Korb v. Raytheon - Essay Example

Running Heading: ANALYSIS OF KORB V. RAYTHEON, 707 F. SUPP. 63 (D. MASS. 1989) Analysis of Korb v. Raytheon, 707 F.Supp. 63 (D.Mass. 1989) Facts of the Case Korb was a former Secretary of the Defense between 1981 and 1985, later he joined Raytheon Corporation, which supplied equipment to the army, navy and air forces of the US. For a short period Korb was appointed as the Vice-President, since he could strongly influence the Department of Defense and Congressmen whom he had worked with earlier. The President of Raytheon appointed Korb as the VP in Washington as he felt that Korb had a strong public image and his presence could politically and publically help Raytheon to develop itself (Standler, 2000). Korb also joined a nonprofit organization titled Committee for National Security (CNS) in December 1985 and this was the organization concerned with prevention of nuclear armament. One day Korb spoke at a press conference related to defense budgets; he was quoted in the dailies which stated that he was critical of high defense budgets and urged the government to spend less for warships and carriers. His statement was not taken well by the Department of Defense and many of the high-end defense officials complained to Raytheon about Korb's statements. Korb wished to clarify on the statements but in March 1986 his company relieved him of his post. He was given the choice of remaining in office as a special advisor, but at all future speeches he would have to obtain prior consent. Raytheon also made it clear that Korb would not work in coordination with the Defense Department anymore (“Find a Case”, 2011). Korb was never happy with the deal given by Raytheon, and, hence, in 1987 filed a case to Massachusetts state civil court for a wrongful termination. He cited both the Massachusetts state laws concerning civil rights and the First Amendment of the Constitution in support of his opposition. However, Raytheon wanted the case to be heard on a bigger platform and moved the case to the Federal District Court located in Boston. In order to ensure that he still could win the case, Korb changed his complaint and removed the references to the First Amendment. Since there was no federal involvement, the case was sent back to the Massachusetts state court (Standler, 2000). The Massachusetts court gave the judgment in favor of Raytheon, though Korb had the freedom of speech. Korb was in fact hired to work as an advocate and spokesperson of the company and if he brought the company in bad light, then he was ineffective, and the company was right to have fire an ineffective employee. Here Korb was not acting privately as it was his duty to bring about a good public image of Raytheon and by posing that the defense budgets had to be lowered, he was, in fact, tarnishing the name of the company. A company can pursue any legal and ethical cause as it was seen that Korb was harming the name of his company. Korb could be accused of being inefficient and publicly spoiling the name of his company. Korb, in general, had a right to freedom of speech but in this case his speech directly interfered with his role in the company, for which the court granted the case in favor of Raytheon (“Find a Case”, 2011). Challenges with freedom of speech The court agreed that any person, including Korb, had the right to deliver a speech on a matter of public concern, including nuclear spending. Korb was basically hired to be a spokesperson with Raytheon and if he spoke against Raytheon, it did not interfere with his freedom of speech but was in direct conflict with his role at Raytheon. Hence, Raytheon could dismiss him for being ineffective at his work and, thus, his dismissal could not be considered as a wrongful termination. In the McAuliffe v. Mayor City of New Redford 29 N.E. 517, 517-518 (1892) case an employee has the constitutional right to be involved into politics but no right to become a policeman. For individuals holding certain positions there may be certain rights suspended as they have important duties with regards to the position in the office. The First Amendment rights are there to restrict the government and not private corporations. When the US Constitution was created corporations did not exist and only about 100 years later did they come into existence. Here Korb was working and giving a speech at the expense of Raytheon and, hence, he could not demonstrate his inefficiency (Standler, 2000). Challenges with employment law There was the question whether Korb was actually speaking to the media during the lunch break and, hence, was not a spokesperson of Raytheon. However, there has to be taken into account that Korb was a well-known public person and even during his lunch-break or after working hours he was still considered to be a consultant at Raytheon. Korb was employed by the public agency and not by the government and, hence, his employment was not protected by the First Amendment as the government had the duty to protect the freedom of speech of the public and employees (“Commonwealth of Massachusetts”, 2011). It is questionable whether a private body like Raytheon which receives funding from the government should actually have terms and conditions functioning like a part of the government. In the Holodnak v. Avco Corp., 381F.Supp.191 (1974) case the private body Avco Corporation received significant contributions from the government and had violated the First Amendment in relation to Holodnak. Hence, they had to pay huge damages. However, in the case of Raytheon there was greater private involvement as several of the defense dealings were organized through competitive bidding from various private parties. The private parties that are candidates for receiving defense dealings according to law require having the freedom of speech and, hence, the case of Holodnak did not apply here (Standler, 2000). Another case involving alleged wrongful dismissal was the Novosel v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 721 F.2d 894, 896 (3dCir. 1983). Novosel claimed that he, the manager of Nationwide Insurance Company, was discharged as he refused to lobby and took a stance against the company. Here Novosel's work was found to be satisfactory and there was evidence that the discharge by the employer was done in bad faith (Standler, 2000). Challenges to right to information The right to information of all the citizens is a part of democracy. The public should be given an idea of the manner in which Defense budget money is being spent. However, in the Korb’s case, since a private party was involved and the approach chosen by Korb was not right, his actions were in direct conflict with the interests of the company and, hence, he could not speak against the company (“Commonwealth of Massachusetts”, 2011). Public perceptions of Raytheon and its influence with the Department of Defense There was no public policy that prohibited Raytheon from discharging Korb as the private corporations had the freedom to discharge ineffective employees. Article XVI of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights prevents violation of the public policy. The Court found that Korb characterized the public policy too broadly. Korb would have been excused if he had spoken on an issue that his employers had no interest in but he spoke on an issue that was critical to his employers and the company had employed him as a spokesperson. Following the press conference the view of the public was that spending for defense was high. Korb had a duty related to public speaking and, hence, he could not become a whistle-blower who worked against the interest of his employer. By discharging his services Raytheon is not denying Korb of any contractual assurances that were given to Korb. In the Frankel v. The Warwick Hotel, 1995 case the Pennsylvania court found that the public interests were not violated when an employee refused to leave due to his wife's religion. Public concern did not include preservation of the family (Willey, 2009). Fraud or misrepresentation on either side of the case There was no fraud or misrepresentation alleged on both sides and the comments made by Korb were immaterial to this case, though it had been found that the defense spending was high. There was a possibility of having all private parties that took up defense contracts to have government regulations for their employees and provide the employees the right to freedom of speech. However, the Congress has not enacted such legislation; instead the government considered manufacturing military equipment rather than buying the same from contractors. The ideology is that since it would be immoral for the state to sell alcohol and do business, the government has appointed private bodies to do the same, and instead the government would make money through excise and taxes. The ethics of selling defense equipment to the military and using public money to fund the same seems to be immoral. Hence, lots of moral and ethical issues were involved in this case, though it would be difficult to determine the presence of fraud or misrepresentation (Willey, 2009). Conclusion The case goes against Korb as a former spokesperson of the Raytheon Corporation that supplied defense equipment to the Department of Defense; his right to freedom of speech could not be exercised (as it was a private corporation). Korb could be discharged from his services due to inefficiency. There seem to be injustice as Korb was bringing to light the misuse of taxpayer’s money. In general, the right to freedom of speech should be exercised even for employees of private corporations and, hence, the Congress should include the contractors of the defense under the First Amendment Clause. Such contractors have to ensure imposition of government regulations at their workplace, including the right to freedom of speech of the employees. The taxpayers’ money would be better utilized in this way. References Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2012). Lawrence J. Korb vs. Raytheon Corporation. Retrieved from http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/410/410mass581.html Find a Case (2011). Korb Vs. Raytheon. Retrieved from http://ma.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19890215_0000017.DMA.htm/qx Standler, B. S. (2000). Freedom of speech in USA for employees of private companies. Retrieved from http://www.rbs2.com/freespch.htm Willey, L. (2009). The public policy exception to employment at will: Balancing employer's right and the public interest. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1TOS/is_1_12/ai_n39298699/pg_9/ Read More