Disney sues DeSantis for using government to retaliate against the company

Anyone want any action on whether or not it contains the word "woke?" :)

I suspect here aren't any details about the countersuit because it has yet to be drafted, let alone filed.

I read the fine print - the board voted to sue. What the heck does this even mean?

“Since Disney sued us – yes, we didn’t sue Disney, Disney sued us – we have no choice now but to respond,” said Martin Garcia, chairman of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board of supervisors. “Yes, we’ll seek justice in our own backyard.”

Apparently, the suit has been filed.

https://www.wdwinfo.com/new...ng-disney/

He also brought up that news outlets falsely accused him of saying, “if you drink tap water, it will make you gay.” He stated that he never said that and that he receives hate mail due to the false accusation.

LOL

My wife just told me that DeSantis was married at The Grand Floridian. Guess he wasn’t happy with the catering.

"They're just trying to pursue an agenda and trying to pursue a narrative." That perfectly describe what DeSantis has been doing to Disney...but that is actually a quote from Reddy Creek about Disney. It is upside down world.

Step 1: Pass a law saying you can void contracts

Step 2: Sue in court to have them void a contract?

Never mind the contract clause in the Constitution.

wahoo skipper:

That perfectly describe what DeSantis has been doing to Disney...but that is actually a quote from Reddy Creek about Disney.

Projection is a thing.

Phase 1: Sue Disney

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Profit!

Seems like a solid business model to me.

Jeff:

Regarding New College, it's interesting that parents call out the nonsense about parental choice, which the DeSantis board effectively overrides.

And regarding that institution, the DeSantis board just rejected tenure to five professors.

The Disney stuff seems like a lot of political posturing that, in the end, won't ever really have an impact. Could be wrong, but it sure just sounds like a lot of noise.

Meanwhile, down the road, one of the most respected liberal arts institutions in the country is (really) being unraveled from the inside out.

For context, a board of trustees vote on the tenure of colleagues is supposed to be a mute point. The board vote is the last step of an arduous process, and is largely symbolic. I have never, not once, witnessed our board of trustees go against the will of the faculty and students regarding a decision like this, and I've been at my current place for more than a decade and gone through the hoops myself.

I get it; no one cares about a tiny liberal arts school they probably never heard about (they don't have a good football team after all), but it's an example of when all of this moves beyond political noise with people's lives being turned upside down by this jackass. It's also a case study in how to destroy one of the country's leading academic institutions that was a model for diversity and acceptance.

It's amazing that I live in a reality where Ohio's governor (Dewine) is considered a "moderate".

I wasn’t very familiar with the situation at the college until I just read Josh Moody’s article and I’m shocked. Anytime I hear a statement like “Discriminatory against white people” I have to gasp. That’s some nerve there.
I don’t know anything about the applicants but at first glance it seemed as if most of them are minorities. Sure enough, and to quote the article, “The denial decision at NCF comes at a time when opportunities to attain tenure are shrinking… other studies have indicated that the percentage of faculty members of color who receive tenure are even lower. That’s relevant at NCF where four of the denied applicants are minorities.”
That Ron decided for himself that a hostile takeover of the college in order to turn it into the “Hillsdale of the south” just seems wrong. That he would oust the president and appoint a Republican politician to the tune of a 400,000 dollar raise is even worse. They can hide behind stating that the applicants are coming in a year early. That stalling tactic has already led to the resignation of qualified and respected faculty.
Seriously, folks. Stuff like this is frightening.
In my blue-dot city over the weekend a well-known microbrewery hosted its huge, annual Drag Brunch event with local personalities. It’s to benefit Kaleidoscope Youth Center, the largest and longest running organization that benefits LGBTQIA+ impacted youth.
I was at a farmers market right then and a friend showed me a video of cowardly, hooded protesters standing across the sidewalk from the brewery’s party patio. They were well-organized with matching outfits. I’m gonna say Proud Boys or something similar. Nazi salutes, swastika flags. Attendees lined the patio with their backs to these a-holes and the festivities got even louder. My husband warned “Don’t you go down there!” and as I ran for the car I said “This is the day I go to prison! Bye!” Well, by the time I got there it was over and the brunch was still in full swing.
I couldn’t believe that disruption even had a chance to happen here, but of course it did. CPD had a presence- officers walked the sidewalk in front of the group probably to make sure they stayed on public property. Their pull-on vests read “CPD Dialogue Team”. (What? Slightly different from what was happening to peaceful protesters during the BLM outrage, but ok)
The new-found empowerment of hate groups and their outright visibilty is far more of a threat than a drag queen raising hope and encouragement (not to forget money) for the community ever was.
Sorry for the rant, but I’ve put in 50+ years at this so far, I’m still alive to tell the story, and I didn’t come all this way to have to put up with s like that. It will be interesting to see how different Pride celebrations will be next month. Organizations across the country are getting braced to stand against the worst, that’s for sure.

Jeff:

Regarding New College

I talk to a lot of faculty candidates. The ones in high demand, with a few options on the table, are increasingly talking about the broader setting of the institution as they are making decisions. These people tend to be in their late 20s or early 30s, so for example access to reproductive care is pretty important. Places actively hostile to higher education are going to have a much harder time recruiting these folks. They will still fill positions, but it will be harder, and there will be smaller candidate pools from which to hire. I get feelers from recruiting firms from time to time, and while I'm not actively looking to leave, I also don't even bother looking at some places, in part due to these factors.

This is particularly important in public institutions, where the governor and/or legislature can re-constitute the governing body of the institution on a whim, as happened at New College. These institutions are big ships with little rudders, so it may not be as dire as it appears. But, it's not great that's for sure. Private institutions aren't immune to this kind of pressure, but it depends a lot more on how their governing body is set up.

It's also interesting to note that while Hillsdale might be the template they are shooting for at New College, the former is private, not public.

I may be mistaken or things may have changed in the 20+ years since I was college shopping, but I think Hillsdale took it a step beyond just being private. I think they also explicitly stated that they would take no grants / funding / breaks from the government in an effort to remain "free" to do their thing (like ignore Title IX, though they obviously didn't advertise that as their "thing"). I didn't much care for the vibe at Hillsdale when I was there and ultimately landed at a much more liberal institution in Ohio. Hillsdale felt stuck in the '50s, which seems to align with current conservative rhetoric, so maybe it really IS the model (minus the funding bit).

OhioStater:

a board of trustees vote on the tenure of colleagues is supposed to be a mute point.

That’s correct. From their web site:

As a matter of principle, Hillsdale doesn’t accept any federal or state subsidy to fund its operations, not even indirectly in the form of federal student aid.

The district's lawsuit is only 34 pages, the rest is exhibits. They make nine claims, all of which strike me as pretty thin on logic, and none of them cite any case law. Basically they say that the old board didn't notice "affected property owners" properly by mail, per Florida statute, but whoever the other property owners are, I suspect they're not affected. They allege that the board has to pass an "ordinance" according to Florida law to accept an agreement, but being essentially a city manager form of government, I suspect the charter or other law allows them to delegate that to the administrator who seeks approval. The rest are jurisdictional arguments and a super weak argument that the agreements are counter to the new law reorganizing the district... the law that was passed after the agreements were made. The last two are just playground "not fair!" claims.

I gotta say, reading the two complaints is night and day. The district complaint is a lot of vague references to Florida technicalities and outright silly assertions with no references to case law or precedent. The Disney complaint, the claims at least, are all specific in referencing the US Constitution and mountains of case law. It's pretty clear who can afford the better lawyers. I have to think that Disney will immediately file a motion to dismiss, and even if they don't get it, I have to think the judge would prefer to wait until the case in federal court is settled. Because if Disney gets their way there, and they throw out the law completely, the Ninth Circuit suit will be... moot. 🙂

You have it ass backwards

Real estate covenants and special districts flow from FL state law.

If they didn't follow the statute to the T, the federal suit is moot

It is settled FL case law that restrictive covenants cannot bind government

This guy was a FL special district lawyer for 10 years. He seems to think Disney is going to get destroyed

I’m still watching that video, and provided that he’s not misrepresenting his credentials or getting the details wrong, it, at best, looks like Disney’s got one heck of a fight ahead of them.

However, it’s blatantly obvious that he has an axe to grind and/or some sort of emotional stake in this, and it never does anyone’s credibility any favors when they put personal biases on full display.

If Disney genuinely fumbled the ball here on following the appropriate state laws, then it seems that they’re in a pretty tight spot. It’s obvious that DeSantis is motivated by revenge, but the way this guy is presenting things is that the state is simply holding Disney accountable for things that they could have for some time and just never chose to do. I may be misinterpreting that, and I’m only about halfway through the video, but if that’s the case, from the perspective of the courts, does the state’s motivation really matter if they’re simply enforcing laws? I don’t ask that rhetorically, but rather out of genuine curiosity.

I have to believe that Disney did their homework throughout the years more than this video indicates, and I can’t imagine that the case is really as cut-and-dry as it appears here, but I suspect that even if Disney doesn’t fare so well this go-round, it’s not a game-over situation for them.