The lawsuit was filed Friday in Dallas County and says The Blaze cancelled Lahren's allegedly conservative show after she "made a controversial abortion statements last month on The View.
The suit said The Blaze wanted to continue paying Lahren, "presumably hoping they could find an exit strategy to sanitize their unlawful conduct" in breaking her two-year employment contract, which was to continue through September 30th.
The Blaze said Friday that Lahren hadn't been terminated.
"It is puzzling that an employee who remains under contract (and is still being paid) has sued us for being fired, especially when we continue to comply fully with the terms of our agreement with her," a Blaze spokesman said, adding that Beck wouldn't comment directly on the suit.
Lahren's suit alleges that the turmoil over her non-conservative comments was "a public smear campaign" orchestrated to "inflate Beck's profile, from what has become a mediocre following, all at [Lahren's] expense."
According to the suit, The Blaze isn't allowing Lahren access to her Facebook page, with its 4.2 million followers. Supposedly, this has "irreparably harmed" her.
How do they know it's 'irreparable'?
"I can't sit here and be a hypocrite and say I'm for limited government but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies," she told the audience of The View.
"No one told [Lahren] that her statements on The View were improper or inappropriate; and, indeed, that [Lahren's] point of view is just that--her point of view and freedom of expression," the suit states adding that Beck and The Blaze knew of her pro-choice position, which she had expressed before, and "never took any issue with it."
Except that it's not true. Last year Lahren appeared to take a pro-life view on abortion, so what are her lawyers talking about? It's on YouTube. [See video below.]
Beck said that Lahren's claim of being libertarian clashes with her support of President Trump's executive orders and health care proposals, implying she doesn't know what she's talking about.
The suit alleges that The Blaze's resources director called Lahren and told her that "her employment was terminated, she would have no more shows," solely due to her pro-choice comments.
While [Lahren's] case appears to be based upon her freedom to choose, it doesn't take into account that the views she expressed to the public on TV is contrary to the ideology of her employer and thus, would tend to damage the employer's product. (This is similar to President Trump appointing Ivanka and Kushner, both extreme liberals, into his administration--this may turn off many true conservatives.)
Brian Lauten, Lahren's lawyer, said, "She's like an eagle that feels like it's had its wings clipped." Seriously, he said that and even added: "She's ready to pursue her career and reconnect with her millions of followers."
Lahren may be a bird, perhaps the seductive cuckoo, but she's certainly not an eagle.
She's asking for attorney's fees and costs, but I would hope that if she loses, and she should it seems, that she would have to pay the fees for The Blaze. Why should they have all the risks?
And why should they retain someone whose job it is to disseminate the political and ideological position of her employer when her views oppose that position?