Two issues:
- At-will private sector employment
- Speech - usually falls into a code of ethics policy
-------
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes freedom of speech in the USA. There are several major limitations on this freedom:
- Only the government is prohibited from restricting speech. Private corporations are free to censor speech of their employees.
- Freedom of speech is not absolute, even when government regulation or law is concerned. For example, freedom of speech does not give one the right to commit perjury. Since 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court has retreated from protecting freedom of speech even for government employees
Fundamentally, an at-will employee in the USA can be terminated at any time, and for any reason – or no reason at all – and the courts will not intervene to protect the ex-employee from allegedly unfair treatment by the employer. Courts have repeatedly recognized that "any reason" includes a "morally wrong" or "morally reprehensible" reason. .
The combination of:
- no legal protection for freedom of speech of employees of for-profit and non-profit corporations and other non-governmental employers, and
- the freedom of employers to terminate employment at any time, for any reason
means that employees in private industry have no legal rights to freedom of speech.
Korb case
an intriguing case involving
Raytheon, a large corporation that builds equipment for the U.S. military, and, Korb, who Raytheon briefly employed as the vice-president of its Washington, DC office. Korb was a former assistant secretary of defense (1981-85), so he had a high profile among Congressmen and people in the Department of Defense, with whom he routinely worked on Raytheon's behalf. The Massachusetts Supreme Court summarized the facts of this case:
In December, 1985, with Raytheon's permission, Korb joined the executive board of the Committee for National Security (CNS), a nonprofit organization dedicated to informing the public about issues of national security and the prevention of nuclear war. On February 25, 1986, CNS held a press conference in a Senate office building during Korb's normal lunch hour in connection with the release of its annual alternative defense budget. Korb spoke at the press conference. An article in the Washington Post newspaper the day after the press conference reported on the event. The article described Korb as a former assistant secretary of defense "[n]ow a
private citizen working for arms maker Raytheon Co." It stated that at the press conference, Korb was critical of increased defense spending and urged a scaling back of the 600 ship, fifteen carrier group Navy supported by the Secretary of the Navy.
As a result of the article, two Navy officials and a staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee telephoned Raytheon officials to express their disapproval of Korb's reported remarks. Air Force officials also complained to Raytheon. Korb was immediately summoned to Raytheon's headquarters in Lexington, Massachusetts, and informed that his job was in jeopardy. Korb agreed to write a letter to the editor of the Washington Post clarifying his statements. The Washington Post published the letter on March 4, 1986, under the heading, "We Need More Money for Defense."
Nevertheless, on March 12, 1986, Raytheon officials told Korb that he would be terminated from his position as vice president for Washington operations effective March 31 because of the Navy, Air Force, and Armed Services Committee objections.
Korb v. Raytheon, 574 N.E.2d 370, 371 (Mass. 1991).
As a direct result of Korb's statements, Raytheon promptly terminated Korb's employment as a lobbyist in Washington, DC. Korb sued Raytheon in a Massachusetts state court for wrongful termination, citing both the Massachusetts state civil rights statute and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Raytheon removed the case to Federal District Court in Boston. Korb then amended his complaint to delete all references to the U.S. Constitution. The Federal District Court sent the case back to the Massachusetts state court, because there was no federal question.
Korb v. Raytheon, 707 F.Supp. 63 (D.Mass. 1989). The
Massachusetts state court granted Raytheon's motion for summary judgment. Korb appealed and the Massachusetts Supreme Court, on its own motion, heard the appeal directly.
Korb, 574 N.E.2d at 371-372.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment:
Korb characterizes the public policy at issue too broadly. His situation is not that of an employee who is fired for speaking out on issues in which his employer has no interest, financial or otherwise. To the contrary, Korb was hired to be the corporation's
spokesperson, and he spoke against the interests of the corporation. The topic was one of acute concern to Raytheon. Regardless of whether Korb believed himself to be acting privately rather than as a Raytheon employee, and regardless of what Korb actually said, the public perception after the press conference was that a Raytheon lobbyist advocated a reduction in defense spending. Raytheon had a financial stake in not advocating that position. Therefore, it determined that Korb had lost his
effectiveness as its spokesperson. There is no public policy prohibiting an employer from discharging an
ineffective at-will employee. The fact that Korb's job duties included public speaking does not alter this rule.3
3 We emphasize that Korb's situation does not fall within any
public policy that may protect the speech of a whistleblower who speaks against his or her employer's interest. [citations omitted] Raytheon is not
attempting to suppress Korb's speech in order to cover up its own wrongdoing. Nor is there any allegation that Raytheon is discharging Korb in an attempt to deprive him of a contractual benefit to which he is otherwise entitled. [citations omitted]
------
How bout now? I'll try to pass along any questions to my sister who is a civil court judge.
0-2
They are discussing the same situation.
