Grant Napier's Lawsuit Amended and will continue

[Section 101]

Sounds like he has a valid claim now. He tried to add another part, but the judge said it was too late and it should have been done with the amendment.

The religious part was dropped now it's based on retaliation for political speech which is protected.

Bonneville argued Napear failed to show the company had a rule, regulation or policy that would have classified his tweet as “political activity.” “However,” Drozd wrote, “the court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a ‘rule, regulation, or policy’ under (section) 1101 by alleging … defendant used his termination ‘as an example to all other employees of the Company as an implicit warning that anyone that dared to speak out publicly and criticize the politics of the Black Lives Matter movement would be summarily terminated.’”

Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/sports/nba/sacramento-kings/article277661148.html#storylink=cpy

The other thread was locked.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Is it not legally defensible to just say he violated community standards and publicly damaged the reputation of his broadcaster?

He's not even alleging that he was misunderstood.

 

[Sluggah]

“sufficiently alleged” is a curious combination of words. but I’m no rocket lawyer.

 

[ESP47]

Couldn't stand Grant's radio (and most likely real life) personality but I'll never agree with the grounds he was terminated on.

 

[Telemachus]

Is it not legally defensible to just say he violated community standards and publicly damaged the reputation of his broadcaster?

He's not even alleging that he was misunderstood.

It is not against community standards to have a different political point of view.

 

[PurpleHaze]

It is not against community standards to have a different political point of view.

Correct. It's called freedom of speech protected under first amendment to US Constitution. Grant Napier cancel culture victim that cannot tolerate anyone who deviates from their script demanding absolute obedience. Do so at your peril.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

It is not against community standards to have a different political point of view.

The funny thing here is that I *liked* Grant. And when it comes to outside-the-job activities I am very much in favor of free speech. But if the station got overwhelming feedback that he crossed a line, I'd argue that it does violate a community standard. What the ratio was, I don't know. But I doubt they would have acted if it was 50/50.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Correct. It's called freedom of speech protected under first amendment to US Constitution. Grant Napier cancel culture victim that cannot tolerate anyone who deviates from their script demanding absolute obedience. Do so at your peril.

The government didn't cancel him. First amendment doesn't apply to private business. We all know this.

 

[mrlaze]

Didnt he get fried for a Twitter post?

 

[ESP47]

The funny thing here is that I *liked* Grant. And when it comes to outside-the-job activities I am very much in favor of free speech. But if the station got overwhelming feedback that he crossed a line, I'd argue that it does violate a community standard. What the ratio was, I don't know. But I doubt they would have acted if it was 50/50.

We don't know but what he said was not egregious in any type of way. In fact it was the opposite in it's literal sense.

I don't think people who see a Tweet and agree with it are going to call up a radio station and tell them they approve of the Tweet so there was no chance the ratio was ever going to be 50/50. The only people calling in would be the people who were mad about what he said.

 

[Section 101]

The government didn't cancel him. First amendment doesn't apply to private business. We all know this.

Most people don't, but political speech is protected as a reason to fire someone for cause.

The station screwed up. All they had to do was keep him suspended then not renew his contract. I believe it was up June 30th.

But I assume they wanted to fire for cause so they didn't have to pay any retirement money. If there was no retirement money that makes them even dumber.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Most people don't, but political speech is protected as a reason to fire someone for cause.

The station screwed up. All they had to do was keep him suspended then not renew his contract. I believe it was up June 30th.

But I assume they wanted to fire for cause so they didn't have to pay any retirement money. If there was no retirement money that makes them even dumber.

I believe this is to protect employees from being fired for having the wrong presidential candidate on a bumper sticker, not those promoting a racist dog whistle - speech which may violate other core policies of an organizations equal treatment/standards of conduct. Which again is why I said this is a community standards issue not a political one.

 

[Telemachus]

I believe this is to protect employees from being fired for having the wrong presidential candidate on a bumper sticker, not those promoting a racist dog whistle - speech which may violate other core policies of an organizations equal treatment/standards of conduct. Which again is why I said this is a community standards issue not a political one.

Except that it isn't a racist dog whistle. The media has put in overtime trying to make people believe that it is, but the vast majority of those who hold that view have no racist beliefs behind it. It is not based in racism in any form. It is simply saying no one group of people are worth more than any other group.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Except that it isn't a racist dog whistle. The media has put in overtime trying to make people believe that it is, but the vast majority of those who hold that view have no racist beliefs behind it. It is not based in racism in any form. It is simply saying no one group of people are worth more than any other group.

We'll just agree to disagree and end here.

 

[Tetsujin]

Except that it isn't a racist dog whistle. The media has put in overtime trying to make people believe that it is, but the vast majority of those who hold that view have no racist beliefs behind it. It is not based in racism in any form. It is simply saying no one group of people are worth more than any other group.

To be fair, it probably wasn’t what he said so much as what he said finally giving a bunch of people an excuse to air their dirty laundry in regards to him that probably got him fired.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

To be fair, it probably wasn’t what he said so much as what he said finally giving a bunch of people an excuse to air their dirty laundry in regards to him that probably got him fired.

^^ THIS

Exactly what it was. Starting with Boogie Cousins, who definitely had an axe to grind with Peaches, and ending with all the regular joes that he angered over the decades.