Trial Looms for ‘All Lives Matter’ Firing of Ex-NBA Announcer

A case involving a prominent NBA announcer who lost his job after a controversial tweet could be headed for a federal trial this fall.

On July 16, U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd will hold a summary judgment hearing in a Sacramento, Calif., courtroom for Napear v. Bonneville International. If Drozd doesn’t grant summary judgment, the case, barring a settlement, will advance to a jury trial on Nov. 13.

Six days after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, former Sacramento Kings play-by-play announcer Grant Napear tweeted “ALL LIVES MATTER…EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!” Napear’s tweet was in reply to former Kings center DeMarcus Cousins goading him to offer a “take” on Black Lives Matter. A two-time Emmy Award winner who hosted the popular “Grant Napear Show with Doug Christie” on KHTK-AM, Napear had long feuded with Cousins.

KHTK-AM’s owner, Bonneville International, fired Napear with cause. The company felt Napear’s tweet was insensitive and offensive.

Napear challenged the firing on several grounds. He stressed that, as a Christian and member of the Unitarian Church, “all lives matter” expresses his faith. Napear also invoked California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102. This statute prohibits employers from interfering with an employee’s engagement in politics or political activities. It also makes it illegal for an employer to fire an employee based on a political motive.

The case has been in litigation since 2021. At this point, it boils down to whether Bonneville violated the California statute.

In its motion for summary judgment, Bonneville offered several arguments.

First, Bonneville argues that applying the California statute to its decision to fire Napear “would be unconstitutional.” Bonneville charges that as a media member and creative content producer,  it is “entitled to wide discretion in defining its own voice, including in deciding who it will employ to speak on its behalf.” The company contends its ability to make programming decisions is protected by freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Bonneville asserts if it doesn’t want Napear speaking for the company after his controversial tweet, it has the constitutional right to let him go.

Bonneville also maintains that Napear’s tweet occurred while he was acting in his official capacity as a KHTK host—and thus outside of the statute’s protection for employees’ “personal political activities.” Bonneville highlights that Napear used the Twitter handle @GrantNapearshow, which refers to the name of his show.

Lastly, Bonneville argues that it didn’t fire Napear because it disagrees with him on all lives mattering. Instead, it claims it fired Napear because “the tone and timing of the Tweet were disrespectful to members of KHTK’s audience, particularly in the Black community, in violation of the company’s policies” and because the tweet might “discredit” KHTK’s reputation.

In his memorandum in opposition to a summary judgment, Napear flatly rejects Bonneville’s arguments.

Napear asserts Bonneville lacks a First Amendment right to fire him for “engaging in off-duty political speech” protected by the California statute. He contends the tweet “was completely unrelated” to his employment. Napear says Bonneville improperly conflates his “personal expression” with KHTK’s editorial control.

Napear also insists he wasn’t acting in his “official capacity” as a Bonneville employee when he tweeted. He was at home, in his living room. Napear says he’s owned and used his Twitter handle since 2010 and has posted nearly 36,000 times on a wide range of topics, including personal ones. Napear maintains there is no precedent for the proposition that an employer’s right to place “reasonable restrictions” on employees’ use of social media should contemplate the tweet at issue. He insists it would require an “unlimited, undefined interpretation” of the law that “ignores” the California statute for the First Amendment for a court to authorize Bonneville’s actions.

Further, Napear contends “many disputed material facts” challenge Bonneville’s argument that it fired him for an “apolitical” reason. He claims company officials have admitted politics were a consideration, and thus the California statute applies. 

The more Drozd finds that there are disagreements about key facts, the less likely he’ll grant summary judgment. 

Napear v. Bonneville could become an important precedent not only in sports, but in employment generally. This is especially true given that many employees regularly use social media for both professional and personal purposes and that we’re living in a politically charged environment.