Gina Carano Responds To Disney's Attempt To Dismiss Her Lawsuit: "There Are No Grounds For A Dismissal"

Gina Carano is Cara Dune in THE MANDALORIAN, season two, exclusively on Disney+.

Gina Carano and her lawyers officially responded to The Walt Disney Company’s attempt to dismiss her lawsuit.

Gina Carano via PBD Podcast

Carano filed her lawsuit back in February with the suit detailing it is “a civil action arising from Defendants wrongful termination of Carano’s employment in retaliation for Carano’s lawful exercise of her right to speak and express her views. Specifically, Defendants—under the regime of former Disney CEO Bob Chapek—fired Carano because of her posts (‘the Posts’) on various social media platforms including X (formerly known as Twitter). Carano composed and published the Posts while she was off-duty and away from the workplace.”

The suit also alleged, “Defendants terminated Carano’s employment and took other retaliatory actions to limit and deny her future employment opportunities, including but not limited to making maliciously false statements about Carano with the intention of damaging her reputation and, thus, her ability to find and retain work.”

It also stated, “Defendants treated Carano differently than her similarly situated male co-workers, who likewise expressed their personal political views on social media but, upon information and belief, were not counseled or disciplined, let alone terminated.”

The lawsuit specifically accused The Walt Disney Company and Lucasfilm of “wrongful discharge,” “wrongful discharge and refusal to hire,” and “sex discrimination.”

Carano is asking for “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendants to reinstate Carano to her prior position with no loss of pay or benefits; A judgement declaring that Defendants’ termination of Carano’s employment was unlawful and in violation of California law; Compensatory damages, including but not limited to loss of pay from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement, in an amount to be determined at trial, but exceeding $75,000; Compensatory damages for loss of future employment, including but not limited to the promised role in Rangers of the New Republic, in an amount to be determined at trial; Emotional distress damages, in an amount to be determined at trial; Punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial; Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.”

Gina Carano speaking at the 2015 San Diego Comic Con International, for “Deadpool”, at the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego, California. Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

READ: The Walt Disney Company Files To Dismiss Gina Carano’s Lawsuit And Argues “The First Amendment Provides A Complete Defense”

The Walt Disney Company filed a Motion to Dismiss in April arguing that “Disney makes this motion on the grounds that Disney has a constitutional right not to associate its artistic expression with Carano’s speech, such that the First Amendment provides a complete defense to Carano’s claims.

Later in their motion the company’s lawyers argued, “Carano’s claims are all barred by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court held in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995), The First Amendment embodies a core principle of ‘speaker’s autonomy’ that bars the state from dictating to expressive enterprises what to say, how to say it, and whom to say it through.”

Disney continued, “As the Court further held in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), that principle 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.”

(L-R): Bo-Katan Kryze (Katee Sackhoff), Cara Dune (Gina Carano), Fennec Shand (Ming-Na Wen) and Koska Reeves (Mercedes Varnado) in Lucasfilm’s THE MANDALORIAN, season two, exclusively on Disney+. © 2020 Lucasfilm Ltd. & ™. All Rights Reserved.

Disney’s Motion added, “The coup de grace came in February 2021, when Carano admittedly reposted on Instagram a post comparing criticism of politically conservative viewpoints to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.”

It adds, “Carano’s decision to publicly trivialize the Holocaust by comparing criticism of political conservatives to the annihilation of millions of Jewish people—notably, not ‘thousands’—was the final straw for Disney. As Carano alleges, Lucasfilm that same day denounced her statements and observed that it had ‘no plans’ to employ her in the future.”

The Motion later stated, “Disney had enough. The same day Carano grotesquely trivialized the Holocaust as comparable to sharp political disagreements, Lucasfilm announced that ‘Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future. Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.’”

(L-R): Cara Dune (Gina Carano), The Mandalorian (Pedro Pascal), Mythrol (Horatio Sanz) and Greef Karga (Carl Weathers) in Lucasfilm’s THE MANDALORIAN, season two, exclusively on Disney+. © 2020 Lucasfilm Ltd. & ™. All Rights Reserved.

READ: Gina Carano Responds To Disney’s Motion To Dismiss Her Lawsuit: “Disney Has Confirmed What Has Been Known All Along”

Carano personally issued her response while sharing coverage of the official response of her lawyers by Deadline. Carano wrote on X, “We filed our response to Disney’s attempt to dismiss my Complaint. It’s pretty disappointing to me they misrepresented me even in their response. Just mind blowing the disrespect and lack of care for facts but sadly not surprising anymore. This behavior has become the norm. ”

She continued, “Disney still has another chance to respond to our arguments and then we have a court date set on June 12th where the judge will hear arguments from the attorneys. I will be there. After that, the judge will decide whether to allow us to move forward with our case.”

Next, The Mandalorian actress declared, “We believe strongly there are no grounds for a dismissal, and I should be allowed to proceed and state my case in the court of law. Please follow this case whether you are for or against me, one day you could find yourself on the other side of the isle.”

She concluded, “I believe my case could bring balance and groundbreaking benefits for people across the board.”

We filed our response to Disney’s attempt to dismiss my Complaint. It’s pretty disappointing to me they misrepresented me even in their response. Just mind blowing the disrespect and lack of care for facts but sadly not surprising anymore. This behavior has become the norm.… https://t.co/PnI8o2LkX4

— Gina Carano 🕯 (@ginacarano) May 11, 2024

READ: Legal Analyst Reacts To The Walt Disney Company’s Motion To Dismiss Gina Carano’s Lawsuit: Will Be “Another Huge Fail” For Disney

Carano’s lawyers rejected the Motion to Dismiss in their response. Her lawyers wrote, “After admitting that they discriminated against Carano for her personal political beliefs and subjected her to disparate treatment from her similarly situated male co-stars, The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm LTD, and Huckleberry Industries (collectively, “Defendants”) assert that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives them absolute immunity. Defendants are incorrect.”

Her lawyers explained, “Neither the First Amendment itself nor the few cases applying the First Amendment in the context of casting give employers the right to control or punish the personal speech of employees. None of Carano’s comments reference Defendants, Star Wars, or The Mandalorian, or had anything to do with Defendants. Carano’s claims do not seek to impose any message on Defendants or to change Defendants’ speech in any fashion. Rather, Carano seeks relief for Defendants’ violation of laws of general applicability that do not, as applied here, inhibit or affect Defendants’ speech. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 33] should be denied.”

Furthermore, her lawyers add, “There are no facts in the Complaint to suggest that Carano’s claims implicate, let alone clearly establish, the First Amendment interests Defendants assert. And Defendants do not challenge the sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint [Doc. 1] to support the asserted violations of California law (Mot. at 7 n. 2). Rather, they only assert that they have absolute First Amendment immunity to terminate any actor for any reason they see fit. The law does not support their claim.”

(L-R): The Mandalorian (Pedro Pascal), Cara Dune (Gina Carano), Greef Karga (Carl Weathers) and The Child in Lucasfilm’s THE MANDALORIAN, season two, exclusively on Disney+. © 2020 Lucasfilm Ltd. & ™. All Rights Reserved.

After presenting their evidence in the 23-page response, Carano’s lawyers shared their conclusion, “This is not a case where Carano is seeking to modify Defendants’ speech as in Claybrooks. It is not a case where Carano sought to include her opinions in Defendants’ production as in Hurley. It is not about a casting decision made for visual creative purposes as in Moore. Nor is this a case where, under the allegations of the Complaint, Carano’s mere presence would undermine Defendants’ ability to communicate its own message, as in Dale and Green. Rather, under the Complaint as pleaded, this is a case of clear discrimination and retaliation for Carano’s protected speech, discrimination not protected by the First Amendment, as found in AP, Passaic Daily News, Ali, Rowell, and the retaliation portion of Moore.”

“Today’s ‘Disney values’ may well embrace Pedro Pascal and Mark Hamill comparing supporters of former President Trump to the Nazis while opposing the comments made by Carano. And no one disputes Defendants’ ability to express their agreement with the former and their disagreement with the latter. But California Labor Code §§ 1101-1102 represent a bulwark against employers’ suppression of disfavored ideas held by their employees. And, under the allegations of the Complaint, the First Amendment does not give Defendants license to violate those provisions by punishing Carano’s off-the-job advocacy. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be denied,” her lawyers reiterated and concluded.