Napear v. Bonneville Int'l Corp.

669 F.Supp.3d 948

Grant NAPEAR, Plaintiff, v. BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-01956-DAD-DB

United States District Court, E.D. California

Signed April 19, 2023

Filed April 20, 2023

(Doc. No. 13)

Matthew Jeremy Ruggles, Ruggles Law Firm, Fair Oaks, CA, for Plaintiff.

Tanner Brad Camp, David J. Jordan, Pro Hac Vice, Foley & Lardner LLP, Salt Lake City, UT, Bryan L. Hawkins, Stoel Rives LLP, Sacramento, CA, R. Chad Pugh, Pro Hac Vice, Buchalter, A Professional Corporation, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed on behalf of defendant Bonneville International Corporation. (Doc. No. 13.) The pending motion was taken under submission by the previously assigned district judge on August 15, 2022.¹ (Doc. No. 35.) For the reasons explained below, defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint will be granted, with leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

On October 21, 2021, plaintiff Grant Napear filed this employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against defendant Bonneville International Corporation contending that he was terminated due to his religion, race, gender, and political views. (Doc. No. 1.) On December 2, 2021, plaintiff filed his operative first amended complaint ("FAC") against defendant. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff alleges as follows in his FAC.

For over 25 years, plaintiff was an on-air talk show host for a popular sports radio talk show—the Grant Napear Show With Doug Christie—that aired regionally throughout Sacramento from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays. (Doc. No. 12 at ¶¶ 11, 13, 17.) In this position, plaintiff's employer was KHTK until defendant purchased KHTK in 2018. (Id. at ¶¶ 14, 16.) In 2019, defendant renewed plaintiff's employment contract for the 26th consecutive year as the host of the Grant Napear Show With Doug Christie for a one-year term from August 1, 2019 through July 31, 2020. (Id. at ¶¶ 17, 23.) In addition to his position as a radio talk show host, plaintiff was separately employed by the Sacramento Kings, a professional basketball team, as the television play-by-play announcer for all televised games played by the Sacramento Kings dating back to 1988.² (Id. at ¶¶ 9-11.)

In addition to having a career in sports commentary, plaintiff is a lifelong and devout member of the Unitarian Universalist Church and embraces the seven principles espoused by the church including, among others, "[t]he inherent worth and dignity of every person." (Id. at ¶ 6.) However, plaintiff also believed that religion and politics were inappropriate on-air material during a sports broadcast and therefore "always kept his religious and political beliefs to himself," even though his employment contract did not require him to do so. (Id. at ¶ 27.)

On the evening of May 31, 2020, plaintiff was at his home watching regional and national news broadcasts that were televising events involving protests over the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. (Id. at ¶ 29.) At approximately 8:30 p.m., DeMarcus Cousins, a former Sacramento Kings player, posted a tweet on his Twitter account that was directed at plaintiff and asking plaintiff for his opinion: "What's your take on [Black Lives Matter]?" (Id. at ¶¶ 30, 31.) Plaintiff responded to Mr. Cousins' tweet with a tweet of his own: "Hey!!! How are you? Thought you forgot about me. Haven't heard from you in years. ALL LIVES MATTER . . . EVERY SINGLE ONE." (Id. at ¶ 32.) Plaintiff maintains that his statement that "ALL LIVES MATTER . . . EVERY SINGLE ONE" was an expression of his sincerely held religious beliefs as a member of the Unitarian Church, his "opinion with regards to the sanctity of all lives." (Id. at ¶¶ 33, 40, 56.) Plaintiff also maintains that the statement "all lives matter" is "entirely non-racist, factually true and inherently inoffensive." (Id. at ¶ 40.)

The following day, on June 1, 2020, defendant's representative, Steve Cottingim, informed plaintiff that he was suspended from his radio show. (Id. at ¶ 34.) The day after that, on June 2, 2020, defendant informed plaintiff that he was being terminated for cause as defined in his employment contract, specifically, pursuant to paragraph 6(c)(vii), 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 material dishonesty, misconduct, or other conduct that might discredit the goodwill, good name, or reputation of the Company." (Id. at ¶ 37.) Following plaintiff's termination, defendant published the following statement on social media:

We were saddened by the comments Grant Napear recently made on Twitter. While we appreciate Grant's positive contributions to KHTK over the years, his recent comments about the Black Lives Matter movement do not reflect the views or values of Bonneville International Corporation. The timing of Grant's tweet was particularly insensitive. After reviewing the matter carefully, we have made the difficult decision to part ways with Grant.

Bonneville's purpose is to build up, connect, inform and celebrate communities and families. In the wake of George Floyd's tragic death and the events of the last several days, it is crucial that we communicate the tremendous respect that we have for the black community and any other groups or individuals who have cause to feel marginalized. Bonneville remains committed to fostering calm and promoting human dignity in the face of unrest. We plead to all to work together for peace and mutual respect.

(Id. at ¶ 39.) Plaintiff further alleges that after he was terminated, defendant informed him that the termination was not only based on the May 31, 2020 tweet. (Id. at ¶ 41.) Rather, defendant had decided to terminate plaintiff's employment only after the Sacramento Kings held a team meeting regarding plaintiff's continued employment and the players and executives within the Sacramento Kings organization voted to end its relationship with plaintiff, which defendant contended amounted to an "act of misconduct" that "discredited" the "goodwill, good name, or reputation" of defendant. (Id.) Plaintiff maintains that this explanation by defendant —that the Kings basketball team's reaction was the impetus for plaintiff's termination pursuant to his employment agreement—is a "complete fiction." (Id. at ¶¶ 41, 42.)

Moreover, plaintiff alleges that neither defendant nor any members of its management were offended by or objected to plaintiff's May 31, 2020 tweet. (Id. at ¶ 43.) As plaintiff alleges, defendant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, i.e., the Mormon Church, and is essentially its "media arm," and that, like the Mormon Church, defendant "does not now and never has supported, endorsed, adopted or agreed with the beliefs, ideas or doctrine of the Black Lives Matter movement." (Id. at ¶¶ 43, 45.) In fact, the Mormon Church has embraced a message tantamount to "All Lives Matter." (Id. at ¶ 47.) Plaintiff also alleges that the phrase "All Lives Matter" is not offensive "to any particular group or to Black people." (Id. at ¶¶ 48-50.)

At the same time, in his FAC plaintiff alleges, somewhat contradictorily, that he was terminated for expressing his personal political opinion in violation of defendant's "ad hoc (and unpublished) policy supporting the Black Lives Matter movement." (Id. at ¶¶ 56, 59.) Plaintiff also alleges that he was terminated because he had publicly expressed his religious views via his May 31, 2020 tweet and due to his race, gender, and "personal political opinion." (Id. at ¶¶ 56, 59.) Plaintiff maintains that defendant's "decision to falsely accuse [plaintiff] of racist misconduct and publicly terminate his employment . . . has completely and permanently damaged [his] 26-year Emmy award winning career as a sports broadcaster . . . [and] has had serious negative effects on Plaintiff's personal life and his public reputation." (Id. at ¶ 60.)

Based on these allegations in the FAC, plaintiff asserts the following six 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 Government Code §12940, et seq. ("FEHA"); (3) racial discrimination in violation of FEHA; (4) discrimination on the basis of gender in violation of FEHA; (5) retaliation in violation of California Labor Code §§ 1101 and 1102; and (6) retaliation in violation of California Labor Code § 98.6. (Id. at ¶¶ 61-96.)

On December 23, 2021, defendant filed its pending motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff's FAC in its entirety. (Doc. No. 13.) On January 28, 2022, plaintiff filed his opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 19.) On February 4, 2022, defendant filed his reply thereto. (Doc. No. 22.)

LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. N. Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). "Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A plaintiff is required to allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

In determining whether a complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted, the court accepts as true the allegations in the complaint and...