Ex-Kings Announcer’s ‘All Lives Matter’ Case Advances in Court
A federal judge on Wednesday partially denied a motion to dismiss former Sacramento Kings play-by-play announcer Grant Napear’s case that he was illegally fired and discriminated against for tweeting “All Lives Matter” six days after the murder of George Floyd in 2020.
U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd ruled that Napear has stated a plausible claim for retaliation under the California Labor Code against Bonneville International Corporation, the owner of KHTK-AM. But the judge, who presides in California, also ruled Napear did not offer a plausible claim for religious discrimination.
More from Sportico.com
NCAA Accused of Illegal Wage-Fixing Via $0 Salary Cap for Coaches
MLB Scouts Levy 'Blacklisted' Charge in Age Discrimination Suit
Napear, a two-time Emmy Award winner who hosted the popular “Grant Napear Show with Doug Christie” on KHTK-AM, sparked a Twitter controversy on May 31, 2020, after former Kings center DeMarcus Cousins—with whom Napear has long feuded—urged Napear to give his “take” on Black Lives Matter. “ALL LIVES MATTER…EVERY SINGLE ONE,” Napear replied.
Bonneville fired Napear with cause on grounds that his tweet was “particularly insensitive” and that his message conflicted with “the tremendous respect that [Bonneville has] for the black community and any other groups or individuals who have cause to feel marginalized.”
The case does not involve the First Amendment, since Bonneville is a private corporation and can, like other private companies, regulate employee speech.
The question in Napear v. Bonneville is whether the private employer went too far in regulating an employee whose speech invoked religion and politics.
In court filings, Napear has insisted his reply did not authorize Bonneville to fire him with cause. He says the tweet expressed his “sincerely held Christian religious belief” as a “devout member” of the Unitarian Church. Napear explains his church is guided by seven principles including “the inherent worth and dignity of every person” and justice and equity. That principle arguably encapsulates “all lives matter.”
Napear also contends his tweet expressed his political viewpoint “that all persons are created and remain equal under the law regardless of race, gender, religion, national origin, political affiliation or any other basis.”
California law prohibits employers from instituting a workplace rule or policy that interferes with an employee’s engagement in politics or political activities. The law makes it illegal for an employer to fire an employee based on a political motive.
Bonneville argued that Napear could not point to an applicable workplace rule or policy regarding politics or political activity. But Drozd saw it differently. He highlighted that Bonneville, at least according to Napear’s description, used the firing “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.” From that lens, the firing might have served to chill employee political speech.
Drozd also concluded that Napear’s tweet “can be considered facially political in nature” partly because he’s a “popular radio host” and was responding to a “well-known professional basketball player” only a few days after Floyd’s death. The judge stressed Napear alleges his “All Lives Matter” expression adopted the political view that members of society should “follow a more inclusive political belief” which he claims his then-employer interpreted as “anti-BLM.” Whether Napear can prove Bonneville violated California law remains to be seen, but he has offered a plausible claim.
Drozd wasn’t persuaded that Napear’s religious discrimination claims should advance. The judge noted that while Napear communicated his religious beliefs to former talk show colleagues Mike Lamb and Doug Christie, there’s no indication he shared them with management and others involved in his firing.
Napear originally sued in 2021. Drozd dismissed the case in April on grounds of insufficient pleading but gave Napear a chance to file an amended complaint, which he did in May.
By advancing past a motion to dismiss, Napear’s case moves to pretrial discovery. He and his attorney, Matthew Ruggles, will be able to seek emails and other evidence and demand sworn testimony. (Conversely, Bonneville can demand the same from Napear.)
Employment cases, like civil litigation in general, usually are resolved through a financial settlement before a trial takes place. The same could happen here.
