Legal

Bobbi Althoff appeared deep in conversation while walking around L.A. ... engrossed in a phone call less than a day after news of her split from her husband Cory broke.

The famed TikToker looked casual in a pink sweater and black Nike sweats while enjoying a beautiful Los Angeles morning ... and even cracking a small smile while chatting up someone on the phone.

It hasn't been the easiest week for Bobbi -- with news of her divorce breaking yesterday -- but it seems she's putting her bravest face on for the rest of the world.

As we previously reported ... Bobbi's about to become a single woman after her husband of four years Cory filed for divorce citing "irreconcilable differences."

Their marriage ending doesn't exactly seem like a shock to BA ... since Cory listed the date of separation as July 4, 2023 -- and she wrote about her marriage's end in an eloquent caption she posted to IG yesterday.

She noted she's going through quite a difficult time in the post ... so it's nice to see Bobbi with a smile on her face, even if it's only in the moment here.

BTW ... Cory's asking for joint physical and legal custody of their two daughters, 1-year-old Isla and 3-year-old Luca while also checking the box to block the court's ability to award spousal support to either party.

Of course, Bobbi's dominated TikTok over the past year with her deadpan-style humor and interviews with major celebs ... and Cory's no slouch professionally as well with an executive position for a major tech company.

Jason Isbell is divorcing his wife, Amanda Shires -- and there's an ironclad prenup that he wants the court to enforce.

The famous country music couple -- who've been together for over a decade now -- are ending their marriage of 11 years ... this after Jason ran to court in Tennessee this week and filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences.

According to the docs, obtained by TMZ, Jason says their date of separation was Dec. 3 of 2023 ... and he goes on request joint custody of their 8-year-old daughter, Mercy.

JI also says he and Amanda will enter into a Parenting Plan ... and even submitted a certificate highlighting the fact that he's recently obtained a parenting skills certificate that helps people navigate their children through divorce. So, he's ready for the challenge.

No mention of spousal support here, but presumably ... all of that is hashed out in their prenuptial agreement, which he says was executed 2 days before their wedding in 2013.

One other thing ... there's a restraining order that was submitted in his filing -- but it's a standard thing there in TN, and has nothing to do with claims of misconduct. It's simply there to tell both parties not to move any assets until a judge can go through and divvy things up.

Jason says that while a prenup is in place, he notes there's separate property between him and Amanda that needs to be allocated and divided -- which will be handled later.

Like we said, Jason and Amanda have been together for a long time -- and the fact they often perform together is hitting their fans even harder now that they're splitting up.

Jason Isbell se está divorciando de su esposa -Amanda Shires- y hay un acuerdo prenupcial blindado que quiere que el tribunal haga cumplir.

La famosa pareja de música country -han estado juntos durante más de una década- están terminando su matrimonio de 11 años, esto después de que Jason corriera a los tribunales en Tennessee esta semana y solicitara el divorcio, alegando diferencias irreconciliables.

De acuerdo con los documentos obtenidos por TMZ, Jason dice que su fecha de separación fue el 3 de diciembre de 2023 y él va a solicitar la custodia compartida de su hija de 8 años de edad, Mercy.

Jason dice que él y Amanda entrarán en un plan de crianza e incluso presentó un certificado destacando el hecho de que ha obtenido recientemente un certificado de habilidades parentales que ayuda a los hijos a lidiar con el divorcio. Por lo tanto, él está listo para el desafío.

No se menciona la manutención del cónyuge aquí, pero presumiblemente todo eso está resuelto en su acuerdo prenupcial, que él dice que se ejecutó dos días antes de su boda en 2013.

Otra cosa... hay una orden de restricción que se presentó en su presentación, pero es algo estándar allí en Tennessee y no tiene nada que ver con las reclamaciones de mala conducta. Es simplemente allí para decirle a ambas partes no mover los activos hasta que un juez puede ir a través y dividir las cosas.

Jason dice que si bien un acuerdo prenupcial está vigente, señala que hay propiedades separadas entre él y Amanda que necesitan ser divididas, lo cual será manejado más adelante.

Como hemos dicho, Jason y Amanda han estado juntos durante mucho tiempo y el hecho de que a menudo actúan juntos es un golpe aún más difícil para sus fans ahora que se están separando.

El divorcio de Chuck Lorre finalmente ha llegado a su fin, y para alguien con un acuerdo prenupcial, seguro que se siente como que está pagando demasiado por un matrimonio que solo duró tres años y medio, pero todavía se queda con su mejor amigo de 4 patas.

El creador de "Two And a Half Men" recientemente finalizó su divorcio de Arielle Lorre después de la presentación para poner fin al matrimonio en 2022. De acuerdo con nuevos documentos judiciales obtenidos por TMZ, sabemos que Chuck va a terminar desembolsando una pequeña fortuna.

Chuck accedió a pagar hasta $5 millones en el acuerdo. Tuvo que pagar 1.000 dólares tan pronto la sentencia fue presentada (la semana pasada) y acordó pagar un extra de $4 mil en 30 días después de Arielle se mueve fuera de la cuna ... que ella dice que tenía la intención de hacer el 1 de febrero.

El lado positivo es que Chuck se aferra a su perro, Harvey, así que al menos tiene eso. Sin embargo, Arielle tiene "visitas" con el perro por lo que tiene que compartir.

Lo que es interesante es el hecho de que Chuck está teniendo que pagarle tanto a su ahora ex-esposa -la tercera en su vida hasta ahora- a pesar de que habían firmado un acuerdo prenupcial. De hecho, sabemos que tuvo que desembolsar dinero extra: fuentes con conocimiento directo nos dicen que los 5 millones de dólares que Chuck está pagando son en realidad más de lo que exigía el acuerdo prenupcial original.

Última nota interesante... hay una cláusula de no-disparagement en este acuerdo que se aplica a ambas partes.

Una vez más, estos dos estuvieron casados solo unos pocos años y, sin embargo, Chuck está desembolsando una gran cantidad. Ahora bien, aunque lo que ha aceptado pagar puede parecer mucho para el común de los mortales, el tipo está considerado el rey de las comedias de situación, con un montón de créditos en su haber.

No sólo tiene "TAAHM" en su haber... sino que ha creado otras series enormes como "The Big Bang Theory", "Dharma & Greg", "Young Sheldon" y muchas otras. En total, él vale cientos de millones de dólares ... así que para él esto es probablemente calderilla.

Chuck Lorre's divorce has finally come to an end -- and for someone with a prenup, it sure feels like he's paying out the nose for a marriage that only lasted three and a half years ... but he still gets to keep his best 4-legged friend.

The "Two And a Half Men" creator recently finalized his divorce from Arielle Lorre after filing to end the marriage in 2022. According to new court docs, obtained by TMZ, we know know Chuck will end up shelling out a small fortune ... to the tune of 7 digits.

Per the paperwork, CL agreed to cough up $5 million in the settlement -- $1 mil was paid as soon as the judgment was entered (last week) and he agreed to pay an extra $4 mil 30 days after Arielle moves out of the crib ... which she says she intended to do on Feb. 1.

The upside ... Chuck gets to hold onto to pooch, Harvey, so at least he's got that. Arielle does get "liberal visitation" with the dog though -- so he's gotta share.

What's interesting is the fact that Chuck is having to shell out so much to his now-ex-wife -- the third in his life thus far -- even though things were all spelled out in an ironclad prenup. In fact, we know he coughed up extra dough -- sources with direct knowledge tell us the $5 mil Chuck's paying is actually more than the OG prenup required.

Last interesting note ... there's a non-disparagement clause in this settlement that applies to both parties -- so no trashing the other in books or other media once the dust settles.

Again, these 2 were only married a few years -- and yet, Chuck's biting the bullet, or so it seems. Now, while what he's agreed to pay might sound like a lot to your average Joe -- the dude's considered the King of Sitcoms, with a crap ton of show credits to his name.

Not only does he have 'TAAHM' under his belt ... but other huge shows he's created include "The Big Bang Theory," "Dharma & Greg" "Young Sheldon" and lots of others. All told he's worth hundreds of millions of dollars ... so to him, this is probably chump change.

The parents of a 9-year-old Chiefs fan claim a Deadspin article accusing the young boy of wearing blackface to a Kansas City game earlier this year has made their lives a living hell ... and now they're dragging the media outlet to court over it.

The folks of Holden Armenta -- Raul and Shannon Armenta -- filed the suit against the sports media company on Tuesday in Delaware ... alleging Carron Phillips' story about Holden back in November was flat-out defamatory.

You'll recall, Holden painted one side of his face black, and the other side red in support of his favorite Chiefs team as they took on the Raiders in Las Vegas on Nov. 26. According to the suit, when cameras showed only the black side of Holden's noggin during the game's broadcast, Phillips took to his keyboard to demand the NFL take action against the child.

The Armentas claim the article posted to Deadspin remarked on how face paint made it look like Holden had "found a way to hate Black people and the Native Americans at the same time." The Armentas also said Phillips wrongfully implied that Holden may have been "taught" the alleged "racism and hate" at home.

The Armentas said none of it was true -- writing in the suit that Holden wore his gameday outfit for no other reason than to show his love for Kansas City. They added that Holden is Native American himself.

In the suit, the Armentas said they asked Deadspin repeatedly to retract the story and issue a mea culpa -- but they claim the outlet refused to back down.

They say it's all caused "enormous damage" -- alleging they received death threats and numerous messages containing hateful language. They also said Raul's been forced to consider moving his family out of state -- while Holden's grades have dropped in school. The Armentas claim Holden "has shown emotional damage from the onslaught of negative attention" as well.

They're now suing Deadspin for unspecified damages.

Arianne Zucker -estrella de la exitosa serie "Days of Our Lives"- está demandando a la productora detrás de la legendaria telenovela... TMZ ha indagado.

De acuerdo con documentos judiciales obtenidos por TMZ, Arianne está demandando a Corday Production Inc, su productor ejecutivo Ken Corday, y al ex productor ejecutivo de la serie -Albert Alarr- alegando Albert la acosó sexualmente a ella y a otras empleadas.

Zucker dice que fue objeto de tocamientos sexuales no consentidos y comentarios de acoso sexual durante el empleo de Alarr, alegando que Alarr con frecuencia la jalaba cerca de su pecho y haciendo gemidos sexuales mientras lo hacía.

En otras ocasiones, Zucker dice Alarr hacía comentarios sexualmente sugerentes durante el rodaje, supuestamente diciéndole a sus compañeros de rodaje en las escenas de sexo con ella que le "encantaría cambiar de posición" con ellos, y Arianne dice que dejó claro que disfrutaba de las escenas de sexo agresivo.

Además de eso, Zucker dice que su comportamiento era bien conocido por otros productores, alegando que múltiples mujeres fueron a Corday Production Inc. a lo largo de los años, pero la compañía supuestamente no hizo nada.

Arianne dice que finalmente se puso en contacto con el coproductor de la serie -Sony- y se reunió con su departamento de recursos humanos. Ella dice que se reunió con el departamento varias veces entre marzo de 2023 y junio de 2023, durante el cual ella afirma que a Alarr se le permitió seguir trabajando en el show y que Zucker dice que la hizo sentir "violada e intimidada".

Alarr fue despedido en agosto en lo que Zucker afirma que fue un movimiento para "salvar la imagen" una vez que las acusaciones contra Alarr se hicieron públicas.

Luego, en octubre, Arianne dijo que su contrato se estaba acabando y ella trató de negociar con Corday Productions, cuando dice que le dio un "lo tomas o lo dejas". Ella dice que su antiguo contrato expiró el mes pasado, lo que según ella esencialmente equivalía a ser despedida de su trabajo.

Ella está demandando por acoso, discriminación, represalias, negligencia en la contratación y supervisión, y despido injustificado, entre otras reclamaciones. Ella está buscando daños y perjuicios no especificados.

4:32 PM PT -- Albert Alarr's attorney, Robert M. Barta tells TMZ ... “As Albert said when Ms. Zucker first leveled these outrageous claims through the press last year, her baseless allegations were examined in a detailed and entirely independent investigation that lasted for two months. Dozens of individuals cooperated and every claim was thoroughly looked into. At the end of that process, the decision was made that Albert should continue in his role as Co-Executive Producer of Days of Our Lives."

Barta adds, “As Ms. Zucker’s own lawsuit all but admits, at a time of industry-wide cutbacks, she was aggressively seeking a significant personal pay increase and additional influence on the show. Having failed in those attempts, she is now - again - trying to exploit vile stereotypes to denigrate and demean a Black man who was in a position of power."

2:38 PM PT -- A spokesperson for Corday Productions tells TMZ ... "The allegations in Ms. Zucker's lawsuit are without merit. Corday Productions offered to renew Ms. Zucker's contract including offering her a pay increase. Rejecting Ms. Zucker's counteroffer does not constitute retaliation."

They concluded, "Complaints about Mr. Alarr's on-set behavior were promptly investigated. Corday Productions fully cooperated with the impartial investigation and subsequently terminated Mr. Alarr."

Arianne Zucker -- star of the hit show "Days of Our Lives" -- is suing the production company behind the legendary soap opera ... TMZ has learned.

According to court documents obtained by TMZ ... Arianne is suing Corday Production Inc., its executive producer Ken Corday, and former executive producer of the show Albert Alarr claiming Albert sexually harassed her and other female employees on the show.

Zucker says she was subjected to nonconsensual sexual touching and sexually harassing comments during Alarr's employment -- claiming Alarr would frequently pull her close to his chest and make sexual moans while doing so.

At other times, Zucker says Alarr would make sexually suggestive remarks while filming, like allegedly telling her costars filming sex scenes with her that he would "love to switch positions" with them, and Arianne says he made it clear he enjoyed aggressive sex scenes.

On top of that, Zucker says his behavior was well-known to other producers ... claiming multiple women went to Corday Production Inc. over the years but the company allegedly did nothing.

Arianne says she ultimately contacted the co-producer of the show, Sony, and met with their HR department. She says she met with the department several times between March 2023 and June 2023 ... during which she claims Alarr was allowed to continue working on the show -- which Zucker says made her feel "violated and intimidated."

Alarr was later fired in August in what Zucker claims was a move to "save face" once allegations against Alarr went public.

Then in October, Arianne said her contract was running out and she attempted to negotiate with Corday Productions ... who she says gave her a "take it or leave it" offer and wouldn't negotiate in "good faith." She says her old contract expired last month, which she says essentially amounted to her being fired from her job.

She's suing for harassment, discrimination, retaliation, negligent hiring and supervision, and wrongful termination among other claims ... she's seeking unspecified damages.

We've reached out to Corday and Alarr ... so far no word back. Anahita Sedaghatfar represents Zucker.

Chrisean Rock's facing a legal battle on the civil front ... she's on the receiving end of a lawsuit for an alleged assault, one that allegedly took place during a Tamar Braxton show.

According to legal documents, obtained by TMZ ... TV personality James Wright is suing Chrisean, claiming she attacked him at a club show back in November -- an incident he says led to multiple face lacerations and two broken teeth.

ICYMI ... James Wright was reportedly hospitalized following Tamar's show in Downtown Los Angeles around this same time. Tamar talked about the alleged incident during an IG Live where she said Chrisean thought she was supposed to have a bigger role in the show ... and apparently became agitated when she was told that wasn't the case.

We obtained video showing Chrisean breaking up a prayer circle before the show ... but eyewitnesses on the tour told us that had nothing to do with the alleged incident.

Anyway ... in the suit, James, who sang backup for TB, says he told Rock she was supposed to only come onstage for the twerk portion at the end of the night. He says he told her she was not in the properly designated area and that’s when she allegedly hit him.

Wright claims Rock stuck him several times using a hand with "large champion style rings" that caused the lacerations and broken teeth. He also claims she called him a homophobic slur in the aftermath of the alleged assault.

Wright says he was sent to the hospital and also had to consult with a dentist and plastic surgeon in the aftermath of the alleged incident.

Now, James is taking Chrisean for assault, battery, and emotional distress … and he’s seeking compensation for his medical bills, among other damages.

Chrisean Rock se enfrenta a una batalla legal en el frente civil tras ser demandada por una presunta agresión, una que supuestamente tuvo lugar durante un show de Tamar Braxton.

De acuerdo con documentos legales obtenidos por TMZ, la personalidad de la televisión James Wright está demandando a Chrisean, alegando que lo atacó en un show en noviembre y que dio lugar a múltiples laceraciones en la cara y dos dientes rotos.

Por si se lo perdieron, según los informes, James Wright fue hospitalizado luego del show de Tamar en el centro de Los Ángeles alrededor de esa misma fecha. Tamar habló sobre el presunto incidente durante un IG Live donde dijo que Chrisean pensaba que tendría un papel más importante en el show, y al parecer se agitó al saber que no era el caso.

Obtuvimos un video en el que se ve a Chrisean rompiendo un círculo de oración antes del espectáculo, aunque testigos presenciales de la gira nos dijeron que eso no tuvo nada que ver con el supuesto incidente.

De todos modos, en la demanda, James, que cantó como apoyo de Tamar Braxton, dice que le dijo a Rock que solo debía subir al escenario para la parte twerk del final. Dice que le dijo que no estaba en la zona designada y que fue entonces cuando supuestamente lo golpeó.

Wright afirma que Rock le pegó varias veces utilizando una mano con "grandes anillos estilo campeón" que le causaron las laceraciones y la rotura de dientes. También afirma que le lanzó un insulto homofóbico tras la supuesta agresión.

Wright dice que fue enviado al hospital y también tuvo que consultar con un dentista y un cirujano plástico a raíz del presunto incidente.

Ahora, James está demandando a Chrisean por agresión y angustia emocional, y está buscando una compensación por sus gastos médicos, entre otros daños.

A baby delivered at a hospital last year was somehow decapitated during birth -- something officials are now calling a homicide.

The mother in this tragic case -- 20-year-old Jessica Ross -- says she was rushed to Southern Regional Medical Center in Clayton County, GA, back in July after her water broke ... after which, she went into a lengthy labor.

Ross says her baby boy, Treveon Isaiah Taylor Jr., became stuck 10 hours into her attempts to push him out -- and she has since claimed the doctor working on her tried to pull the baby out of her birth canal, allegedly using so much force his head detached from his body.

The mother claims the bones in her baby's skull, head and neck were broken by the doctor manipulating the infant's body way too hard ... which literally left the infant separated at the head and torso. When they did a C-section, the family claims the medical staff was able to pull the body out of the mother's stomach ... the head was still lodged in the birth canal.

The family has also alleged that the mother then had to deliver the baby's head vaginally -- just an absolutely awful thing as described in a lawsuit they subsequently filed. What's more, the family alleges the hospital tried to cover up the baby's decapitation ... allegedly wrapping their dead child in a blanket so as not to show his severed head.

On Tuesday, the Clayton County Medical Examiner's Office ruled the death a homicide and said the baby died from "fracture-dislocation" in his spinal cord and upper cervical spine.

The family is now going after the hospital, doctors and nurses involved in the delivery ... suing for wrongful death and medical negligence.

Meanwhile, the Clayton County Police Department says it's launching a criminal investigation.

In a statement, the hospital says the baby died "in utero prior to the delivery and decapitation."

Un bebé nacido en un hospital el año pasado fue decapitado durante el parto, algo que las autoridades califican ahora como homicidio.

La madre en este trágico caso -Jessica Ross de 20 años de edad- dice que fue trasladada de urgencia al Centro Médico Regional del Sur en el condado de Clayton en julio, cuando su fuente se rompió y tuvo que hacer trabajo de parto.

Ross dice que su bebé, Treveon Isaiah Taylor Jr., se quedó atascado 10 horas después de sus intentos de sacarlo. Afirma que el médico trató de sacar al bebé de su canal de parto, supuestamente usando tanta fuerza que su cabeza se separó de su cuerpo.

La madre afirma que el médico le rompió los huesos del cráneo, la cabeza y el cuello al manipular el cuerpo del bebé con demasiada fuerza, y que literalmente le separó la cabeza del torso. Cuando le hicieron la cesárea, la familia afirma que el personal médico pudo sacar el cuerpo del estómago de la madre, pero la cabeza seguía alojada en el canal del parto.

La familia también ha alegado que la madre entonces tuvo que entregar la cabeza del bebé por vía vaginal, una cosa absolutamente horrible como se describe en una demanda que presentaron posteriormente. Lo que es más, la familia alega que el hospital trató de encubrir la decapitación del bebé, supuestamente envolviendo a su hijo muerto en una manta para no mostrar su cabeza cortada.

El martes, la Oficina del Médico Forense del Condado de Clayton dictaminó la muerte como un homicidio y dijo que el bebé murió de "fractura-dislocación" en su médula espinal y la columna cervical superior.

La familia va ahora por el hospital, los médicos y las enfermeras que participaron en el parto. Todos han sido demandados por homicidio culposo y negligencia médica.

Mientras tanto, el Departamento de Policía del Condado de Clayton dice que está iniciando una investigación criminal.

En un comunicado, el hospital dice que el bebé murió "en el útero antes de la entrega y la decapitación".

Se suponía que Jonathan Majors iba a conocer su destino hoy, pero el asunto se ha aplazado porque su equipo está pidiéndole a un juez que anule la condena por completo.

El actor estaba citado para el martes, pero en vez de escuchar qué tipo de castigo enfrenta después de haber sido declarado culpable de asalto y acoso, el juez estiró la sentencia por un total de dos meses.

La próxima audiencia de Jon está programada para el 8 de abril y la razón es porque su equipo legal presentó algunas mociones de última hora que quieren que sean consideradas antes de entonces.

Nos dicen que su equipo está pidiendo que se anule el veredicto que se produjo en diciembre, cuando un jurado lo declaró culpable de dos cargos, olvidándose de otros 2 que eran mucho más graves. Recordemos que fue declarado culpable de asalto imprudente en el tercer grado y acoso.

Fuentes directas le dicen a TMZ que los abogados de Jonathan sienten que tienen varios motivos para que su moción sea concedida, incluyendo pruebas insuficientes presentadas en el juicio, cargos inconsistentes, y la idea de que los fiscales que persiguen una teoría "imprudente" no tenía fundamentos.

Nos informan que el equipo de Jonathan cree que los fiscales argumentaron que el asalto fue intencional durante todo el juicio, pero luego terminaron dando instrucciones al jurado acerca de condenarlo por un asalto "imprudente", ofreciendo una opción separada para una posible condena por algo que en realidad no estaban argumentando en el transcurso del juicio.

Por eso sus abogados creen que la presentación de un asalto "imprudente" al jurado no estaba justificado y nunca debería haber estado sobre la mesa en absoluto. En pocas palabras, el equipo de Jon no siente que él tuviera un trato justo, y por eso están pidiendole al juez que desestime el veredicto.

Jonathan Majors was supposed to learn his fate today -- but the matter got kicked down the road ... because his team is asking a judge to vacate the conviction entirely.

The actor's sentencing hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, but instead of him showing up to hear what sort of punishment he'd be facing after being found guilty of assault and harassment ... the judge in his case continued sentencing for a whole 2 months.

Jon's next hearing is scheduled for April 8 -- and the reason is because his legal team filed some last-minute motions that they want heard and considered first before then.

The motion in question ... we're told his team is asking to set aside the verdict that came down in December, when a jury found him guilty of two counts, but not the other 2 -- which were far more serious. Remember, he was convicted of reckless assault in the 3rd degree and harassment.

Sources with direct knowledge tell TMZ ... Jonathan's lawyers feel like they have several grounds for their motion to be granted -- including insufficient evidence presented at trial, inconsistent charges, and the idea that prosecutors pursuing a "reckless" theory was BS.

Long story short ... we're told JM's team believes prosecutors argued that the assault was intentional throughout the trial ... but then they ended up giving the jury instructions about convicting him for a "reckless" assault -- offering up a separate option for a potential conviction on something they weren't really arguing throughout the course of the trial.

That's why his lawyers believe presenting the "reckless" assault to the jury wasn't justified, and should've never been on the table at all. Bottom line ... Jon's team doesn't feel like he got a fair shake, and because of that -- they're asking the judge here to throw out the verdict.

Gina Carano ha demandado a Disney por su despido de "The Mandalorian", alegando que fue castigada por no seguir la línea de un partido político... y Elon Musk la apoya.

La actriz -que fue despedida por la Casa del Ratón en 2021- justo en la crisis del COVID- acaba de presentar una demanda contra su ex empleador, alegando que fue despedida injustamente por publicar sus opiniones políticas en redes sociales, algo que ella afirma que no le pasó a sus compañeros de trabajo masculinos que hicieron publicaciones similares.

En los documentos obtenidos por TMZ, Carano afirma que fue despedida por no ajustarse a la "ortodoxia progresista" de la empresa y en el público en general, especialmente en lo que respecta a las políticas del COVID en ese momento.

En concreto, Gina dice que lo que enfadó a Disney fue un mensaje que publicó y que hacía referencia a la persecución de los judíos durante el Holocausto, comparando ese escenario con lo que estaba ocurriendo con la gente que hablaba de COVID y otras posturas de tendencia conservadora.

Mientras que la compañía salió en su momento a criticarla por lo que dijeron era "denigrar a las personas en función de sus identidades culturales y religiosas", Carano dice que su publicación en las redes sociales no tenía esa intención en lo absoluto y que se perdió el contexto de lo que quería decir.

Y lo que es más importante, Gina afirma que Disney no la despidió por su rendimiento, sino simplemente por expresar opiniones políticas que se consideraban impopulares y contrarias a las de Disney... y Gina dice que eso era ilegal.

Lo que es más, Gina dice que otros coprotagonistas masculinos suyos también hicieron comentarios políticamente incendiarios en línea en ese momento -como cuando Mark Hamill fue acusado de publicar un tuit transfóbico- pero Disney aceptó sus explicaciones y siguió adelante.

En resumen, Carano afirma que su carrera se vio afectada negativamente y que perdió un montón de dinero, teniendo en cuenta que su trabajo iba viento en popa antes de que las cosas dieran un giro político. Ella está demandando por daños y perjuicios no especificados.

Gina Carano is suing Disney over her firing from "The Mandalorian" -- claiming she was punished for not toeing the political party line ... and Elon Musk's backing her.

The actress -- who got canned by the Mouse House in 2021, right in the thick of COVID -- just filed suit against her former employer ... alleging she was wrongfully terminated from her job over posting her political views on social media ... something she claims didn't happen to her male co-workers who made similar posts.

In the docs, obtained by TMZ, Carano claims she was fired for not conforming to "progressive orthodoxy" that was being espoused at the company and in the general public, especially as pertained to COVID policies at the time.

Specifically, Gina says a message she reposted that referenced persecution of Jews during the Holocaust -- comparing that scenario to what was going on with folks who spoke out about COVID and other conservative-leaning positions -- was what pissed Disney off.

While the company came out at the time to slam her for what they said was "denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities" ... GC says her social media post wasn't meant that way whatsoever, and that the context of what she was getting at got lost.

More importantly, Gina claims Disney didn't fire her over performance -- but simply for expressing political views that were considered unpopular and antithetical to Disney's ... and Gina says that was a legal no-no.

What's more, Gina says other male costars of hers also made politically inflammatory comments online at the time -- including when Mark Hamill was accused of liking a transphobic tweet -- but Disney accepted their explanations and moved on.

Bottom line ... Carano says her career was negatively impacted, and that she lost out on boatloads of cash considering her work was going swimmingly before things took a political turn. She's suing for unspecified damages ... but we're guessing it'll be a lot.