Judgment for Station Stands in Case Over Radio-Host’s Post

Friday, September 4, 2026

Page 1

Ninth Circuit:

Judgment for Station Stands in Case Over Radio-Host’s Post

Opinion Says Employer Bears No Liability Under California Law for Terminating Sports Analyst Over ‘All Lives Matter’ Remark on Personal Social Media Account That Referenced Show

By a MetNews Staff Writer

Depicted is a screenshot from the plaintiff’s X account, showing a 2020 post that he claims led to his termination from his job as a radio sportscaster. Yesterday the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of his employer, saying that California Labor Code sections prohibiting employers from punishing employees for political activities do not apply to speech made in a party’s professional capacity. The fact that he used a personal handle that, at the time, read “@GrantNapearshow” was fatal to his claims.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed a summary judgment entered against a Sacramento-area sports commentator who says he was fired from his radio job for posting “ALL LIVES MATTER” on his personal Twitter account that, at the time, referenced the name of his show.

Grant Napear, a 31-year veteran play-by-play announcer for the Sacramento Kings NBA team, was the on-air talent for a daily radio show bearing his name on KHTK 1140 in the Golden State’s capital region.

On May 31, 2020, days after George Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, former Sacramento Kings player Demarcus Cousins sent a “tweet” to Napear’s personal account, bearing the handle @GrantNapearshow, asking him for his opinion about “BLM,” a term used as shorthand for the advocacy movement known as “Black Lives Matter.” Napear responded:

“ALL LIVES MATTER….EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!”

He was fired two days later by the owner of the station, the Utah-based Bonneville International Corporation, which is wholly owned by the for-profit arm of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Celebrity Persona

Yesterday’s memorandum opinion, signed by Circuit Judges Bridget S. Bade, Danielle J. Forrest, and Lawrence VanDyke, declares:

“[W]e conclude that Napear’s use of his @GrantNapearshow Twitter account to respond to a question about his ‘take on’ Black Lives Matter involved his celebrity persona such that his statement fell within the scope of his professional capacity. 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. As such, California Labor Code §§1101 and 1102 do not protect his public expression, and we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Bonneville on Napear’s claims brought under those statutes.”

Those sections provide that an employer is precluded from “[c]ontrolling or directing…the political activities or affiliations of employees” and specify that “[n]o employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.”

Complaint Filed

Following his termination on June 2, 2020, Napear filed a complaint against Bonneville in October 2021, asserting wrongful termination in violation of public policy and employment retaliation in violation of §§1101 and 1102. In the operative pleading, he acknowledged signing an employment contract that included provisions requiring him to refrain from distasteful remarks on social media that could harm the company’s public image and reputation but said:

“Defendant BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION’s decision to falsely accuse Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR of racist misconduct and publicly terminate his employment on the grounds he engaged in ‘material dishonesty and/or misconduct which might discredit the goodwill, good name or reputation of the Company’ has completely and permanently damaged Plaintiff GRANT NAPEAR’s 26-year Emmy award winning career as a sports broadcaster in particular, and also has had serious negative effects on Plaintiff’s personal life and his public reputation.”

On May 31, 2025, District Court Judge Dale A. Drozd for the Eastern District of California granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that applying §§1101 and 1102 to bar the plaintiff’s firing would violate Bonneville’s First Amendment rights.

Scope of Protections

Bade, Forrest, and VanDyke declined to address Drozd’s First Amendment analysis. They wrote:

“The crux of this case is the scope of [the] protections [offered by §§1101 and 1102]: do they protect only an employee’s political expression taken in a personal capacity or do they also protect political speech undertaken within the scope of an employee’s professional capacity? The California Supreme Court has not answered this question. And the California Court of Appeals has done so only indirectly.”

The jurists continued:

“Without any binding authority, our task is to predict how the California Supreme Court would decide the question…. We have no reason to think that the California Supreme Court would interpret the relevant statutes to prevent employers from limiting employees’ political expression undertaken within the scope of their employment such that it impacts the public reputation of the employer….Thus, we apply that understanding of the scope of §§ 1101 and 1102 to this case.”

They remarked:

“Napear was a public figure in his role as a radio-show host with Bonneville, and his employment contract incorporated a Social Media Policy that required him to maintain ‘a high standard of care and level of responsibility’ in his ‘[p]ersonal use of [s]ocial [m]edia’ since ‘the results of such use are inseparably connected with [Bonneville]’s public image and reputation.’ ”

Use of ‘Show’

Highlighting the use of a handle containing the word “show,” they opined that the post fell within the scope of his professional capacity and was subject to his obligations under the employment contract. The judges added:

“Napear’s claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is derivative of his claim brought under California Labor Code §§ 1101 and 1102…, we also conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment on this claim.”

The case is Napear v. Bonneville International Corporation, 25-2818.

The Sacramento Kings announced Napear’s resignation as announcer on the same day as his termination from KHTK. The plaintiff is currently the host of the podcast entitled “If You Don’t Like That With Grant Napear.”

On May 31 of this year, he reposted his 2020 remarks with the words:

“6 years ago today. Are there really still people that don’t agree with this? I haven’t found many!”

After his termination from Bonneville, he changed his X handle to @GrantNapear.