Korb v. Raytheon, 707 Supp.63 (D.Mass. 1989) is a case where Lawrence Korb, is the plaintiff against Raytheon Company, the defendant. The plaintiff was a former employee of the Raytheon Company which was a defense contractor company. The case was brought by the plaintiff on grounds of wrongful termination of employment by the company. This case brought about a lot of issues concerning freedom of speech, freedom of information and employment laws. The case also helped to lay precedence on issues regarding freedom of speech, freedom of information and employment laws.
The case involved the plaintiff Korb who was an employee of the Raytheon Company from 1981 as an assistant secretary of defense, in charge of manpower, logistics and installations. In 1985, he was promoted to vice president in charge of operations in Washington. Korb was actively involved in the committee for national security (CNS) and this granted him access to different departments. In addition, his job description mainly involved linking different departments. This was the description given by the complainant in the case. It was during a CNS press conference that Korb gave a speech on an alternative defense budget highlighting areas where reductions should be made (Gould, 2013 13).
The department of defense and congress representatives complained to Raytheon Company, at the time Korb’s employer concerning the speech (Bureau of National Affairs, 1989). The reductions in the defense department would have greatly affected Raytheon. The company then terminated Korb’s employment but was to keep him on the payroll as an advisor. Navy contacts of the company later contacted Raytheon and suggested that the termination of Korb had been an over-reaction. After this, Raytheon offered Korb an alternative to termination which involved him being offered a post in Philadelphia, a post that was to involve Korb in marketing energy services for the company to the government. He was prohibited from dealing with defence matters (Wright & Leipold, 2008 25).
However, Korb viewed this post as a demotion and rejected the offer, opting instead to file a case against the company for wrongful termination. He saw it as a way of restricting him from speaking out. In his case, Korb argued that Raytheon had terminated his employment because he had exercised his right to free speech. This right, according to his case argument is guaranteed in the constitution of the United States of America. This implies that his termination had been as a result of him exercising his rights. Raytheon contested the case citing federal jurisdiction matters which led to Korb amending the suit. His amendments mainly involved removing the argument that his employer had infringed on his freedom of speech (Bureau of National Affairs, 1989, 2).
Raytheon also wanted the case dismissed as the court hearing it had no jurisdiction. The company argued that it was not registered in the state in which the suit was filed and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to listen to the case. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson was a case that had previously been in the courts that had discussed the issue of the federal court jurisdiction. In this case, it was argued that the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act was an unusual statute. In the case of Barry Nolan v. cn8 the Comcast network et al Barry Nolan was terminated from employment by the network for expressing his opinion. The outcome of the case determined that the Massachusetts civil rights act had not been violated (Massachusetts Bar Association, 1992, 1 - 4).
The state should be neutral so as not to restrain the freedom of speech of one party in the case, therefore in this case, both the plaintiff and the defendant had an equal right of freedom of speech. This was mainly because the court ruled that the act provided for equal rights of freedom of speech for all. Some of the issues identified in the Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson were relevant to this case as the plaintiff was not part of the class of people targeted by the act. The act provided freedom of speech should not be interfere with by the state, but in this case, the entity that was accused of denying freedom of speech was a private entity (Bureau of National Affairs, 1989, 3).
In the case of De Rose vs. Putnam Management Company, it was decided that an employee had the right to seek redress from their employer if they are wrongly terminated for exercising their freedom of speech on matters that did not involve their employer. In this case, Korb had been the company’s spokesman and yet proceeded to issue a statement that conflicted with the company’s policy. The issues raised in this case showed that the freedom of speech of an individual was protected by the Massachusetts civil rights act from interference by the state but it did not provide for interference from private individuals. The freedom of speech of the plaintiff was not protected by the constitution against interference from the private entity that was Raytheon Company. This means that the plaintiff could not bring the case of wrongful termination against the company due to his exercising his right to free speech.
Concerning the freedom of information, Korb argued that the matters that he was fired for speaking about were matters of public concern, and therefore the public had a right of information. The issues concerned the speech where Korb spoke on an alternative defense budget that would have led to major reductions, which would have greatly affected Raytheon, his employer. According to the State Civil Rights act, Korb had a right to speak out on issues he deemed of public interest and issues that Raytheon did not agree with. However, Korb had no right to do so at Raytheon’s expense Therefore, Raytheon had every right to terminate his employment as they felt he could no longer be the company’s spokesman and therefore terminated his employment on grounds of the employee being in-effective in his duties. Therefore, Korb’s termination was a business decision that did not interfere with any rights.
The challenges concerning employment laws are also shown by the fact that the company was able to terminate the employment of Korb. The company did not refuse that the termination was as a result of Korb’s statement. However, the company argued that it had not violated any of his rights, but argued that he had violated the company’s rights. The state civil rights act protected the company from the lawsuit presented by the plaintiff (Silver, 2001, 32). Though the plaintiff had the freedom of speech and could therefore speak on anything, including issues that the company did not agree with, he was limited only to matters that did not directly the company. Therefore his termination was not deemed as wrongful termination under the law but as a business decision, where the employee was deemed as no longer being able to represent the agenda of the company. This is also shown in the case of Mello v. Stop & Shop Cos, 402 Mass. 555, 560 n.6 (1988).
Raytheon was not trying to suppress any of Korb’s rights or trying to cover up any wrongdoing on its part. Raytheon is seen to be influenced greatly by the department of defense. This is shown clearly by the fact that Korb was first terminated when contacts of the company in the congress and in the department of defense complained about his speech about reducing defense spending. The influence of the department of defense is further shown when navy personnel told the company that their termination of Korb’s employment was an over-reaction. This led to the company offering him an alternative work plan. This is because Raytheon is a major defense contractor and its work is dependent on a good relationship with the defense department. This is why the company terminates the employment of one of its employees when he makes a statement that might affect the relationship of the company with the defence department (Silver, 2001, 64).
There might have been an incidence of fraud where the government interfered with Raytheon. This is shown since the initial complaints to the company were by the defence department, which acted on behalf of the government. Additional complaints came from the navy and congress (Wright & Leipold, 2008, 29). Therefore the government causes the termination of employment for the employee but since it influences the private company, it is able to get away with interfering with the freedom of speech that Korb is entitled to in the constitution.
References:
Bureau of National Affairs (Arlington, Va.). (1989). Individual employment rights cases. Washington, D.C: Bureau of National Affairs.
Gould, W. B. (2013). A primer on American labor law. New York : Cambridge University Press
Massachusetts Bar Association. (1992). Massachusetts law review. Boston: Massachusetts Bar Association.
Silver, I. (2001). Public employee discharge and discipline. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Wright, C. A., & Leipold, A. D. (2008). Federal practice and procedure. Eagan, MN: Thomson/West.
