
And the court found, because there was an argument about whether it's actually political to be promoting gay rights, right?
And this is, I mean, let's say 1979, a very different climate.
They found that the term political activity is much broader, connoting the espousal of a candidate or a cause.
And some degree of action to promote the acceptance thereof by other persons.
So they have a whole paragraph here, very good, about how the struggle for gay liberation is a cause, that it's important, that it's a political cause, and that it's just like any other civil rights movement.
In 1979, that's pretty good.
The argument here, though, it's what's really interesting about the counterpoint, because they're saying the struggle of the homosexual community for equal rights, particularly in the field of employment, must be recognized as a political activity.
But do you have to recognize someone who says that trans people maybe aren't a thing?
Like, on the other side, I don't see why you would have to, necessarily.
But this is the problem that we get when we start politicizing, or we already have, but the politicization of things like trans rights and queer rights.
Like, these are people that have a right to exist, and by moving it into the political stage and calling it something we can debate, this is what happens.
That it becomes political speech.
I have a problem with that, personally.
Could you say that... I mean, there also was a lot of anti-vax stuff.
You can make a similar argument that that's pretty obvious science, but I don't know, what does the law get to do?
Like, does the law get to say, like...
This is obvious, so it's not political?
Or I would think the law would have to be a little bit agnostic and be like, well, it seems that there is an entire political party that seems pretty dedicated to these ideas.
So to call them not political would be weird if they're like in a party platform.
Yeah, no, it seems like they're willing to go pretty broad on what is political or not.
Because she did have some things to say about masking.
I don't know if specifically anti-vax, but You know, I was thinking about that too.
If you're opposing masking at a time when all of these contracts no doubt require you to follow COVID regulations.
In fact, I believe she was fired.
As we already discussed, she was actually fired because she wouldn't comply with COVID regulations.
So I don't think that's political at all if you're saying, There's a whole part of my industry that I don't think should happen, and the industry wants you to do it.
Section 1102 is about if you coerce, influence, or attempt to coerce and influence by means of threat or discharge a loss of employment.
And so there's a whole convoluted thing here about the Zoom call, about the meeting with GLAAD, about those other steps that they took to try to intervene.
And that's another thing in Desney's favor here.
They didn't just fire her straight off.
They gave her a chance to kind of get up to speed here and to take back some of these things she said, and she's just never effectively did it.
And I think, like I said, I think in the Disney response, we're going to learn more about other social media posts that she hasn't mentioned.
I didn't go deep on her social media.
I'm sure that the reason that people were calling for her to say these things is probably because she was saying things that suggested maybe she didn't believe in these things.
And she certainly, there's stuff to indicate that she wasn't all that supportive of Black Lives Matter.
There was one idiot who was trying to get her to say ACAB, which just wasn't going to happen.
I mean, that's kind of silly.
So yeah, the political activity thing, though, is I'm not going to say it's an open question because I still think that in her role, doing what she does as an actor, going out in public and promoting a film, I think that the film studio has every right to put some limits around what she can say and to discharge her if she has trouble, you know, if she's getting into controversy.
She mentions in the complaint, one of my favorite jokes actually in here is that she says that she was responsible for 50 percent of the social media engagement across the entire cast.
Okay.
Isn't that funny?
I love that one.
Yeah, like, I was, you know, everybody loves me.
You're getting canceled online?
Like, yeah, you're gonna get a lot of attention.
You're starting fights with everybody.
Yes.
Because she was, you know, she's getting into it.
So I think that at the end of the day, if they can show, and I think they can, that there's a non-political reason something completely apart from even the things that she was saying but just the way that she was going out there and how combative she was being and the fact that she just or that she was making the studio or the film or whatever look bad i think they have a defense like i said i'm not sure if it survives a motion dismiss or not but we'll find out so the second claim is about wrongful discharge the fact that they actually fired her and then they would not hire her for anything else and potentially they kept her from getting other work
So this is obviously just discharge based on any conduct alleged that we just talked about.
The way that she talks about this too in the facts section, I meant to mention it.
She uses the word defame a lot, which I thought was a little strange because this is not a defamation suit.
All of these things are labor violations alleged.
She could have.
She could have thrown a defamation claim.
I don't think it would have gone anywhere, but she could have.
Because honestly, Disney's response, the statement they issued was really strange.
The statement that Lucasfilm put out when they were terminating her, I think they could have crafted this a lot better.
Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm, and there are no plans for her to be in the future.
Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.
And she makes the point that she didn't denigrate anybody based on cultural or religious identities, and she's not totally wrong.
She didn't say anything bad about Jews.
She just made a really insensitive comparison to Jews.
And sexual orientation and gender identity are not cultural identities.
I think that's a really strange way to characterize that.
So I'm not sure what they were trying to say with that.
And so she's going, she's saying that by issuing this extra statement, by phrasing it that way, that they made it very hard for her to get future work.
She might have a point there.
They really could have, you know.
Yeah, that would be, you think that would be defamation-y, right?
But she doesn't say that.
I mean, she uses the word defamation, but she doesn't actually bring any claims under any defamation.
I know.
I guess I'm saying, like, would that even, like, what would be the proper course of action there?
And I don't know.
Like, a week later, she signs on with Daily Wire to start making movies with them.
So, like, yeah, it's Daily Wire.
If I'd been her, I would have said, look at me.
Look what you made me do.
Signed with Ben Shapiro.
Yeah, now I remember that statement they made and I thought, okay, that's bad defamation wise, but do you think that matters in terms of the employment stuff?
Because I think it was just the kind of thing where like, weren't they in between seasons?
And there's no guarantee that like, your character's gonna be in the next season.
That's not a right you have.
There's not even a guarantee that the show's going to exist in between seasons.
There have been so many times where shows are filming.
This happened with The Minx with Jake Johnson over on HBO.
They were in the middle of filming season two when HBO was like, nah, never mind.
And they just shut up production.
I just feel like this is part of the industry.
And like you said, Matt, earlier with we don't know it was in her contract.
This isn't like a typical employment relationship as an actor there.
It's it's different than like your typical nine to five, I would imagine.
Yeah, I was wondering too, I just kind of went on, I was taking a walk today and I was thinking about this whole thing and what if they had just kind of as a one-off in the first episode of the second season, just been like, yeah, whatever happened to that Cara Dune?
I heard she slipped and fell into the Sarlacc pit or whatever, right?
Just, like, kill her off, right?
I mean, like, they could have done that.
I think that might have been included in this lawsuit, that they, like, closed the door on being able to- because they were going to give her another show, like, her own actual show.
And that's real damages.
Rangers of the New Republic.
She was going to be the star.
So they have not recast anybody for this role, and It's presumably still an active character in the Star Wars universe who's running around in the Outer Rim somewhere.
So somebody else could play her and she wants the job back.
That's one of the things she's suing for is to actually, which is kind of a funny thought that you'd go back to work after this, but you know, it's one thing she's asking for.
Well, then I guess I'm wondering, like, do we know, is this just one of the facts that's in dispute?
We don't have a contract.
Do we know that she was under contract?
Because like, okay, she could have been, I guess she could have been under some multi-season Mandalorian contract, or I guess they could have secured her for another season and then gone back on that, or I guess they could have signed a contract on whatever this new show you're talking about, or I could see it being, and because Disney has a lot of lawyers, I would imagine that they probably thought this through, I could see it being that like, okay, she fulfilled her season two contract.
They hadn't done anything yet.
It was COVID, right?
So they probably hadn't done anything yet, maybe.
Maybe they were in talks about another show, but if nothing was signed, Then she literally was never, like, I think there's a decent chance there was no employment at all at this time.
Or is this under dispute?
Like, do we know?
We do know that she was a guest actor.
Now, I don't know enough about entertainment law to know exactly what that means, but in number 23 here, it mentions that She was listed as a guest actor at a minimum salary of $25,000 per episode.
So it's one of those things where it's like, you know, also Gina Corona, right?
But she's in here.
Well, yeah, during the season.
But like, if you're in between seasons of the show, that doesn't guarantee, right?
I mean.
No, there's nothing in here that says that she was retained for season two.
Season three.
Sorry, yeah, season three.
I don't know.
She probably would have been let go during season three because she wouldn't have complied with the vaccine mandate.
Sure, sure.
2021.
She was let go February 2021.
Where did that come from that she was let go on that date?
Is that just the date of the statement that Lucasfilm put out?
That is the background that I shared at the beginning.
Yeah, I know, but I'm trying to ask what specific event that is.
When Lucasfilm, yeah, they issued the statement saying she was gone.
Yeah, okay.
So when they issued that post, they said she's not under a contract.
And I'm saying it's entirely possible that she wasn't really let go at any time.
It might be like, Again, if I was on a show, I just don't know.
I'm not the one reading the lawsuit, so I don't know what happened.
But like, if I was on a show for a season, and we were in the middle, in the off season where we hadn't yet renewed it, or because of COVID, we're still figuring that out, and I say some crap, And they just never hire me again.
Have I been fired?
You're right, actually.
So that's number 165, including the refusal to renew her role in season three.
So that is one of the complaints.
But now you can have, it's wrongful discharge and refusal to hire is part of the statute as well.
That's what she's saying is that she had a right to be hired back because, you know, she's a character in the show and they clearly only didn't do it because of these things that she said.
And, you know, I will say that they really could have fired her better.
I do have a problem with the statement.
I think you really need to be careful when you're firing someone based on things they post on social media to explain exactly why you're doing it.
And I think this sloppy thing about cultural and religious identities is, I don't like it.
But, the CEO of Disney said something much more reasonable, which is that she didn't align with company values.
The company values are those of universal, values of respect, values of decency, values of integrity, and values of inclusion.
That's nice and broad.
You can't really go wrong with that.
I would have thought that Disney would be, you know, they have nothing but lawyers.
Like, the entire company is actually lawyers.
The lawyers are the ones that do the animation now.
They don't even, they can't...
And so I would have thought they'd be smarter, but maybe it was the case that this was because they looked at it and were like, well, she's not currently under contract, that it was more like PR.
And so what they're trying to do is just not be canceled because of her.
Like, I think people are complaining, like, how dare you have this person on your show?
And so they're like, hey, we don't have her on it.
Like, she's not under contract.
Could that be why the statement might have been a little sloppy on your, in your opinion, Matt?
Yeah.
It sounds like they were accurate when they said she is not currently employed by Lucasfilm.
Yeah.
So, you know, there is that.
But the sloppiness was just describing why.
And I think that they really should have been very careful about how they said- I mean, it was a public statement.
They really could have written it better.
Because denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities is just- I don't think that describes what she did.
So that's why she's going to the next length of saying that you effectively blacklisted me in Hollywood by saying that I am insensitive or a bigot or a racist or whatever.
And, you know, ended up having to work for Ben Shapiro.
She might be right.
I think all sides should stipulate.
Is that what they call it in the law?
All sides stipulate that having to work for Ben Shapiro sucks.
Like, we won't argue that point, Your Honor.
We all can agree here.
That is, yeah, we're not going to fight that one.
Like, that's awful.
Straight to the D list.
The S list.
That was the other claim, though, is the refusal to hire back and then sort of ruining her reputation and her career in Hollywood.
So like I said, there's some factual issues here.
The discovery in this should be pretty interesting because you're going to probably end up getting a lot of internal emails and discussions and drafts of statements and trying to figure out what they're going to do with her.
And I think there might be some factual issues if we get past emotional dismiss, which is not guaranteed, but it's possible.
Ultimately, I don't really know based on what I'm reading here that she's going to prevail.
I think that's generally people don't seem to think that it's likely, but like I said, it is a bit of a test case and it could become more and more common that you have outspoken right-wing actors, maybe in a world where we have more of those.
I don't know.
So why is it a test case?
I feel like this has to have happened before.
Is it just purely because of the social media component of it, you mean?
Yeah, I couldn't find something where somebody had posted stuff that would be interpreted as political, like a major actor.
And she's at this point major, given the stature of the show.
You know, maybe I missed something, but it seems to me, and I saw an entertainment lawyer saying that this is pretty new and that people are watching this because this is something that really hasn't come up this way, this use of Section 1101.
But again, all Disney has to do is fire back and say, there's a perfectly good nonpolitical reason related to our reputation, related to our ability to make this show and promote it.
I feel like they get a win on that.
Is it really true that you couldn't fire someone if they just started spouting really disgusting political views?
Because again, it's your job is to be liked by an audience that's going to watch you, right?
It's not like she's not making widgets.
Is that really how the law works?
It's not unlimited.
I mean, you still certainly if you're saying things that are just really offensive, then you can still be fired.
But what they're trying to protect against, obviously, is for the real thing in this is they're trying to protect people who are in their off time going and doing things like, you know, working on political campaigns, running for office or whatever.
Or putting up a sign in the yard.
You know, that's the stuff we want to make sure we protect.
But the other question, too, is was she off-duty when she's doing this?
Because part of her job is being on social media, right?
And promoting herself for the show.
Well, and she cites it in her complaint as, hey, look, I'm, you know, the actor that brought in all this engagement on the thing.
And it's like, okay, so you're on the clock then when you're posting.
Yeah, for sure.
Right.
So if you're saying that speech was within your job, then you have an extra obligation to make sure that you're not causing trouble for your employer.
Do you think it would have made more sense, Matt, for them to really try to play up like this was her personal thing, personal views?
You think that would have made the case stronger?
More protective?
Yeah, that probably would have been a good idea based on what I understand of how this all works.
But at the same time, you can also still be fired for your off-campus, essentially, political views if they're bad enough or if you're doing things that are, you know, if she'd taken a picture of herself.
There's actually a lawsuit about this that was resolved recently.
I think it was a software engineer who took a picture of herself on January 6th and posted it everywhere.
And you know, her employer obviously didn't like that, didn't make them look good.
She wasn't smashing windows or anything, but she was there.
It's pretty loaded.
I would fire somebody if they went to January 6th.
Look, Matt, a run-of-the-mill insurrection is my right as an employee.
It's my off time.
I'm not wearing my Wendy's uniform here.
When I insurrect in the privacy of my off time, Matt, you can't do anything about it.
Yeah.
And if you go to a Trump rally or post positive Trump things, I can't fire you just for that.
But, you know, like I said, in my example, I'm running a small immigration law firm.
If one of my, if my paralegal just, again, lost her mind and started posting about how much she loves building the wall and mass deportation, then that's against our company policy.
That's against the things that our clients care about.
And that's directly bad for us.
And I think that that is, you know, and potentially could cost us money.
So I think that that's pretty reasonable as an employer to say that, you know, just at least shut up.
You don't have to say, you know, like at the very least.
And I get what she's saying.
Well, no, I don't really, but I can just to take it in the light most favorable to her as you have to in these things.
You know, you do.
Pedro Pascal was very outspoken.
Mark Hamill, very outspoken.
They were saying things about Trump and Trump supporters that I think we all agree with.
But if they were said about other people, maybe you wouldn't like as much.
But those weren't controversial in this way.
They didn't stir up the kinds of things.
It was just kind of the things that people are saying about Trump and Trump supporters.
And some people were mad about them, but not people that Disney cared about, apparently.
So it's it is kind of relative.
I guess I'm just trying to ask you, what makes that standard?
Like, do we know?
Do you have any idea?
Like, you know, I guess it is California law and you're a California lawyer.
Because I am curious, where is the line there?
There have to be types of jobs where you could fire people for political speech, right?
Or are there contracts you could sign that would sign those rights away, in a way?
Yeah, I looked into this a little.
I can give you some examples.
So, Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers.
This was from 1999.
This is somebody who's a reporter at a newspaper.
And he was out speaking out against the editorial stance of his newspaper, and they fired him.
And that was considered to be perfectly legitimate, because the newspaper has a right to have its editorial stance, and he's out there undermining it.
On the other side, you've got a guy who works for, I think it was a radio station, who goes out and appears somewhere and promotes a political candidate, as opposed to the political candidate the station supports.
But it was the owner of the station, very importantly.
And that was found to be a political firing, right?
Because it was just the owner's kind of personal preference to not talk about this candidate.
So that kind of line makes sense, depending on what your job is and what you're allowed to go out there and do.
- Were those both on their own time or did that not factor in? - I think those were both on their own time, yeah. - It's interesting though, like the newspaper one, it is interesting that you can't, yeah, I'm having a hard time understanding what the rule is and what it should be, honestly.
Like, on your own time, I could see an argument for, hey, on your own time, you can express whatever political views you want, because I definitely, I'm sure we all would be upset if it went the other way on certain things.
But I also can see a strong argument for like, Yeah, but also if I'm an employer in this country, we seem to value contract rights and right to associate and all that.
I feel like I have a right to not associate with certain people and to not like have my image, my corporate image be someone who says stuff I don't agree with.
So I guess I just don't know.
Like, is it not as simple as there's kind of one rule about it?
It might be a different thing depending on the situation.
Yeah, really.
And the courts have found it really depends on the nature of the employment.
Obviously, if you're a mechanic and you're out there saying these things, maybe it's a little different.
Like you said, I think there is a line, though, as to how offensive the speech is.
And if it's otherwise, you know, there's other things that cross over.
I think it can certainly cross over from political speech to just being bigoted, you know, certainly.
And that's there's an argument for some of the things she was saying here.
She clearly was insensitive to trans people, at the very least, if not actually transphobic.
So, you know, again, not great for business.
I think we're all kind of agreed that she might not have been under contract.
So how do you say what standards apply there?
It's one thing to be like, did you have a morality clause?
Did you not?
So we can fire you because of the morality clause.
And I think we all get that.
But if the allegation is that, well, they didn't renew my contract when they should have...
What governs that?
Like it can't be the contract, you're not under contract.
So I would think you would have pretty wide leeway there.
Well, that's where refusal to hire comes in.
So that is, that's an aspect here that, you know, that they're arguing, but yeah, no, I, you, there are certainly circumstances like this, though, where refusal to hire is firing, where you're expecting ongoing employment for reasons she wouldn't have expected to be on the season otherwise.
Okay, so is there no difference in the standard there?
Like, if she was fired for X speech because of this statute, that's the same as if they just didn't renew her contract for X speech?
Is that exactly the same?
Yeah, well, it'd be discrimination at that point, which is the same standard here.
So I would have thought you'd have a little more leeway if you're just not renewing a contract, just because it feels like that's like less of a thing than firing someone from their job.
You know, it just seems like I should have more leeway as an employer if I'm just choosing who I want to sign to a contract.
You might be right.
I think there might be an argument there.
But it's unclear from this and I would very much be interested to see, I'll be reading Disney's response because I'm sure they're going to have some pretty overwhelmingly compelling arguments in response to all this.
I would think, I'm actually very curious to read their response as well, because I also would want to know how you define or how you prove that you should have been rehired in this way.
Well, she includes some material in her complaint.
And, you know, who knows exactly?
This is from her perspective.
She includes some things, some conversation from Jon Favreau, basically saying like, you know, some really big things are coming, you know, super excited about.
The projects that are coming are away.
And so there is kind of this implicit understanding that there will be continued work as season two is wrapping up.
Right.
That's my reading of it.
And no other reason that she didn't get it.
So I see where they're coming from here.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, that's fair.
And she's seeking, again, just to be clear, injunctive relief in the form of reinstating her back as Cara Dune and giving her, presumably, the other show.
Yeah, so she gets to go back to work with Pedro Pascal after all this.
I mean, and by the time this thing wraps up, I assume the show will be several seasons on.
Yeah.
This could be a while.
What if Pedro Pascal, like, leaves?
What do you think about that?
That's a weird thing to ask.
Why wouldn't she just ask for money or something?
It's normal in an employment claim.
But again, if you're a mechanic, it makes a lot more sense than if you're a actor.
She's also looking for compensatory damages, which makes more sense to me, because she can say loss of future employment.
Obviously, if you lose a role in an entire TV series, as she's saying she did, and she clearly did, Not just Mandalorian, but Rangers the New Republic, which would have been her own show.
That's a lot of money, potentially, that she could be getting out of that.
She has the personality of a cardboard box.
There's no way she was carrying her own show.
Is that real?
Yeah, I mean, that's what they talk about.
Okay, but also, was it a pilot or was it gonna be a pilot?
Like, there's no guarantee.
You can't just say, yeah, she would have had her own successful show.
There's so much that goes into that.
Oh yeah, I don't think that there's any indication that it would necessarily be successful.
Or even get picked up, right?
Well, it's through Disney, so they had approved doing the spinoff, and since it's all in-house, they would have put it out and then probably stopped it.
I still think you have to find someone to write a script.
It's not like once they say, like, this is a good idea, let's do this, then that means it's made.
Like, there's all kinds of phases of, like, not working as a project.
That's true.
Yeah.
Yeah.
There's so many steps along the way in which it wouldn't have worked out, but it was something that Kathleen Kennedy, the president of Lucasfilm, had confirmed publicly.
Oh, wow.
Okay.
Disney Investor Day in December 2020, that this is a show that we're going to be creating, a spinoff from Mandalorian.
Jeez.
Okay.
Yeah.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Wow.
I didn't know that.
Why would you make a show?
Okay.
Whatever.
She claims to be the first MMA fighter to transition to serious acting.
Appears to be true.
I've tried to look into it.
Depends on how you define serious.
I mean, there's better than others.
Maybe the first woman.
It's very possible.
Although Ronda Rousey has some roles, I think, but maybe as herself.
Gina Garano really disappears into the role of cartoon.
Didn't even know it was her, actually, at first.
I don't know if you looked into the law firm at all, Matt, Shea, or Jaffe.
According to the Indiana Citizen, they contract with the attorney general out there, Todd Rakita, and they help with the anti-abortion battles that they're doing over there.
There was a little bit of a, I don't know, I don't want to call it an expose piece, but investigative reporting where they looked at their invoicing.
And Christopher Bartomolucci, who is one of the attorneys who's appearing, Pro Hoc Fice, For this lawsuit had billed 12 hours of work.
He claimed reimbursement for parking at the airport, his airfare, and one meal at the airport, and it came to over $7,000.
And two days before that, the contract was extended through the attorney general's office, and the payment cap was raised to $900,000.
Most recently, they extended the contract again.
Now they're looking at December 31st of this year, 2024, and the payment cap has been raised again to $1.1 million.
And when the Indiana citizen looked at the invoice costs and mapped them, you know, timeline, they spiked at the same time that the attorney general was in a legal dispute with the Indiana gynecologist who performed an abortion on the 10-year-old rape victim out of Ohio, if you guys remember that.
So they started working overtime, I guess, because they had to go after a gynecologist for helping a child.
Yeah.
The attorneys are getting $550 an hour and $75 for paralegals.
I thought it was an interesting counterpoint to what you guys reported on with Fonny Willis and Wade being capped at $250.
And here we have these people that are trying to force 10-year-olds to carry a baby to term, getting paid $550 an hour.
By the state, they are?
Yeah.
Well, yeah, they're getting paid by the state.
Wow.
That's incredible.
Just the things you can get.
I mean, I found a Reuters story about when Donald Faulk joined this firm, which I thought was very strange to have a news story about a lawyer joining an appellate firm, but there's a quote at the end.
He was very excited to be joining this firm, and he's talking about how great they are, and now I'm understanding why he thinks they're so great when you tell me about these things.
He said, law practice is fun again.
Oh my god!
Oh wow.
So that's his idea of fun, is those things that you just described.
And this!
I'm sure that his real idea of fun is that introduction.
I'm sure that is his absolute masterpiece of all time.
Yeah, and I saw Eugene Volokh, First Amendment lawyer, is also getting involved in this case too.
So yeah, should be some interesting... Is that the one who sucks?
Yeah, he sucks.
Didn't he write on, what's his name?
Yes, Kilborn.
Yeah, he wrote on Kilborn.
Yeah, that's when I saw his name pop up in the docket with his application, ProHocVice.
I was like, oh.
Oh, he's actually getting involved that much?
Yeah.
Wow.
How much money is Elon throwing around?
I think this is going to be a lot of money.
Yeah.
And a lot of them had their ProHocVice applications denied because they made mistakes on them.
So I was, you know, looking at the docket and kind of like laughing along the way.
But to wrap this up, why don't we let Gina Carano tell us in her own words the impact that she's having when she visits Jesse Watters.
What I've learned is that if this can happen to me, this can happen to anyone.
I am easy to work with and I am passionate about what we do.
Always excited to be on set.
I even worked with them as much as I possibly could to resolve any issues that they had.
But, you know, eventually you have a line and, you know, when that line gets crossed, you just have to say, enough.
Enough is enough.
And if I look back on If I would have caved and I would have done something that disrespected myself, then I wouldn't be doing any favors to the next generation, to my nieces, to your children.
And I felt like since I didn't have any children, I was a person that could could stand up and say some things.
And the things that I said were so gentle.
They weren't aggressive.
They were never with ill intent.
They were never malicious.
And that's how I know because I was so conscious that, you know, if this can happen to me, this will happen to you.
And if we just pass this along to the next generation, you know, it's just going to get worse and worse.
Yeah, look, if she can get fired from Mandalorian, any of us can, OK?
Sunny Intergalactic Mercenary, who was formerly an MMA fighter.
God, I love how they do that.
This is something they do with the cancel culture stuff a lot.
A lot of those dweebs are like, look, sure, every example we have of this is of someone who was super duper privileged, people complained about online, and then they ended up still privileged.
But that's just because those are the ones we know because they're famous.
This could happen to any auto mechanic.
And you're like, really?
I actually don't think this happens to auto mechanics much because They're not like on Disney and then say stuff on social media that people care about.
Nobody cares about it.
They're one follower on Twitter.
I've seen this argument so many times.
Like, yeah, well, we're pointing to the ones that people know, but it could happen to anybody.
It's like, no, that definitionally can't happen to everybody.
It's a thing that only happens to people who have millions of people paying attention to them on online or on TV or whatever it is like those.
That's it.
She's putting some of those acting skills to the test, though, with that clip, because the way that she speaks about what she posted on social media, the contrast to how she described it earlier with Tucker Carlson back in, you know, 2021, when it actually, like, happened with the beep-bop-boop, and she's, like, kind of smirking through it and, like, kind of proud of herself for speaking out, and then here it's, like, Solemn and, you know, the gravity of the situation.
And isn't she a hero for the next generation and standing up to the bullies?
You know, it's just remarkable.
Now she's a plaintiff.
So, you know, that changes things.
What have we learned?
I've learned a lot about California labor law.
Yeah, I'm surprised.
Sounds like you don't have a firm prediction for what's going to happen, but I guess it'll depend on, we're waiting for Disney's response.
I think that she's going to lose.
I mean, I don't think it's ultimately going to work out for her.
I don't think that this is a great precedent if she does win, but.
Yeah.
No, I mean, it is.
Honestly, I will say, OK, I'm not going to defend her, but I will say that I was expecting when I started reading this that the things that she had said were worse.
When she says it's gentle, that's not really true.
She was insensitive in multiple ways.
Yeah.
But I do understand, though, in aggregate, when you're looking at all this, why Disney wouldn't want to be associated with her and why they don't have to be.
Yeah.
I wouldn't keep her around either.
Seems pretty straightforward.
Well, thanks so much, Matt.
Where can people find you, Matt, if they want to check out more Matt Cam?
Well, I'm on a little show called Opening Arguments.
That sounds amazing.
I better go check it out.
Yeah.
It's pretty good.
Downloading now.
Otherwise, I'm on Twitter at Matt Cam, Matt underscore Cam, and I don't know.
I'm around.
I'm easy to find.
Well, thanks so much for the breakdown.
We'll have to follow this up when Disney responds.
Yeah.
All right.
I'm not going to say may the force be with you.
I'm just not going to say that.
I can't think of any other Star Wars sign off, but I'm not going to say that.
