Legal analyst Andrew Esquire shared his expert opinion that he believes The Walt Disney Company is in “deep trouble” after the company was hit with an EEOC complaint by America First Legal.
Mickey walks down Main Street USA at Disneyland. (Credit: Mortimer Productions)
America First Legal filed the complaint and requested a commissioner charge against The Walt Disney Company due to “illegal employment practices of The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiaries (‘Disney’) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
The complaint specifically asserts, “Disney admits and affirms that it knowingly and intentionally uses race, color, sex, or national origin as motivating factors in its employment practices.”
ABC Entertainment Inclusion Standards
READ: Filing With EEOC Accuses Disney Of Engaging In Illegal Racial And Sexual Hiring And Promotion Bias
While going over the complaint, Esquire, who is the host of the Legal Mindset YouTube channel, shared his opinion that The Walt Disney Company did indeed violate the Civil Rights Act.
He said, “They openly admit they did. They admit they’re doing it. And this is where they’re in deep trouble.”
Esquire later added, “The fact is that for too long people have thought, ‘Oh it’s okay to discriminate against people if they are white or male.’ It’s not. Just because they haven’t been caught.”
He then shared a hypothetical, “Imagine this. Disney sets case precedent in America. The Disney case becomes case precedent in America for the impermissibility of employment, training, compensation, promotion, hiring quotas targeted against white men, Christians, and Jews. That would be perfect if that case goes down in history.”
“If Disney’s fate is sealed as the one who was the true discriminating power. They’re the ones that were the discriminatory folks that would be the true legacy of Disney. That would be a perfect legacy for Disney,” he concluded.
Later, while reading a portion of the complaint that stated, “Indeed, the Supreme Court recently clarified that “[a] benefit provided to some … but not to others necessarily advantages the former group at the expense of the latter,” Esquire said, “It’s on its face, it’s obvious.”
Reimagine Tomorrow Website
Esquire accurately predicted that The Walt Disney Company’s lawsuit against Ron DeSantis and Florida officials would be thrown out to due to lack of standing.
Esquire made his assessment at the end of June stating, “For Disney, the nightmare scenario, the worst possible scenario, which is a likely scenario, I don’t want to give exact probabilities, but it’s something that could very much probabilistically happen is the federal case gets entirely dismissed. It gets entirely thrown out. There’s multiple reasons. The reason cited, one of the main reasons which I have said from the beginning on this which is Disney does not truly have standing. They do not meet the elements for standing. Standing means the ability to bring a claim to court.”
“This is exactly the reason that the citizens who actually sued the state of Florida for these legislative changes way back earlier this year, they were thrown out for standing. Disney also can be thrown out for much similar grounds,” he explained.
“So they’re very likely to be tossed out if not entirely almost all of the counts,” he shared. “So perhaps four of the counts might get tossed. You might have one remaining count there in federal court.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) speaks during a convocation at Liberty University’s Vines Center in Lynchburg, Va., on Friday, April 14, 2023. Photo Credit: Tom Williams, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Judge Allen Winsor did indeed dismiss the suit due to a lack of standing. In a 17-page document Winsor wrote, “The clerk will enter a judgment that says, ‘This case was resolved on motions to dismiss. Plaintiff’s claims against the Governor and the Department Secretary are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims against the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board members are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim.”
Judge Winsor specifically addressed the First Amendment claim writing, “‘As a general matter, the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting individuals to retaliatory actions after the fact for having engaged in protected speech.’ But it is settled law that ‘when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally permissible purpose.’ The Eleventh Circuit has ‘held that many times.’ And this settled law forecloses Disney’s claim.”
He also noted, “In short, Disney lacks standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary, and its claims against the CFTOD Defendants fail on the merits because ‘when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose.”
Bob Iger via New York Times Events YouTube
What do you make of Esquire’s analysis that this EEOC complaint puts Disney in “deep trouble?”
