Monday, April 10, 2017

Tomi Lahren sues Glenn Beck and The Blaze

What happens when a conservative commentator goes on The View and expresses vaguely pro-choice opinions? Lawsuits, apparently. Tomi Lahren sued Glenn Beck and The Blaze last week (Complaint here). She claims that the The Blaze fired her (even this is a little muddled, arguing a de facto termination) because she went on The View (which is apparently somehow still on television) and said:
Tomi Lahren (Twitter profile pic)
I can't sit here and be a hypocrite and say I'm for limited government but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies.
Her lawsuit makes vague allusions to First Amendment free speech and the right to express her personal views. Generally, such things do not apply to private employers and the lawsuit is technically not arguing that they do. Instead, Lahren argues that her employment contract (attached to the Complaint) requires "cause" to terminate her; and, the contract does not allow for termination based on her comments on The View.

The contract does allow The Blaze to terminate her for "repeated failure to comply with the reasonable directions of senior management" - we have yet to hear their side, so this may be a factor. Also, the contract was set to expire on September 30th of this year anyway, so perhaps they're content to just pay it out. We'll see.

So, what does Lahren want? A full prayer for relief appears in the Complaint, but to touch on some highlights:

  • Damages for wrongfully terminating the contract;
  • A declaration that The Blaze breached the contract and failed to perform other duties (like meeting a specific minimum number of recorded shows); and, therefore, Lahren is free to go out and compete without the restrictions of her contract;
  • Tomi Lahren's Twitter account is alive and well, but her Facebook page lies dormant. Lahren claims she is locked out and she wants it back (she has over 4.2 million page Likes). 
Sidenote: The contract appears to have a typo - stating that Lahren can be terminated in accordance with "Paragraph 9)b_(ii), (iii), or (vii)" . . . but in context this should clearly refer to Paragraph 11, not 9. I somehow imagine celebrities having these infallible airtight contracts . . . and, yet, they have typos and ambiguities just like the non-celebrity contracts I see in my day-to-day practice.