Updated info on Grant Napear's lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Section 101

Section 101

All-Star
Michael McCann sportico article on the upcoming Napier V Bonneville International case.

https://www.sportico.com/law/analys...d=showRecommendations63S6CD4WAY76QQB#cxrecs_s

Case could have wide spread impact.

Napear v. Bonneville could become an important precedent not only in sports, but in employment generally. This is especially true given that many employees regularly use social media for both professional and personal purposes and that we’re living in a politically charged environment.
Click to expand...
 
ESP47 said:
Can't stand Grant but I hope he wins it.
Click to expand...
Eh, I’m not going to dig into his comments at all but from a pure fan perspective I hope he doesn’t.

I never thought he was that good at what he did and generally enjoy listening to our current announcers more by an order of magnitude (at minimum).

He also was generally an ass (based on my recollection of interactions with some players, etc.) and I’d hate to see that rewarded in any way.
 
I think the people who hope he wins (myself included) is because it's a freedom of speech and employer misconduct issue.

What he did was dumb, and laughable, but I don't think it was fireable. Now, we all know it was the straw that broke the camels back, but using that event as the reasoning is bad. IF they can lay out the multitude of things he crossed the line on previously, with documentation of reprimand and or/corrective behavior, that would be completely different.
 
macadocious said:
I think the people who hope he wins (myself included) is because it's a freedom of speech and employer misconduct issue.

What he did was dumb, and laughable, but I don't think it was fireable. Now, we all know it was the straw that broke the camels back, but using that event as the reasoning is bad. IF they can lay out the multitude of things he crossed the line on previously, with documentation of reprimand and or/corrective behavior, that would be completely different.
Click to expand...
Well, in my defense, I'm in the court of public opinion and not the court of law. I never liked Howdy Doody and thought he was an ass that was never good at his job to begin with. So, IMHO, I hope he loses. I'd be happiest if I never heard his name again. I'm not going to lose sleep over this decision either way. He's no longer associated with the team, I don't have to listen to him, and our announcing crew is 10x better now than it was with him running the show. I'm good.
 
I liked Grant the play-by-play guy, but not so much the radio guy and his over the top NY shtik.

Regardless of thinking the guy was more often than not a first rate jerk, I would never support or defend firing/canceling someone for stating their own opinion on their own social media platform. What Grant said was no more controversial or wrong than those on the other side of the fence who also share the right to share their opinion(s) regardless whether others believe it to be wrong. I mean, Boogie Cousins often said things and behaved in ways that many didn’t agree with but he wasn’t cancelled or fired for it.

This Napear situation helped set a dangerous precedent that I don’t want to see stick. There are many people I disagree with on this site to the point of not wanting to read what they have to write most times. But I’d never want to cancel them or take away their livelihood. I never want to live in a world where those on the other side of the fence are actively persecuted for not sharing ideals/beliefs. That’s just diabolical and wrong. And for those reasons I surely do hope he wins his lawsuit. I’d argue the same for anyone whom I have a personal distaste.
 
KingsFanSince85 said:
I liked Grant the play-by-play guy, but not so much the radio guy and his over the top NY shtik.

Regardless of thinking the guy was more often than not a first rate jerk, I would never support or defend firing/canceling someone for stating their own opinion on their own social media platform. What Grant said was no more controversial or wrong than those on the other side of the fence who also share the right to share their opinion(s) regardless whether others believe it to be wrong. I mean, Boogie Cousins often said things and behaved in ways that many didn’t agree with but he wasn’t cancelled or fired for it.

This Napear situation helped set a dangerous precedent that I don’t want to see stick. There are many people I disagree with on this site to the point of not wanting to read what they have to write most times. But I’d never want to cancel them or take away their livelihood. I never want to live in a world where those on the other side of the fence are actively persecuted for not sharing ideals/beliefs. That’s just diabolical and wrong. And for those reasons I surely do hope he wins his lawsuit. I’d argue the same for anyone whom I have a personal distaste.
Click to expand...
1) Boogie never attacked a whole race of people 2) it was time for Napier to go he was a maloof shill and they should have gotten rid of him long before they did.
 
Jdbraver137 said:
1) Boogie never attacked a whole race of people 2) it was time for Napier to go he was a maloof shill and they should have gotten rid of him long before they did.
Click to expand...

That's the stupidity of Bonneville. All they had to do was suspend him till the end of his contract that expired June 30th. But they fired him with cause. It's the with cause that was stupid too.
 
Section 101 said:
That's the stupidity of Bonneville. All they had to do was suspend him till the end of his contract that expired June 30th. But they fired him with cause. It's the with cause that was stupid too.
Click to expand...
Frankly it’s a win for me because I didn’t have to listen to him for those months.
 
The way he degraded callers he disagreed with, just isn't with the modern look. I would hang out with Dave, Deuce, Mo, D-Lo, KC, Gary. Who wants to hang out with Grant?
 
whitechocolate said:
The way he degraded callers he disagreed with, just isn't with the modern look. I would hang out with Dave, Deuce, Mo, D-Lo, KC, Gary. Who wants to hang out with Grant?
Click to expand...

If they would have terminated him for being an a-hole to his radio listeners, I'd have no problem with that. Unfortunately that's not what happened.

I'll stand for his free speech rights and the fact that he was wrongfully terminated, despite the fact that he's an insufferable jerk to people.
 
Warhawk said:
Well, in my defense, I'm in the court of public opinion and not the court of law. I never liked Howdy Doody and thought he was an ass that was never good at his job to begin with. So, IMHO, I hope he loses. I'd be happiest if I never heard his name again. I'm not going to lose sleep over this decision either way. He's no longer associated with the team, I don't have to listen to him, and our announcing crew is 10x better now than it was with him running the show. I'm good.
Click to expand...
How you guys feel about grant, i feel about katie and whoever is with her. Absolutely unlistenable. Thankfully I have stream tv and i can listen to all the opposing broadcast teams.
 
KingsFanSince85 said:
I liked Grant the play-by-play guy, but not so much the radio guy and his over the top NY shtik.

Regardless of thinking the guy was more often than not a first rate jerk, I would never support or defend firing/canceling someone for stating their own opinion on their own social media platform. What Grant said was no more controversial or wrong than those on the other side of the fence who also share the right to share their opinion(s) regardless whether others believe it to be wrong. I mean, Boogie Cousins often said things and behaved in ways that many didn’t agree with but he wasn’t cancelled or fired for it.

This Napear situation helped set a dangerous precedent that I don’t want to see stick. There are many people I disagree with on this site to the point of not wanting to read what they have to write most times. But I’d never want to cancel them or take away their livelihood. I never want to live in a world where those on the other side of the fence are actively persecuted for not sharing ideals/beliefs. That’s just diabolical and wrong. And for those reasons I surely do hope he wins his lawsuit. I’d argue the same for anyone whom I have a personal distaste.
Click to expand...

The report was that he didn't use his own personal social media account, he used the one associated with his show. Also, it does make some sense for a company to be able to not hire / fire an on-air broadcast personality whose name is associated with their brand if they no longer feel that his public persona aligns with theirs or if he's done something which (they believe) might cause their brand to lose value.

I see your point and generally agree with it -- people should be able to express their opinion without having every comment subject to the morality police. It's okay for people to be wrong if for no other reason than we won't ever all agree on what is right. But when you accept a job in broadcasting where you are paid to utilize someone else's platform to voice your opinion, shouldn't the company paying you also be free to terminate your employment at their own discretion?

We already live in a weird meta advertising world where companies pretend that their brand is our friend. That's more insidious to me than anything at stake in this case, but I suppose I would have to consent (somewhat begrudgingly) that even legal forms of social engineering likely fall within the protection of free speech in this country. Since Napear is the one who filed the lawsuit, I would argue that the goal of this lawsuit is actually to limit free speech -- a ruling in Grant's favor would conclude that Grant Napear was fired unlawfully and that might put additional restrictions on what constitutes legal grounds for termination (unless he's successfully able to argue that his comments fall within existing religious protections).

I would prefer to see a cultural swing back toward nuanced conversation and respectful disagreement in public discourse (instead of careful personal brand management) but I'm afraid the genie may already be out of the bottle for good on that one.
 
hrdboild said:
The report was that he didn't use his own personal social media account, he used the one associated with his show. Also, it does make some sense for a company to be able to not hire / fire an on-air broadcast personality whose name is associated with their brand if they no longer feel that his public persona aligns with theirs or if he's done something which (they believe) might cause their brand to lose value.
Click to expand...

What is a personal account vs a company account? To me personal is controlled by the individual, company by the company. Now the account was Grant Napier Show so it could in the middle.

No issue with companies hiring and firing at will employees.

The issue at hand is they fired him for cause, so no unemployment and I'm assuming any retirement accounts funded by the company plus the stigma of being fired.

The tweet was May 31, 2020. His contract was expiring June 30th, 2020 they were in negotiations to renew it. They fired him with 2 weeks left on his contract. All they had to do was suspend him and not renew his contract. But they wanted to make a statement and I assume save some money from the retirement.
 
Section 101 said:
What is a personal account vs a company account? To me personal is controlled by the individual, company by the company. Now the account was Grant Napier Show so it could in the middle.

No issue with companies hiring and firing at will employees.

The issue at hand is they fired him for cause, so no unemployment and I'm assuming any retirement accounts funded by the company plus the stigma of being fired.

The tweet was May 31, 2020. His contract was expiring June 30th, 2020 they were in negotiations to renew it. They fired him with 2 weeks left on his contract. All they had to do was suspend him and not renew his contract. But they wanted to make a statement and I assume save some money from the retirement.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand why they would want to suspend him or not renew his contract based on that tweet. Is there something more to the story other than him saying that all lives matter?
 
ESP47 said:
I still don't understand why they would want to suspend him or not renew his contract based on that tweet. Is there something more to the story other than him saying that all lives matter?
Click to expand...

I think this is straying into the territory that @funkykingston was warning us off earlier. As I understand it, the All Lives Matter comment and how he responded to criticism of it afterwards is what caused his dismissal. A lot of people have written about this topic extensively elsewhere... I don't think we need to re-hash that conversation here. It may be more cultural misunderstanding than malicious intent in Grant's case, but I don't know the man so I don't want to speculate further than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.