BS BULLETIN:

• Former Sacramento Kings broadcaster Grant Napear lost his federal appeal over the 2020 firing that followed his “ALL LIVES MATTER … EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!” social-media post.
• A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled his employer was within its rights to fire him because his contract tied even personal social-media activity involving his public persona to the company’s reputation.
• Napear’s attorney says they’re considering asking the full Ninth Circuit to rehear the case — and potentially taking the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Six years ago, Grant Napear typed three words that helped end a broadcasting career spanning more than three decades.

“All Lives Matter.”

Now the former Sacramento Kings announcer may ask the Supreme Court to decide whether his employer had the right to fire him for saying them. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Napear in his long-running wrongful-termination lawsuit against Bonneville International Corp., the owner of Sacramento radio station KHTK-AM.

The controversy dates back to May 31, 2020, during the nationwide upheaval following the death of George Floyd.

Former Kings star DeMarcus Cousins publicly asked Napear on Twitter for his opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement. Napear responded: “ALL LIVES MATTER … EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!”

The backlash was immediate.

Bonneville placed Napear on administrative leave the following day and fired him from his radio job shortly afterward. Napear also resigned from his position as the Kings’ television play-by-play announcer, ending a run that began in 1988.

He later sued Bonneville, arguing in part that California law protected his political expression from employer interference. A federal district judge rejected his claims, and now the Ninth Circuit has done the same.

But the details of the appeals court’s ruling are important. The court did not simply declare that saying “All Lives Matter” is a fireable offense. Instead, the three-judge panel focused heavily on Napear’s employment contract and Bonneville’s social-media policy.

Napear was a public figure whose contract required a “high standard of care and level of responsibility” even in his personal use of social media because that activity could affect Bonneville’s public image and reputation, the court found. His Twitter handle was @GrantNapearshow — directly referencing his radio program.

The court concluded that when Napear used that account to answer a public question about Black Lives Matter, he was using his celebrity persona in a way covered by his professional obligations. California laws protecting employees’ political activities therefore did not shield the statement, the panel ruled.

“Based on the nature of Napear’s work, and his contractual relationship with Bonneville, even Napear’s claimed personal social-media use was subject to his professional obligations,” the judges wrote.

The panel affirmed the lower court’s decision without sending the case to a jury. Napear’s lawyer says that may not be the end of it.

“We were disappointed by the 9th Circuit’s ruling,” attorney Matthew Ruggles told The Sacramento Bee, arguing that whether Napear’s Twitter use constituted part of his “official capacity” was disputed and should have been decided by a jury.

Ruggles said the legal team is considering seeking an en banc rehearing before a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges. And after that? The United States Supreme Court.

Napear has maintained that the tweet reflected his personal belief and wasn’t intended as an attack on the Black Lives Matter movement.

The case also carries an interesting political footnote. All three judges who ruled against Napear — Bridget Bade, Danielle Forrest and Lawrence VanDyke — were appointed by President Donald Trump.

For now, Bonneville has won. But if Napear follows through on his attorney’s stated plans, three words posted during the cultural inferno of 2020 could still end up before the nation’s highest court.

MY QUICK TAKE

Remember 2020?

Apparently “All Lives Matter” was controversial enough to help end a 31-year broadcasting career.

Six years later, we’re still paying lawyers to figure out whether saying it on Twitter was personal speech or part of the job. That may be the most 2020 thing about this entire story.

DBS WIRE SOURCES:

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — Napear v. Bonneville International Corp., Sept. 3 ruling
• Sacramento Bee/AOL — Ex-Kings voice Grant Napear could take lawsuit over 2020 firing to U.S. Supreme Court
• Yahoo Sports/Awful Announcing — Former Kings announcer loses appeal, could look to Supreme Court
• San Francisco Chronicle — Ex-Kings announcer loses appeal over firing for ‘All Lives Matter’ tweet