Its really hard to win that - because there isn’t a pattern when its ONE woman who was canned and no men who were canned. Sex discrimination lawsuits are won on patterns.
Oh, I agree, I don’t think she has a case at all.
Trump & his followers have a habit of identifying with the villain - in 2019 the Trump campaign cast him as Thanos in a campaign video.
That first page with the Star Wars references look like they were written by an AI. Complete with hallucinations.
Shit you might be right. 
For Warhammer 40k, Trump is often depicted as the Emperor of Mankind.
California has a statute that prohibits employers from coercing or influencing the political activities of their employees, so the suit probably survives a motion for Rule 11 sanctions (for frivolous filings) and maybe a motion to dismiss. Disney will of course (correctly) argue that the termination was to mitigate potential business losses and not politically motivated, but that may require at least summary judgment.
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
Just reading the blurb you cited, what difference does it make if they’re discharing Carano for potential business losses? They told her to refrain from following a particular course of political action or activity and terminated her when she refused. If a company could just argue they did so to prevent loss of revenue then it’d be a toothless law indeed.
Amusingly that’s Thanos just before he dissolves into dust as a failure
Are actors considered employees? Serious question. I’ve always thought of them more as independent contractors.
Good point. According to a quick Google check, most actors list themselves as self-employed.
It often is. But for the really large companies, it really is usually about the profits.
Remember that Disney is also the company that basically fired James Gunn when a couple of conservative jackasses basically ran a successful social media campaign to convince Bob Iger to ‘cancel’ Gunn because Iger was himself conservative and was, of course, paying attention to the wrong social media.
Not that Gunn was some kind of total innocent, but he ended up making a very successful superhero movie for DC proving the generally public wasn’t really buying the smear campaign or at least not enough to lose money. So Iger eventually made a show of ‘accepting’ Gunn’s apology (and saying at the time the firing was some kind of ‘unanimous’ decision of several other executives) so he could come back to make more Marvel movies.
Bottom line: at Disney, if you bring in the big bucks, it doesn’t really matter. If it looks like you’re a liability, you’re shown the door.
That said, yeah, it’s really easy to claim it’s not about political stance at smaller places. But that’s hardly new. There’s plenty of places where race, gender, age, and other considerations are used but proving it is the hard part. Especially proving it while also supporting yourself. Not everybody has the time or resources to fight back.
The litigation will likely involve argument regarding the intent and legislative history of that section of the California code. It is a legal maxim that statutory interpretations should avoid absurd results. As such, I find it highly unlikely that the California legislature intended to create a remedy in which an employee could assert that statements broadly offensive enough to cause their employer harm were “political” beliefs as a defense to termination. If so, a neo Nazi could advocate genocide and claim protection from adverse employment action.
Best guess: The court will likely find that the code protects expressly political activity by employees on their own time (e.g., canvassing, partisan and issue advocacy) but will find that employers may take action against employees who engage in offensive activity that is at best indirectly political. Otherwise, the code section is essentially a commercial suicide pact.
ETA:
Also a good question that may be an issue of fact in the litigation.
Now the whole golden toilet thing makes sense.
I’ve linked this before, but it’s worth linking again.
Warning (yes, it’s the Pit, but…) of NSFW gratuitous cartoon violence and language.
And as a dedicated Chaos player, I find that fitting.
Eh, at least the God-Emperor was nearly as smart as he thought he was. Nearly. Or, rather, it’s too bad he wasn’t as wise as he was smart and ruthless.
If reborn he’d aggressively purge all those idiots for what they’ve done in his name. Or, well, he was an incredible pragmatist, so he’d make some examples and work with what he had, such as he did with Mars. He’s done it before after all.
But you’re right the unspeakably fascist rigidity (as long as their the ones who get to decide who’s the heretic and who’s righteous) is part and parcel of both the 40K imperium and the modern MAGA/RWNJ/“Christian” Nationalists, while the inherent duality and mutability of chaos would fill them with terror.
I feel that gives him too much gravitas.
Nurgle is sitting right there…
Hey, the comments on the video I linked had the following comment:
Even Heretics would never compare The Corpse-Emperor to essentially 3 nurglings in a suit
So a corpse that’s just barely being kept alive by machines and is worshipped as a god despite being nothing of the sort?
Sounds about right.