Judge Rejects Disney’s Bid to Toss Gina Carano’s Lawsuit

Actress Gina Carano arrives at Relativity Media's premiere of "Haywire" co-hosted by Playboy held at DGA Theater in Los Angeles on Jan. 5, 2012. Frazer Harrison/Getty Images for Relativity Media

Disney must face a discrimination lawsuit brought by actress Gina Carano, whom it fired from “The Mandalorian” in 2021, a federal judge ruled on July 24.

Disney terminated Ms. Carano after she posted on social media, including a post supportive of conservatives, and a quote from an executive saying “she didn’t align with company values.” That termination constituted illegal discrimination, Ms. Carano said in her suit, pointing to California law that prohibits employers from preventing employees from engaging in politics.

Disney asked the federal court in central California to dismiss the legal action. Company lawyers said the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment “means that a state cannot force an employer engaged in speech to speak through an employee whose own views or public profile could compromise the employer’s own message, even if the employee does not express her views on the job.”

U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett rejected Disney’s arguments. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, for the First Amendment to protect organizations in cases such as the one brought by Ms. Carano, judges must determine if the organization engages in protected association, or joining with others to promote certain views.

“Although defendants indisputably engage in expressive activity—including, but certainly not limited to, producing and disseminating The Mandalorian—they have failed to establish that they engage in expressive association,” Judge Garnett wrote in her 23-page ruling. “Furthermore, at this stage in the litigation, the court cannot conclude, as defendants urge it to, that plaintiff’s continued employment by defendants would inhibit or intrude upon defendants’ rights to expressive association.”

The Supreme Court in a previous ruling, cited by Disney, ruled that the Boy Scouts did not have to hire an openly gay man as an assistant scoutmaster despite a New Jersey law against discrimination because the scouts aimed to instill values in its members including that homosexuality is not moral.

In another Supreme Court ruling, also raised by Disney, justices turned down an attempt by the United States Jaycees group to exclude females from becoming members, because, the group said, Minnesota anti-discrimination law requiring the nonprofit to allow female members would burden male members’ freedom of expressive association.

Unlike the Boy Scouts and Jaycees, Disney is not a members-only, nonprofit, the judge said.

Then-Disney CEO Bob Iger said after firing Ms. Carano that she did not align with Disney’s values, including “values of respect, values of decency, values of integrity, and values of inclusion.”

Disney and other defendants, though, “have not identified any evidence—in the complaint or otherwise—to substantiate a claim that they employ public-facing actors for the purpose of promoting the ‘values of respect,’ ‘decency,’ ‘integrity,’ or ‘inclusion,'” the judge said.

Even if Disney proved that employing actors was a form of expressive association, Ms. Carano has plausibly alleged that defendants fired her to distract from criticisms of Disney’s business dealings in China, according to the judge. In cases where two alternative explanations, both of which are plausible, are offered, then motions to dismiss cases are rejected under court precedent.

Ms. Carano filed an internal email that was inadvertently sent to her that showed Disney officials initially discussing criticism of the company for doing business with China before transitioning to how some social media users were calling for Disney to oust the actress.

A lawyer representing Disney and the other defendants, Lucasfilm and Huckleberry Industries, did not return a request for comment.

Ms. Carano said on the social media platform X that she was moved to tears after learning of the ruling.

“After a brutal 3 1/2 years, I am being given the opportunity to move forward in the court of law before the judge and my peers to clear my name. I am so grateful for this opportunity,” she wrote. “What happened to me was unacceptable, absurd and abusive, among other things. It should not have happened to me, and it should not happen to anyone else moving forward. Let it stop here.”

Ms. Carano also thanked Elon Musk’s, X’s owner, who helped fund the lawsuit.