The United States establishes freedom of speech to the constitution through the First Amendment. Censor of speech by private corporations is free towards their workers, and the government only prohibits speech restriction. There is a lack of absoluteness in freedom of speech, even when concerned with government law or regulation. Protection of freedom of speech has been an issue to the public, and even the United States Supreme Court retreats from it for government workers. The courts fail to intervene in at-will employment termination from employers' unfair treatment towards ex-employees (Summers, 2000). A civil action occurs between Lawrence Korb and Raytheon Corporation in December 1987 in the Superior Court Department. Korb and Raytheon's case takes place with a conflict of economic interest that caused a vice president position's dismissal.
Facts of the Case
A large corporation building military equipment, Raytheon was entitled to the United States army to offer equipment. The company for its Washington office hired a vice president Lawrence Korb. Before the appointment, Korb was an assistant secretary of defense with the United States Department of Defense from 1981 to 2985 for logistics, installations, and labor (Bingham, 1994). He had several contacts with the defense department and congress regularly with Raytheon when he began to work with them. Korb's responsibility was for liaison with various departments of the government and building relations with congress. Raytheon Corporation president allocated Korb in Washington as the visible public individual for the company. With permission from Raytheon, Korb turned to be in the Committee for National Security as a board member in December 1985 (Standler, 2000). The nonprofit association devoted to preventing nuclear wars and informing issues of national security to the public. The Committee for National Security in a Senate office building set a press conference in February 1986 to connect annual release for alternative defense budget during regular lunch hour for Korb.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
At the press conference, Korb spoke while reflecting personal opinion in the Raytheon conference and not of the organization. The following day, the Washington Post newspaper published an article reporting the press conference's event with Korb's description as the former secretary assistant of defense. Korb's narrative was on as an employee for Raytheon and a private citizen working for arms makers. The newspaper critically explained that Korb was calling to reduce the fifteen-carrier group Navy and 600 ships as increasing spending by the government on defense (Standler, 2000). After publishing the article, Korb alleged remarks caused Raytheon to receive complaint calls from a Senate Armed Services Committee and two Navy officials about the post. Raytheon also received calls from Air Force members about the complaint, and Korb faced threats from the company to clarify his stance to the newspaper editor on defense spending or loss the job. Due to Armed services objections, Air Force and Navy Korb faced termination by Raytheon officials from the vice president position.
Issues
The issue between Korb and Raytheon is the competing assertions for free speech rights among private entities. Raytheon's headquarters summoned Korb, and the Washington post was under the heading of more defense money with his job in jeopardy. Nevertheless, Korb's information from Raytheon was to resign voluntarily to get a unique advisor role and remain on the payroll. The condition for Korb's post was not to give media interviews and obtain approval for all speeches in public. Raytheon reassigned him later as a commercial marketing consultant without permission to deal with the defense department and as an alternative to termination. The responsibility, status, benefits, and salaries for Korb to the new job were inferior from his previous position and filed a complaint to the Superior Court in December 1987.
Korb's complaint was on violation of public policy for the commonwealth with bad faith and wrongful termination. He alleged that Raytheon interfered with the United States’ laws secured by the constitution with intimidations and threats that he faced. On the ground that Korb's complaints did not raise a Federal question, the case was remand to the Superior Court from the Federal District Court in 1989 (Moberly, 1996). Korb received the appeal directly with its motion in the Massachusetts Supreme Court. He believed that his right to exercise freedom of speech guaranteed by the Massachusetts Declaration of the Commonwealth in Article XVI and the First Amendment were under dismissal by Raytheon.
Rule
Summary judgment for the case affirmed that Korb's situation did not fall within public policy when he speaks against the employer's interest that may protect his speech. The issue at hand was too broad to characterize in public policy, and Raytheon was not trying to cover up its wrongdoing by attempting to suppress Korb's speech (Barry, 2007). The company did not deprive Korb of contractual benefits in the attempt to discharge him under any allegations entitled to him. Korb spoke against the company's interest while being the spokesperson, and this was an acute concern. After the conference, public insight, regardless of Korb, believing to be acting privately rather than for the company, did advocate reducing spending for the United States defense.
The spokesperson of the company loses effectiveness with his speech. As an ineffective at-will employee, Korb lacks protection from the public policy because it does not prohibit the type of workers from employer discharge (Barry, 2007). The opposite position of the speech advocates a financial stake for the company. Therefore, Raytheon is within the legal right to terminate Korb's employment to protect their interest that a lobbyist wants to reduce. An organization pursuing ethical and lawful policies should not continue to pay ineffective employees because they decrease revenue and increase spending.
Challenges with Freedom of Speech
Korb worked for Raytheon as a spokesperson. The fact that freedom of speech is under protection by Article XVI of Massachusetts and the First Amendment by the constitution of the country Korb's case challenges this with his address. Both in an official and unofficial capacity, Korb's work was to advocate for the company interest as the spokesperson regardless of his belief that he was performing as a private individual. Korb deemed an ineffective lobbyist for the company in a public forum when he spoke against Raytheon's interests. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts in judgment summary for whistleblowers who are against the employer's interest affirms that Korb's issue was not within public policy. The case lacks a record of Raytheon's public scrutiny to suppress Korb's claims, and the employer did not attempt to deprive any benefits or fire the employee.
The First Amendment rights also challenge freedom of speech regarding how it affects corporations (Barry, 2007). The amendment understands freedom of speech by employees as not mandated to respect for private corporations by enforcing courts. Citizens also began to receive more rights in some state's constitutions, such as in Redgrave and Boston Symphony Orchestra. The case for Redgrave was under a claim that she could not exercise constitutional rights, and in canceling her contract, the defendant infringed free speech entitlement.
Challenges with Freedom of Information
Freedom of information should aim to generate in all aspects of implementing law reliable data in systematic and regular approaches. People should allow partial or full disclosure of data with the freedom of Information Act (World Bank, 2020). The liberation of information faces inadequate monitoring systems, outdated systems, delays, and poor record-keeping. Information law obligations face noncompliance access issues with most public institutions for proactive disclosure.
Challenges with Employment Law
The encounter of at-will provision employment is one of the main challenges with the law of occupation. Without any warning or reasonable cause, employers, through the law, can dismiss employees for any reason, especially at-will employees. The case without any reason Raytheon could fire Korb because he was underemployment as an at-will worker. The termination was through the interference of Korb's speech that shows the company's actions were legal, challenging employment law with freedom of speech.
Public Perception of Raytheon and the Influence with the Department Of Defense
The public perceives a decrease in Raytheon's defense spending through the company's spokesperson after publishing the newspaper and the press conference. Selling of defense equipment was the primary source of income for the company; hence, Raytheon did not promote a decrease in the military. The company would experience in its operation a significant loss as Korb opined how it should be, and defense spending would scale back. The public would portray Raytheon as a company undercutting its operations and not functioning with its main clients' interests in the military.
Fraud or Misrepresentation
As the representative of Raytheon, Korb can reveal that he was communicating as a nonprofit company member and not in his capacity. Additionally, in this case, Korb can be a person remarking public concern issues since he was a private citizen. The constitution offers public servants protection such as Korb case, and since he was off duty, it can protect his remarks that they were through the lunch period. In opposition, Raytheon's financial interest remarks Korb against company policy because he misrepresents the company stand. Korb went against Raytheon's wish that he was supposed to represent and therefore create financial harm.
Additional Court Cases
The case of an elected president, Sindermann, for the Texas Junior College Teachers Association, supports the analysis, which was against Perry. The school did not renew Sindermann's contract because of his insubordination claim and disagreements with the College Board (Standler, 2000). The plaintiff suing was in vain for the wrongful termination because he lacked reasonable expectations to continue employment. Pickering against the Board of Education 1968, Holodnak against Avco Corporation 1974, and Redgrave against Boson Symphony Orchestra 1987 are among other cases supporting the analysis with the termination of exercising freedom of speech. The school board of education did cite false statements from a teacher and fired the science teacher Pickering because of a written letter criticizing funds allotment to the local community.
The case of Korb and Raytheon conflicts with a financial interest that caused an employment position dismissal. The company Raytheon contends on voluntarily resignation from Krob while he asserts that there was firing. The case situation of an employee who spoke against the employer's interest emphasizes on not falling within any public policy that may offer protection. Fundamentally, the case extends a conflict between democracy participation right to all citizens and loyal employee's rights for private employers. Employees' rights face extreme limitations; hence having high value in legal and ethical ways for businesses to participate in democracy could contribute to the public good.
References
Barry, B. (2007). Speechless: The erosion of free expression in the American workplace . Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Moberly, M. D. (1996). Begging the Federal Question: Removal Jurisdiction in Wrongful Discharge Cases. Seattle UL Rev. , 20 , 81.
Standler, R. (2000). Freedom of Speech in USA for employees of private companies. http://www.rbs2.com/freespch.htm
Summers, C. W. (2000). Employment at will in the United States: The divine right of employers. U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. , 3 , 65.
World Bank. (2020). Freedom of Information Access: Key Challenges, Lessons Learned and Strategies for Effective Implementation. https://doi.org/10.1596/34155
