The Ninth Circuit might consider whether an entertainment employer’s First Amendment rights provides a strong enough defense in an employment dispute involving off-duty social media posts. This case highlights the conflict between an employee’s lawful, off-duty political expression and an employer’s brand integrity.

The First Amendment traditionally offers robust protections for expressive employers, such as those in the entertainment and media industries, allowing them to control casting and messaging. In California, however, these protections are weighed against the state’s robust employment laws for employees’ political activity. This tension is at the heart of the Carano v. The Walt Disney Company case, and the prominent film company is moving to certify the case as an interlocutory appeal to be heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit because the matter presents fundamental constitutional questions in an area where the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit are regularly issuing new precedents.

In Carano, the plaintiff alleges her former employer violated California law that protects employees who are politically active outside of their workplace from retaliation. She also claims the company wrongfully discharged her from employment due to her political views, and finally alleges she was subjected to sex based discrimination because her male co-stars didn’t face repercussions for their political speech on social media.

In July 2024, a federal...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMivgFBVV95cUxPUjVsRE8xdEROeWkyYkR2eFh5...