Disney may be heading for some interesting litigation....

[Josh Hendy]

This is not a first amendment issue. The purpose of the first amendment, and indeed of the entire Bill of Rights, is to place limitations on what the government, and only the government, can do that infringes on our rights. You have no first amendment rights at your place of employment. An employer is not bound by the constitution and is free to limit your speech in any way they see fit to protect their interests.

This isn't about what happens at the place of employment, it's about whether it is reasonable for an employer to demand restrictions on what happens outside of the employer's property.

It is reasonable to demand that when not working, employees do not denigrate their employer, violate copyright or trademarks, or give away trade secrets.

But it's a big stretch of logic to claim that the identities of actors playing cartoon characters is a trade secret. In fact it's not credible. The cartoons themselves list the names of voice actors and animators, right in plain sight in the credits. Disney is apparently trying to claim that children might read someone's facebook or linkedin and find out that they play a character at WDW which the child previously thought was a real, living cartoon. Thus spoiling WDW for the child and reducing Disney's business prospects. Yet (Disney will have to claim), the same child who browses actors' facebook pages is incapable of reading cartoon credits or deducing that the cartoon is just drawings, or that a person is inside a costume at WDW.

Disney can make all the reasonable demands on employees' behavior that they want. "Don't harm our business either when you're working here or when you're not working here." But if they're going to make unreasonable demands on workers, appealing to logic which would be laughed out of court, then it's a matter of negotiation and mutual agreement.

 

[7series]

There are already numerous cases on the books where employer's rights to protect their image from perceived threats (legitimate or not so much) have been upheld. The only issue here is how a new policy applies to pre-existing actions that would now be a violation. While they have the right to implement the policy, I don't see any possible way it can be retroactive.

 

[shiori1]

Whether Disney is trying to regulate an employee's behavior at work or off duty doesn't effect the fact that this is not a first amendment issue. The first amendment just states the government can't make a law to limit an individual's free speech (among other things). The key word here is government. Disney is not the government. What is presented above is a contract issue between private individuals and a corporation. There may be issues with complying with state laws but it is still a contract issue not a first amendment issue. That is what is trying to be worked out amongst the various parties.

The federal government has not made a law prohibiting CM's from talking about their jobs. It is not against the law for them to do so. If they do, they will not be jailed or fined by the US government. There can be consequences in their private lives for breaking a contract. The government does not protect against that. There can always be private consequences for using your first amendment rights. It isn't a free pass to say whatever you want at any time and nothing bad will happen to you.

 

[Josh Hendy]

Correct, it isn't a 1st amendment issue ... as such. It's an issue of whether or not Disney can impose restrictions on employees' leisure time activities and defend those restrictions if necessary in a court of law, if it goes so far as a wrongful dismissal lawsuit. Which it could very well do, if the restrictions are not part of a voluntary contract.

In a courtroom hearing a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, it is bound to make the legalists sit up and take notice if the particular issue that led to dismissal involves the freedom of speech of employees, during their leisure time. Disney would have to prove some kind of potential for harm against them was caused by the dismissed worker's speech. Like, they violated copyright or trademarks, competed unfairly (moonlighted as Donald Duck in a parade), gave away trade secrets, or committed libel or slander. If they can't demonstrate potential harm to the company, the court's opinion is inevitably going to be influenced by the spirit of the 1st Amendment. Not to mention the 13th.

I've gone over the potential harm to Disney a couple of times in previous postings, and I'll only repeat that the case is extremely weak.

 

[EmilyS90]

Who cares.

I'm trying so hard to care, but I just don't. They're college kids making minimum wage. Let them talk about being Cinderella on facebook.

It isn't going to "spoil the magic" for kids. My 5 year old doesn't use social media. Good grief.

 

[TheRustyScupper]

restrictions on what would appear to be personal liberties

1) And to which personal liberties are you referring?
. . . as an employer, we pretty much owned our employees
. . . we ran six plants in the USA, as well as seven overseas
. . . there is no Constitutional protection regarding our work rules for USA plants and employees
2) When you are an employee, you have ZERO Constitutional Rights when you go to work.
3) If you think otherwise, please name even on Constitutional Right you retain as an employee.

 

[dinolounger]

And in new news, the lion killing dentist has re-opened his dental practice.