The legal saga between former Mandalorian star Gina Carano (Deadpool) and Disney is moving closer to a courtroom showdown.According to The Hollywood Reporter, Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett has moved the trial to court, and the judge’s decision indicates that there are sufficient grounds for Carano’s claims to proceed. Undoubtedly, the entertainment industry will closely monitor the case’s details, as the outcome could have significant implications.
Carana was dismissed from The Mandalorian back in 2021 after the second season of the series. According to Hollywood Reporter, Carano sued Disney sometime this year over the firing from the acclaimed sci-fi series, to which the company replied, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.” The lawsuit is being backed up by Ellon Musk (SpaceX) via X, and presumed that Carano was terminated due to holding political views.
In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Carano stated, “I think it’s pretty incredible what he is doing. A lot of billionaires put their money into buying islands and building bunkers. Elon Musk is using his money to fight massive injustice battles.” The Hollywood Reporter notes that Disney argues that there is a First Amendment right when choosing a candidate that reflects the company’s values, even when these individuals “violate state anti-discrimination laws.”
According to The Hollywood Reporter, Judge Garnett wrote on Wednesday, “As an initial matter, unlike the Boy Scouts or the Jaycees, Defendants are not members-only, nonprofit organizations. Instead, Defendants are for-profit corporations who, as relevant to this lawsuit, employ actors such as Plaintiff, as well as administrative staff, to create television series and films.”
Judge Garnett added that Disney had “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.’ Accordingly, Defendants’ invocation of the supposedly detrimental effects of Plaintiff’s ‘mere presence’ as one of Defendants’ employees lacks constitutional import.”