Tuesday, April 28, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Actor Didn’t Show Pro-Trump Views Caused Firing of Him
Justices Say Evidence Indicates He Was Booted From Cast Based on Refusal to Be Inoculated Against COVID
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
INGO RADEMACHER |
|
|
An actor who was fired from the long-running ABC daytime soap “General Hospital,” with the stated reason that he refused to be vaccinated against COVID-19 during the pandemic and would not substantiate his claim that he was bound by religious convictions not to comply with his employer’s policy, has failed to persuade the Court of Appeal for this district that the network actually cancelled his contract based on his political views.
Justice Carl H. Moor of Div. Five authored the unpublished opinion, filed Friday, affirming a summary judgment granted by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch in favor defendant American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., which is owned by the Walt Disney Company. The action was brought by actor/Los Angeles County lifeguard Ingo Rademacher who, among other claims, alleged a wrongful termination based on proscriptions in the Labor Code against ending employment based on political utterances.
Rademacher had been a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump, setting forth his views in online postings. Goorvitch noted that Rademacher had “expressed his support for President Trump generally in late 2020 and early 2021” but wasn’t fired until Nov. 5, 2021, finding a lack of “temporal proximity” between the political expression and the termination of employment.
The judge found no evidence that the “termination was anything other than a necessary consequence of his refusal to get vaccinated under a company-wide policy that applied to all employees.”
Appellant’s Contention
Rademacher argued on appeal, in an opening brief authored by Pasadena attorneys John W. Howard and Scott J. Street of JW Howard/Attorneys, Ltd.:
“As often happens during litigation, discovery revealed a twist. ABC did not fire Rademacher from General Hospital because of the vaccine policy but because of political views he expressed on social media. In fact, the General Hospital producers decided to terminate Rademacher’s contract—and recast his character, Jax—even before Disney announced the vaccine policy at the end of July 2021.
“Of course, it is unlawful for an employer to fire a person because of his political commentary. And General Hospital producer Frank Valentini said he was worried about Rademacher suing the company after it decided to recast his character. Therefore, ABC only cited the vaccine policy when it terminated Rademacher’s contract.”
The brief recites that emails from July 2021, before ABC announced the vaccination policy, show that recasting the part of Jax, which Rademacher had played for nearly 25 years, was being contemplated.
On Aug. 21 of that year, Valentini sent an ABC executive, Dominick Nuzzi, a text message that included a screenshot of a posting by Rademacher with a photo of an anti-vaccine rally. Nuzzi shot back the message” “Ready for a recast!” to which Valentini replied: “Yup.”
Respondent’s Brief
ABC insisted in its brief, drafted by Steven Marenberg and Deisy Castro of Paul Hastings, that Employee Relations Director Erin Nguyen, who fired Rademacher, “never had a discussion with Rademacher regarding his political views…, and her notes of her interactive discussion with Rademacher (which Rademacher conceded are accurate), reflect absolutely no discussion of political matters.”
The lawyers added:
“Likewise, it was undisputed that Nguyen neither accessed nor otherwise saw any of Rademacher’s social media posts until December 2021, one month after his separation from ABC and well after she denied his accommodation request on October 29, 2021….Thus, Rademacher’s political views played no role in Nguyen’s determination that he did not qualify for a religious exemption under the Vaccine Policy—a determination resulting directly in Rademacher’s termination of employment.”
Moor’s Opinion
Moor wrote:
“In this case…, based on the facts presented to the trial court, there was no evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude Rademacher’s employment was terminated based on his political views or political commentary. Nguyen had not heard of Rademacher before she reviewed his request for exemption, and she was not aware of his political views during the interactive process. She was the ultimate decision-maker who made the determination that he had not shared sufficient information from which to conclude he was prevented from being vaccinated due to a sincerely held religious or spiritual belief.”
He said that “Rademacher’s assertion that he was terminated due to his political commentary is speculative and unsupported by the evidence.”
FEHA Violation Alleged
Rademacher also alleged a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act in the form of not accommodating his religious beliefs. Moor said there are no triable issues of fact as to that cause of action, declaring:;
“To satisfy the elements of his claim, Rademacher was required to show ABC was aware he had a sincerely held religious belief, which conflicted with an employment requirement….[H]is objection to vaccination was not obviously or inherently related to religion….His conclusory statements that his beliefs were religious and sincere were not sufficient to inform ABC of his beliefs requiring accommodation. Rademacher conceded in his deposition that he did not answer questions about his religious beliefs in connection with his application for a religious exemption. Under the circumstances, his limited and conclusory statements to ABC were not sufficient to establish ABC was aware of a bona fide religious belief Rademacher held which conflicted with a requirement of employment.”
Addressing Rademacher’s cause of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Moor said:
“On appeal. Rademacher contends the trier of fact could conclude ABC unfairly frustrated the purpose of the employment contract by using a sham accommodation process to cover up that he was written out of the show based on his political views. But there is simply no evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably conclude the accommodation process was a sham or the employees who made the termination decision had any knowledge of Rademacher’s political views.
The case is Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies, B344867.
|
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company