Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Napear Complainty
Napear Complainty
19 proper because the injuries to Plaintiff occurred within the County of Sacramento.
20
3. Within the time provided by law, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR filed a complaint
21
with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH Matter No. 202110-
22
23 15078714) and received a Right-to-Sue letter dated October 14, 2021.
24 4. The true names and capacities of the Defendants, DOES 1 through 50, whether
25 individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiff at the time of filing this
26
Complaint and Plaintiff, therefore, sues said Defendants by such fictitious names and will ask
27
leave of Court to amend this Complaint to show their true names or capacities when the same
28
have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each of
7 the scope of said agency, venture, and/or employment and with actual or ostensible authority
8 and/or agency and that each of the Defendants ratified the actions and/or conduct of the others.
9
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
10
6. GRANT NAPEAR has been a practicing member of the Unitarian Universalist
11
12 Church (“Unitarian Church”) his entire life. As a child growing up in New York, his family
13 attended the Unitarian Universalist Church located at 40 East 35th Street, in New York, New
14
York, where his father was an active and prominent member of the congregation. In fact,
15
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s middle name is Harrington, in recognition of the contributions
16
made by Reverend Donald Harrington who was appointed the minister of the Community
17
18 Church of the New York Unitarian Universalist in New York City in 1944.
27 v. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our
congregations and in society at large;
28
vi. The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
7 the sports segment of the daily news broadcast, Monday through Friday.
8 10. In 1988, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s job duties with Channel 31 were
9
expanded and he became the television play-by-play announcer for all televised basketball
10
games played by the Sacramento Kings, a part of the National Basketball Association.
11
12 11. In 1995, representatives from KHTK offered Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR a new
13 position as an on-air talk show host for a sports radio talk show. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
14 accepted the offer and created a radio talk show which began to air regionally throughout
15
Sacramento and the surrounding area from 4:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
16
12. As part of his compensation for working as a radio talk show host, KHTK paid
17
18 Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR an annual salary. In addition to his salary, KHTK also paid
19 Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR compensation based upon advertising revenue paid by businesses
20
to advertise during his sport broadcast.
21
13. Within 1-2 years after starting his radio show, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s
22
radio program became the number one talk show host in his market share.
23
24 14. Each year, beginning in 1995 until approximately 2018, KHTK offered Plaintiff
25 GRANT NAPEAR an annual employment contract in connection with his radio show which
26
aired daily, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
27
15. At no time from 1995 through 2018 was Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR ever
28
subjected to any formal or informal discipline or suspension for any reason by KHTK.
7 Employment Contract was from August 1, 2019 through July 31, 2020.
8 18. Pursuant to his Employment Contract, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s job was to
9
provide services as an On-Air Talent for KHTK-AM.
10
19. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s Employment Contract obligated him to perform
11
12 his duties loyally and conscientiously at all times and to discharge all responsibilities and
13 obligations required of him to the best of his ability and experience and consistent with the
14 highest standards broadcast/media industry. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR agreed to faithfully
15
adhere to and execute all lawful policies established from time to time by Defendant
16
BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, including without limitation the
17
18 Company’s policies concerning equal employment opportunity and/or prohibiting of
25 misconduct arising from allegations of alleged harassment or discrimination, or any other form
26
of alleged immoral misconduct.
27
21. Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Contract with Defendant
28
BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR agreed
7 conformity with the public conventions and morals and not commit any act or do anything that
8 would be an offense involving moral turpitude under federal, state, or local law or which might
9
bring either himself or the Company into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, scorn, or ridicule
10
or otherwise injure the Company.
11
12 22. Notably, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
13 never furnished Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with any directives concerning on-air material or
14 the manner in which he delivered or used on-air material.
15
23. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR accepted Defendant BONNEVILLE
16
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s renewed Employment Contract and worked his 26th
17
18 consecutive year on the GRANT NAPEAR SHOW WITH DOUG CHRISTIE starting August
19 1, 2019. His Employment Contract was scheduled to expire on July 31, 2020, unless renewed.
20
24. In May of 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
21
CORPORATION notified Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR of the Company’s intention to renew
22
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s Employment Contract for the succeeding year: 2020-2021.
23
24 25. Over the course of his 26-year broadcasting career, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
25 became a prominent member of the media industry. Plaintiff interviewed hundreds and
26
hundreds of professional and Hall of Fame athletes in nearly all professional sports including
27
professional basketball players Chris Webber, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Shaquille
28
O'Neal, DeMarcus Cousins; professional football players Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronnie Lott,
7 26. As recently as 2017, the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences
8 awarded Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with a second Emmy Award for his broadcasting of the
9
Sacramento Kings basketball games.
10
27. Although his Employment Contract did not bar him from doing so, Plaintiff
11
12 GRANT NAPEAR believed that discussing religion or politics during a sports broadcast was
13 inappropriate on-air material and for that reason, always kept his religious and political beliefs
14 to himself.
15
28. During his broadcast career with KHTK, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR co-
16
founded the Future Foundation Sacramento, an organization created to provide volunteer
17
18 mentoring and scholarship funding to over 100 local students who were financially challenged,
19 in support of their college education. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR himself mentored five (5)
20
local Sacramento students who went on to graduate from college.
21
SOCIAL MEDIA PUBLICATION ON MAY 31, 2020
22
29. On the night of Sunday, May 31, 2020, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR was in the
23
24 privacy of his own home watching regional and national news broadcasts televising events
7 Thought you forgot about me. Haven’t heard from you in years. ALL LIVES
8 MATTER...EVERY SINGLE ONE.”
9
33. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s response to Demarcus Cousin’s inquiry was
10
merely an expression of Plaintiff’s opinion with regards to the sanctity of all lives and could
11
12 not, by any reasonable interpretation, be construed as a rejection, rebuke or repudiation of the
19 and explain on the air that his tweet to DeMarcus Cousins was intended to be inclusive of
20
Black Lives Matter by the phrase “EVERY SINGLE ONE.” Defendant BONNEVILLE
21
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION refused without any explanation or justification.
22
41. The next day, June 2, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
23
24 CORPORATION summarily fired Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR, effective immediately, and
25 Plaintiff immediately was barred from the Company premises as if he were a criminal.
26
42. On June 3, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
27
CORPORATION informed the Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR that his termination was “For
28
Cause” as defined by his Employment Contract at paragraph 6(c)(7), which states:
10 to Demarcus Cousins discredited the goodwill, good name or reputation of the Company.
11 44. Following his termination, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
12
CORPORAITON published on social media the following statement:
13
We were saddened by the comments Grant Napear recently made on Twitter.
14 While we appreciate Grant’s positive contributions to KHTK over the years, his
15 recent comments about the Black Lives Matter movement do not reflect the views
or values of Bonneville International Corporation. The timing of Grant’s tweet
16 was particularly insensitive. After reviewing the matter carefully, we have made
the difficult decision to part ways with Grant.
17
18 Bonneville’s purpose is to build up, connect, inform and celebrate communities
and families. In the wake of George Floyd’s tragic death and the events of the
19 last several days, it is crucial that we communicate the tremendous respect that we
have for the black community and any other groups or individuals who have
20
cause to feel marginalized. Bonneville remains committed to fostering calm and
21 promoting human dignity in the face of unrest. We plead to all to work together
for peace and mutual respect.
22
45. The reasonable and natural inference from Defendant BONNEVILLE
23
24 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s statement as shown above was that Plaintiff GRANT
25 NAPEAR was fired “for cause” because he is a racist and because he was “anti-BLM.” The
26
statement “ALL LIVES MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE” is, in fact, entirely non-racist,
27
factually true and inherently inoffensive. Moreover, Plaintiff’s tweet regarding the sanctity of
28
19 NAPEAR’s termination were printed in the Sacramento Bee and broadcast on all the local
20
television and radio channels.
21
49. Bill Maher, on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, and Joe Rogan, the host of
22
The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, talked about Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s termination and
23
24 the apparent unfairness of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s
25 hasty decision.
26
51. Indeed, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s termination has been held up in many
27
instances as an example of how the mere expression of protected speech, i.e., an opinion or a
28
religious belief, can result in the termination of an employee from any career.
7 an act of material dishonesty because his opinion did not involve such acts and statements as
8 lying, theft, making false entries on records and other actions showing a lack of truthfulness
9
and integrity.
10
55. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s opinion regarding the sanctity of all lives was not
11
12 an act of misconduct. Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION never
13 provided Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR with any guidance, restrictions or other instructions or
14 advice regarding how to respond to any questions regarding Black Lives Matter. The
15
expression of Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s opinion during off-duty hours was not a violation
16
of any contract term or provision.
17
18 56. Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR alleges he was terminated because he is a Caucasian
13 25. As a first, separate, and distinct cause of action, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
14 complains about Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and re-
15
alleges all of the allegations in the Complaint, and incorporates them by reference into this
16
cause of action as though fully set forth herein.
17
18 26. On or about June 2, 2020, Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
19 CORPORATION terminated Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR in violation of the public policy set
20
forth in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code section
21
12940, et seq., California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102.
22
23 27. Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION did the things
24 hereinabove alleged, intentionally, oppressively, and maliciously with an evil and malevolent
25
motive to injure Plaintiff. These acts, which resulted in Plaintiff’s wrongful termination against
26
public policy, were despicable, and ought not to be suffered by any member of the community.
27
28
24 (“FEHA”), California Government Code section 12940, et seq., was in full force and effect and
25
was fully binding upon Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.
26
Specifically, Government Code section 12940 prohibits an employer from discriminating
27
28 against an employee on the basis of the employee’s gender, race, religion, as well as other
protected bases.
6 terminate Plaintiff’s employment was substantially motivated by illegal animus based upon
7
Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s Gender (male), Race (Caucasian) and Religion.
8
34. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the Defendant’s unlawful
9
10 actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic damages including back pay, front pay, equity, benefits
11 by the FEHA.
12
45. During his employment with Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
13
CORPORATION, Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR engaged in conduct protected by the Fair
14
15 Employment and Housing Act by asserting his sincerely held religious belief that “ALL LIVES
16 MATTER EVERY SINGLE ONE,” as well as opposing other discriminatory, harassing and
17
retaliatory conduct in the workplace by Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
18
CORPORATION.
19
20 46. In retaliation for his protected conduct, Defendant BONNEVILLE
21 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION discriminated against Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR
22
culminating in the wrongful termination of Plaintiff’s employment on June 2, 2020.
23
24 47. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,
25 Plaintiff has suffered economic damages including back pay, front pay, equity, benefits and
26
other compensation.
27
28
6 employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known, ratified and approved
7 by the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
8
CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against
9
Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION in an amount to be
10
11 determined at the time of trial.
10 1102.
11 53. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions,
12
Plaintiff has suffered economic damages including back pay, front pay, equity, benefits and
13
14 other compensation.
20 employees and agents, and each of them as herein alleged, were known, ratified and approved
21 by the officers or managing agents of Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL
22
CORPORATION. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive or exemplary damages against
23
Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION in an amount to be
24
25 determined at the time of trial.
6 together with interest on said amounts, and any other economic injury to
7
Plaintiff, according to proof;
8
3. For an award of punitive and/or exemplary damages against Defendant
9
10 BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION;
23
24
25
26
27
28