Exactly what Zegler did with "Snow White": directly saying, from the get-go, that the story we remembered was not to be (unwanted kiss between Snow White and the Prince, for example
). Carano wasn't dissing "The Mandalorian" nor the story and didn't try to politicize the franchise.
This is precisely the case as I see it. I was stunned that they would have mentioned it at all in the light that what they were doing is the absolute opposite of what they are claiming to do. In an area where the writing is so blatantly clear, they just made up a false saying and are promoting it under a banner of freedom. Companies do not have the ability to push their agenda onto their employees as slaves or captives. But the opposite is true of corporations as they are owned, they are bound by law to do the will of the stockholders. Everything Disney does to destroy their own stock value is illegal under the terms of the agreement they have with their stockholders. It is basic, basic lawschool stuff here. They are not only lying about dealing with one actor differently than the other but their case about their own free speech should get several execs fired for even claiming such power to abuse stockholder resources in pursuit of spreading their own personal beliefs. I said this EXACT thing multiple times in this thread and others that Disney's execs are using the value, monetary value, of the company to pursue personal advertising/agenda campaigns and that they explicitly are stealing/embezzling when doing so.
That's not the point. The point is that Gina Carano was singled out specifically because of her political views, while Disney was not firing other actors who did the exact same thing, just on the side of the political spectrum that Disney prefers.
i was going to post this set in the "Who would win? VS" thread but I can't come up with a single category where Zegler stands a chance.
Ya the at will laws just mean that they can do reduction of force at any time if they simply don't need that many people anymore. But to purposely fire someone for things that are also protected during hiring is clearly over the line.
those yes, but you did point out that the execs then talking amongst themselves about said advice is not under client privilege
Correct, if it’s just lay employees talking to each other about non-legal matters, or even if there’s an attorney in the chain but there’s no legal advice being requested or provided, then attorney-client privilege most likely wouldn’t apply.
Exactly, and that's one of the prongs of Carano's lawsuit--the disparate treatment. Not only were those other actors, who posted some truly awful stuff, not disciplined at all, but they were all men. So it's sort of a compound discrimination claim--her politics and her gender.
Yes, Disney made The mistake of announcing exactly why they were firing her. Usually in an at-will state, you just let someone go and you don't tell them why.
