The case continues for former Sacramento Kings radio announcer, Grant Napear, as the Eastern District Court rules that Napear’s wrongful termination lawsuit may proceed under his political retaliation claim. Napear filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against his former employer, Bonneville International Corporation, who terminated Napear in May 2020 after he tweeted that “ALL LIVES MATTER…EVERY SINGLE ONE” during the height of the George Floyd-inspired unrest. Napear’s May 31, 2020 tweet responded to the question he received on Twitter from a former Kings player: “What’s your take on [Black Lives Matter]?”
Bonneville
terminated Napear on June 2, 2020, merely 36 hours after his tweet, under the
determination that Napear’s tweet could likely discredit the station’s
reputation. Bonneville terminated Napear for cause as defined in his employment
contract, which states that “the term ‘Cause’ shall be defined as any of the
following conduct by Employee, as determined by the Company in its reasonable
discretion:…Any act of materials dishonesty, misconduct, or other conduct that
might discredit the goodwill, good name, or reputation of the Company.”
Napear,
the plaintiff, filed a federal employment discrimination and retaliation
lawsuit against Bonneville in October 2021 alleging that Bonneville terminated
him due to his religion, race, gender, and political views. In April 2023, the
Court dismissed Napear’s complaint with leave to amend on the finding that
Napear failed to allege sufficient facts showing that Bonneville knew of
Napear’s religious beliefs, let alone that it had discriminated against him on
the basis of those beliefs. Napear filed an amended lawsuit in May 2023.
In
July 2023, the Eastern District Court ruled that Napear’s amended claim may
proceed on the grounds of retaliation, but tossed Napear’s religious
discrimination claim without leave to amend. Judge Dale A. Drozd ultimately
ruled that Napear sufficiently stated a plausible claim for retaliation under
California Labor Code §§ 1101 and 1102, which limit an employer’s ability to
fire employees for their political activities.
ON THE AMENDED SUIT & RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
In May, Napear filed an amended suit asserting three
claims: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2)
discrimination on the basis of religion in violation of the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, California Gov. Code § 12940 (“FEHA”); and (3)
retaliation in violation of California Labor Code §§ 1101 and 1102. In the
Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed on May 11, 2023, Napear alleged that he
“periodically spoke with his coworkers…about his religion and his faith in
God.” He argued that his tweet was a “personal expression” of his “sincerely
held Christian religious beliefs,” that the tweet was a “self-evident
expression” of those beliefs, and that “[m]any people…including…[his]
coworkers” and “members of the public” understood the tweet to be an expression
of his “Christian religious beliefs.”
Bonneville, the defendant, filed a motion to dismiss
Napear’s SAC in its entirety and relatedly argued that Napear’s allegations
only suggested that his coworkers knew of his religious beliefs, not that any
person directly involved with his termination knew of those beliefs.
The Court granted
defendant’s motion to dismiss Napear’s religious discrimination claim without
leave to amend. The Court noted that the facts alleged by Napear “do not give
rise to the inference that [Napear’s] termination could have been based on
religious animus” and therefore, the Court concluded that Napear failed to
state a plausible claim for religious discrimination. Napear’s allegations do
not suggest that Bonneville knew of the purported religious nature of Napear’s
tweet nor that Bonneville knew of Napear’s religion more generally, before
terminating him. Moreover, the Court noted that there was nothing contained in
the tweet itself, such as a quotation to scripture or a reference to religion,
indicating that the tweet was in any way religious in nature.
ON POLITICAL RETALIATION
Next, the Court examined Defendant’s move to dismiss
plaintiff’s claims brought under California Labor Code §§ 1101 and 1102. These
sections serve to protect the fundamental right of employees to engage in
political activity without interference by employers. California Labor Code §
1101 provides that “[n]o employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule,
regulation, or policy: (a) forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or
participating in politics…[or] (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to
control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.”
Similarly, § 1102 prohibits an employer from attempting to coerce or influence
its employees’ political activities through the threat of discharge.
In its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims, Bonneville argued that plaintiff failed to state a claim under §§ 1101 and 1102 because he had not alleged that 1) Bonneville had a rule within the meaning of section 1101; 2) that the tweet constituted political activity; and 3) that defendant’s motivation in terminating Napear was political. The Court remained unconvinced by Bonneville’s assertion that it fired Napear as an apolitical business decision. The Court noted that Napear did sufficiently allege a rule within the meaning of § 1101. Napear met this standard by alleging that Bonneville used his termination as a warning to other Company employees that anyone who publicly criticized the Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) would be summarily terminated.
On the issue of whether Napear’s tweet constituted
“political activity,” the Court considered Napear’s tweet to be facially
political in nature when construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
The tweet contained the phrase “All Lives Matter” in response to the question
“What’s your take on BLM?”; was published by public figures; and was made just
days after George Floyd’s death. These allegations were sufficient to allege
that Napear’s tweet was political speech regarding a specific cause and could
plausibly constitute political activity under §§ 1101 and 1102.
Napear’s amended claim also highlighted Bonneville’s
political motivations underpinning the termination. Napear’s termination came
swiftly, as did Bonneville’s public statement which noted that Napear’s tweet
did not reflect the views or values of the company and that Napear’s tweet “was
particularly insensitive.” Napear also contended that all seven individuals
involved in his termination objected to the political and/or religious nature
of his tweet and had expressed negative emotion in response to his “All Lives
Matter” statement. Collectively, these allegations, the Court concluded, were sufficient
to plausibly suggest that Napear’s political activity – which included posting
a tweet containing a certain message – motivated Bonneville to terminate him.
As such, Napear’s political retaliation claims under §§ 1101 and 1102 will move
forward.
TAKEAWAYS
Two lessons emerge from this ruling. The first is that an employee claiming wrongful termination on the basis of religious discrimination must prove that the employer acted with a discriminatory motive. This involves showing that the employer knew of the employee’s religion, that those involved in making the decision to terminate the employee were aware of the employee’s religious beliefs, and that the employee was terminated due to those beliefs. A tweet isn’t religious just because the person posting it says it is.
Secondly, an employer’s use of a termination as a warning to other employees of intolerable conduct may be construed as a rule under § 1101, and thus give rise to a political retaliation claim. As Judge Drozd noted, “defendant used [Napear’s] 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.’” This ruling serves as a warning to employers of the perils of view point discrimination against employees whose political beliefs differ from their own.
You can access the full July 25, 2023 Court Order here.
