The Constitution was written for the purpose of granting the people of the United States their inalienable rights. The constitutional rights were established in the Bill of Rights and the First Ten Amendments that include some of the rights that people and the courts still used every day. This paper is tasked with providing an analysis of the case, Korb v. Raytheon, 707 F. Supp 63 (D. Mass. 1989). This paper will discuss the challenges that were discussed in regards to the Constitutional rights. This paper will provide supporting cases that touch on the same themes in order to support this case analysis.
The facts of Korb v. Raytheon
The defendant, Raytheon was a major corporation, which based some of its principal operations in Washington, DC, that was hired to build equipment for the United State military. Raytheon hired the Plaintiff, Lawrence Korb, in the case was hired as the vice president working on the non-profit organization, Committee for National Security. He held the position of the executive board member in September 1985. Before working on the committee, Lawrence Korb work for the Department of Defense as the Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Manpower, Installations, and Logistics organization between 1981 and 1985. While working as one of the heads of the Raytheon Company in Washington, DC office. He was responsible for liaison with the government's department and congressional relations that included the Department of Defense.
The Supreme Court of Massachusetts gave a summarization of the facts that in December 1985, Raytheon hired Korb, as the executive board of the Committee for National Security (CNS). The organization was dedicated to the prevention of war, and to inform the public on the problems of national security. At the Senate Office, CNS held a press conference on February 1986 on the annual alternative defense budget. Lawrence Korb spoke in the press conference giving information on spending on defense, and the need to scale back on the Navy that was at the time 600 Ship Fifteen Carrier Group. The Washington Post at the time covered the article, and as a result, a staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and two Navy officials phoned Raytheon officials. They expressed their disapproval of Korb’s remarks in the press conference, while Air Force official also voiced their complaints to Raytheon. Korb was immediately informed that his employment was in jeopardy as he was summoned to the company’s headquarters in Massachusetts.
The Washington Post received a letter to the editor written by Korb, clarifying his statements he made in the press conference. The letter was published on March 1986, with the headline, “We Need More Money for Defense.” From the letter and article subsequently published, Raytheon continued to receive numerous complaints from military officials that wanted Korb fired for giving false opinions. As a result, Raytheon gave Korb an assignment of lesser importance, which Korb felt was an unconstitutional attempt to silence him, and a demotion. Korb declined the position, and Raytheon terminated Korb for his statements, from the vice president role and as a lobbyist in Washington, DC. Lawrence Korb then sued Raytheon for wrongful termination, citing the Massachusetts civil rights statute and the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution.
Challenges with Free Speech
The result was that Korb’s termination didn’t fall into any public policy of whistleblower, to protect their speech when an individual speaks out against their company’s interests. Raytheon is a private company and the rule of law doesn’t apply to them, because the First Amendment protects speech as it applies to the government and if it applicable for the operations of private companies. Raytheon didn’t oppress Korb’s speech, and didn't terminated Korb in an attempt to deprive him of entitled benefits that are outlined in his contract with the company. Lawrence Korb was the company’s spokesperson, and he spoke against the interests of the company. Korb’s position in the company was seen by the public as a lobbyist that advocated for a reduction in government spending. As a result of Korb’s statements, the company felt he lost his effectiveness as the spokesperson and can terminate the employee at-will. More importantly this case displayed that the private sector doesn’t have to follow the rules of the law, in which the first amendment doesn't protect free speech from discretion or termination from the employer.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court dismissed the claims of free speech under the state civil rights statute. The court came to their decision based on the facts that even though Lawrence Kolb has the right to speak publically about the company and matters of public concern, he does not have the right at the company’s expense. (MassCases, 2012) The plaintiff was hired to be a spokesperson for the company, and he used his platform to speak out against the company. From this assertion, the company felt that he lost his utility as the company’s spokesperson. The business decision to terminate the employee based on their assertion that the company shouldn’t have to pay ineffective employees, did not dispute the rights under the first amendment. While Korb can express his speech at will, the company has the rights to not pay him if they don’t like the speech, especially if it interferes with the company’s interests. It is clear from this case that there is a distinct contrast of the protection of freedom of speech of the employees that work in the private sector and those employed by the government. This case follows the Oliver Wendell Homes case of 1892, which involved policemen that served on a political committee, and solicited money for them. The police department discharged the office, and the police officer petitioned the court for reiteration of his employment. The Massachusetts Supreme Court at the time ruled that the police officer had the right under the constitution to talk politics, although no rights under to the constitution to be a police officer. (Rb2, 2000) There, not of employers that hire that the employee agrees to suspend their constitutional rights for free speech. The employee accepts their employment on their terms they are offered.
Challenges with Freedom of Information
The freedom of the press and freedom of speech is both protected under the First Amendment. Although there are several speeches that are used in publication like copyright violations, obscenity, and etc. that go beyond the boundaries of the Amendment. While commercial speech used in product claims and advertising are protected, but under a reduced level of protection. The involvement of the Washington Post published Korb’s complaints of the anti-nuclear proliferation nonprofit committee CNS, and his advocacy for reduced spending. (Leagle, 2010) After the publication, many military officials spoke out on the article and Korb’s comments. Even though Korb wrote a letter of retraction to the editor, Raytheon still terminated Korb’s employment. The Washington Post is protected from the freedom of the press even though their article stimulated a wide response that resulted in his termination.
Challenges with Employment Law
The challenges with employment law are that, Korb was employed as a member of a non-profit organization, speaking during his lunch hour. Although he wasn’t working as a spokesperson at the time, his role still had an effect on the company. Korb’s rights as a private citizen were not protected under the law, and he wrote a personal letter to a Congress without the company’s letterhead. While Korb might have been protected from the government, he was not afforded the same protection as he is employed under the private corporation. This brings into the questions the rights of an employee within a private company and those employed by the government.
Raytheon’s Influence with the Department of Defense
Raytheon that worked for the Department of Defense received all their income from the Government. Since they worked from the government, they were part of some government entity, although the termination of Korb’s could be considered a state action. Holodnak v. Avco Corp used this argument in this case which involved a union member that was awarded damages for violation of the first amendment rights after Avco Corp violated the “just cause” provision in their collective bargaining agreement. (RBS2, 2010) Congress didn’t enact a law that required companies that receive defense contracts to respect freedom of speech. However, no legislation exists, so the private companies are protected from the first amendment.
Fraud or Misrepresentation
The conclusion of the case saw that the plaintiff couldn’t amend his complaint in order to defeat command. The attempt by Korb to remove the references from the case in Korb’s civil rights claim was unnecessary because even included, it wasn’t a federal question. Raytheon couldn’t amend their case into a federal question in assertion to their defense on a federal constitution grounds. Although it wasn’t written into law, at the time of the case, officials couldn’t seek to sue against the private employee through their employer because they couldn’t exercise their first amendment rights.
Court Cases
Drake v. Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc., Kelly Flores and Kerry Drake were employees at Cheyenne Newspaper Inc. that were fired for not wearing a button to vote no on the unionization of the editorial division. The employees sued, based on their right to free speech under the Wyoming Constitution. The Wyoming Supreme Court found that they were terminated by refusing to follow legal directive of the employer on the premises during working hours didn’t violate public policy. (MassCases, 2012) Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters case have recognized public policy exceptions of termination of at-will employees. The California Court of Appeals that would be wrong of the interest of the public policy and the state to allow an employer to discharge an employee. (Leagle, 2010)
In conclusion, Korb and the aforementioned cases present a conflict of private employer and their employees. The rights of the employees and the rights of the private citizens. The government is tasked with providing constitutional rights even when employees speak out on company’s involvement in public concern. Freedom of speech is protected, however, when it comes to private businesses there is no public policy that covers the employees that give up their rights when they make contractual agreements. Throughout the court system, there will be several laws that provide a tenet for the changing times that will reflect the public’s opinion on amendment rights.
References
Employment Law. (2013). HG. Retrieved August 17, 2013, from http://www.hg.org/employ.html
First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (1791). Bill of Rights Institute. Retrieved from http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-bill-of-rights/first-amendment/freedom-of-speech
Freedom of Speech in USA for Employees of Private Companies. (2002) Rbs2. Retrieved from http://www.rbs2.com/freespch.htm
Korb v Raytheon Co. (2010). Leagle. Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1989770707FSupp63_1756.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006
Holodnak v. Avco Corp. (2012). Leagle. Retrieved from http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1974572381FSupp191_1542.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985
Lawrence J. Kolb vs Raytheon. (2012). MassCases. Retrieved from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/410/410mass581.html
McMasters, P. (n.d.). Freedom of Information FOIA: It's always there. Society of Professional
Journalists. Retrieved from http://www.spj.org/foiabout.asp
