2:21-cv-01956
E.D. Cal.Mar 31, 2025Background
- Grant Napear was a radio host for Bonneville International Corporation's Sacramento station (KHTK), contracted under a one-year employment agreement.
- Napear tweeted “ALL LIVES MATTER . . . EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!” in response to a question about Black Lives Matter during a period of heightened racial tensions after George Floyd’s death.
- The tweet sparked significant public backlash, including from former Sacramento Kings players; the Kings quickly ended their association with Napear.
- Bonneville placed Napear on administrative leave, then terminated his employment shortly after the Kings' decision.
- Napear sued, alleging retaliation and wrongful termination under California Labor Code §§ 1101 and 1102, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
- Bonneville moved for summary judgment, arguing California’s labor protections could not constitutionally be applied to prevent a media employer’s editorial decision about on-air talent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does termination for "ALL LIVES MATTER" tweet violate | Napear’s firing was political retaliation under CA law. | Termination was a creative/casting decision, protected | Defendant’s decision was protected speech (First Amend.). |
| California Labor Code §§ 1101 & 1102? | by First Amendment; §§ 1101 & 1102 unconstitutional as | ||
| applied. | |||
| Is the station’s decision a protected First Amendment act? | Show was unchanged; no creative basis for termination. | Casting decisions in expressive works are protected. | Host selection is protected under First Amendment. |
| Do Labor Code §§ 1101 & 1102 survive strict scrutiny here? | Statutes serve state’s compelling interest in political | No compelling interest justifies restricting defendant’s | Statutes unconstitutional as applied to these facts. |
| freedom for employees. | editorial freedom in this context. | ||
| Is wrongful termination claim viable if CA Labor Code | Claim is supported by statutory claim under §§ 1101/1102. | No, it’s derivative of the statutory claim. | Dismissed as derivative of failed statutory claim. |
| claims fail? |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (speech protections extend to choices about message and medium in expressive contexts)
- Claybrooks v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 898 F. Supp. 2d 986 (M.D. Tenn. 2012) (casting decisions in entertainment are protected speech)
- Green v. Miss United States of Am., LLC, 52 F.4th 773 (9th Cir. 2022) (pageant participant selection is First Amendment protected expression)
- McDermott v. Ampersand Pub., LLC, 593 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2010) (staffing decisions affecting expressive content are protected)
- Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of N. Carolina, Inc., 487 U.S. 781 (1988) (compelling a speaker to deliver speech they disagree with triggers strict scrutiny)
- Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (forced association violating freedom of expressive association)
- Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, 621 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2010) (creative processes are protected by the First Amendment)