Following a major appellate setback in federal court, Grant Napear is preparing to escalate his six-year legal battle over his 2020 firing. The legal counsel for the former Sacramento Kings broadcaster announced plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Napear was fired from his broadcasting job after a social media exchange with DeMarcus “Boogie” Cousins. The strategic maneuver comes as Napear’s defense team seeks to challenge how labor laws apply to personal social media commentary by public-facing media figures.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on September 3 that Bonneville International Corp., the parent company for KHTK-AM Sactown Sports 1140, was within its rights to fire Napear. Napear’s attorney, Matthew Ruggles, confirmed that they are considering a rehearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We were disappointed by the 9th Circuits ruling, especially because they decided the case based upon a disputed issue – whether Grant’s use of his Twitter account was part of his ‘official capacity’ as a radio host,” Ruggles said. “We contend it absolutely was not, and that the issue should have been decided by a jury rather than the court. Nevertheless, we are considering filing a request for rehearing en banc, and a petition for review to the United States Supreme Court.”

The core of their argument hinges on whether an individual’s personal social media account can be retroactively classified as an extension of their employer’s brand. In this case, if Napear’s personal social media posts were reflected on Sactown Sports 1140, as the play-by-play announcer of the Kings.

Ex Sacramento Kings announcers loses initial battle after exchange with DeMarcus Cousins

The legal momentum toward the higher court follows a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, comprising Circuit Judges Bridget S. Bade, Danielle J. Forrest, and Lawrence VanDyke, affirming a lower court’s summary judgment in favor of radio station owner Bonneville International Corp.

“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 ‘personal use of social media’ since ‘the results of such use are inseparably connected with (Bonneville)’s public image and reputation.’ Bonneville further ‘reserved the right to set limits on (public-figure) employees’ (social-media) use’ and ‘claimed ownership in the results of any (personal social-media) use’ by public-figure employees that involved ‘in any way … such celebrity persona,’” The ruling read.

They also stated, “The Social Media Policy also provided that any conduct on social media that ‘adversely affected … (Bonneville)’s legitimate business interests may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.’”

The appellate decision upheld the ruling of U.S. District Judge Dale A. Drozd based on certain sections of California’s labor laws. Napear had previously invoked sections 1101 and 1102 of California’s labor code, which prohibit businesses from coercing or controlling their employees’ political actions and affiliations, or from firing them for doing so.

However, the 9th Circuit concluded that these statutory protections do not apply when an employee’s public commentary occurs within the scope of their professional capacity or directly impacts their employer’s business interests.

Because Napear’s Twitter account handle, @GrantNapearshow, explicitly referenced his daily radio broadcast on KHTK-AM Sactown Sports 1140, the court determined that his online presence was tied to his celebrity persona.

The panel noted that Napear’s employment contract obligated him to maintain a “high standard of care and level of responsibility” on social media to safeguard the station’s public image and commercial goodwill. Consequently, the judges ruled that Bonneville acted within its editorial rights when it fired a public figure whose statements harmed its business reputation.

Ruggles strongly contested the panel’s reasoning, arguing that Napear personally owned the account and posted the statement off-air while away from the workplace.

The dispute traces back to late May 2020, during the height of nationwide protests following the murder of George Floyd. Former NBA player DeMarcus Cousins publicly asked Napear on Twitter (when it wasn’t X.com) for his thoughts on the Black Lives Matter movement. Napear replied: “ALL LIVES MATTER…EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!”

The response drew swift public backlash from listeners, media figures, and prominent former Kings players like Chris Webber and Matt Barnes. Within days, Bonneville suspended Napear before terminating his radio employment for conduct that threatened the company’s public standing. Simultaneously, Napear resigned from his 31-year position as the play-by-play television voice of the Sacramento Kings.

Napear filed his federal lawsuit in October 2021, alleging wrongful termination and retaliation under California labor laws. With the 9th Circuit panel leaving the lower court’s ruling intact, Napear’s legal counsel maintains that only an intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court can resolve the growing ambiguity between worker expression and corporate brand protection in the digital age.