Paper Example on Korb v. Raytheon: Competing Claims of Free Speech in Federal Court

Introduction

Korb versus Raytheon Corporation is a case involving Laurence Korb who is Pennsylvania citizen and the Raytheon's corporation, based in Massachusetts. The issue at hand is a competing claim between the private actors for freedom of speech. In this case, the plaintiff is an executive to the Raytheon Company, and on the other hand, the defendant is the quondam employer. The question is whether the case should be managed in the federal court since it is an expansion on the state laws of Massachusetts rather than a national issue. If the argument presented presents a central question whose jurisdiction is under the federal court under the act 28 U.S.C 1141(b), then the plaintiff's case is granted.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The rule given follows the grounds that the case is more of a state issue than a federal question and thus the petitions are not granted. This is because, according to the rule, the plaintiff's theory of private interference with rights of speech is not on the construction of the federal law. A Massachusetts's rights may give this issue a broad scope based on their rights but do not necessarily raise a state question.

The first case that supported this case was the Christianson versus Colt Ind. Operating Corp. This was a case where Christianson filed a lawsuit against Colt in that it monopolized the market in M-16 parts and successfully organized a boycott of Christianson (Christianson v. Colt Ind. Operating Corp). The issue was on the withholding of information on specifications and tolerance for interchangeability, which was termed secretive information.

The rue for this case followed the granting of Christianson's a motion, giving judgments on both counts of the complaint. This supported the finding that Colt Company did not have protectable trade secrets. The patents that were presented were, therefore, invalid to the court and thus the judgment.

The second case is the Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals versus Thompson et al. The issue was on the incorporation of state laws in the federal standards of the country. The evidence from the respondents was against a corporation that manufactures benediction, which caused deformities to babies when the mother was injected (Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson). This was a violation of the federal food drug and cosmetics act.

The district court granted the petitioner's motion to dismiss on forum inconvenience grounds. This was because the case was from a complaint arising the federal law, undercount four and therefore not relevant. The court of appeal granted certiorari and affirmed it, on the grounds that individuals are injured and thus need to be given private rights.

The third case that supported this case was the Bally versus North-eastern university case. The case involved Bally, a student at Northeastern University who was an athlete. He refused to sign an NCAA's drug testing for athletes and therefore, denied a chance I he schools due to the denial for signing the agreement (Hennessy, 2019). His claim was that the requirement of the testing violated his civil rights under the G.L.c 12, 11H and 11I and also his rights to privacy.

The rule in the case followed the granting of summary judgment to Bally on two accounts. The first account was that the testing program violated civil rights and privacy rights. The University was also granted summary judgment in that, and it did to violate any contractual duties owed to Bally.

The last case is the T.B Harms Company versus Eliscu. This was on the copyright of art that was being renewed. Eliscu gave the rights of the renewed copyright to Ross Jungnvekel instead of o Harms. Initially, the interest in the renewed copyright was half hared. However, Elsicu, in his claim that he brought before the court, claimed to have one-third of the interest on the renewed copyright and for an accounting.

The rule for the case was a dismissal of both complaints. This is because; the claim was not based on any act or threat of copyright infringement (T.B. Harms Company v. Eliscu, 2019). The copyright act would only follow the violation of the copyright. For this case, it was on the sharing of interest, and not a forfeit of a grant on the sense to use the copyright or the patent.

The freedom of speech provides that everyone has the right to express themselves without any undue restraint by anyone. In as much as this freedom is granted to everyone, the rules and regulations around it will allow the emphasis that they are given at their state level. It may be a significant matter in one country and not the main issue in another country. This makes it difficult even when dealing with it at the federal level since it varies according to the state. Therefore, the major challenge with freedom of speech is that it cannot raise a central question in the jurisdiction of such cases and thus becomes difficult to deal with.

The freedom of information, on the other hand, involves the rights that one has to be informed of what is going on and get full detailed information. One of the significant challenges is that some info is restricted to particular people and not for everyone. In as much as the individual has the right to get the data, it may be of harm to the person, and therefore, it would be better to keep off such information.

The third is on employment law, which provides that everyone has the right to be employed irrespective of factors like state of origin, race, or any discriminatory grounds. One of the significant challenges facing this right is on the mismatch of the job description of what employers want and what individuals have. Therefore, it becomes difficult sometimes to employ people who most probably may not of many benefits to the organization. For this case, for instance, Raytheon Corporation allegedly wrongfully terminated the employment of Mr. Korb because he exercised his freedom of speech.

The public perception of the Raytheon Corporation is that Korb, the vice president of Raytheon, should not have openly supported in the alternative defense budget. The defense department was also displeased with the expressions of Mr. Korb to support the alternative defense budget. It is likely that both the defense department and the congressional figures were against it, feeling that he had no part in it. For the defense department, this is an ex-official of the department and could not thus speak on such grounds.

The Raytheon company's response to the complaint from the defense department and the congressional fissures was not however right. The corporation terminates the employment of Korb and later silently would want him to work in demotion on an assignment in Philadelphia. There is a procedure that follows the termination of employment and not just necessarily a response to complaining by particular people or groups of people. Mr. Korb is thus right to bring the case of freedom of speech.

However, basing the facts that this is a state case, it should not be resented before the federal court - the rules and regulations governing state issue very according to the state constitution. What may not be an emphasis in one state may not be the case in another country. Therefore, this case, under the claims on freedom of speech, should have had a strong base on the state level, in this case, Massachusetts.

The appearance of fraud, in this case, maybe an insinuation from what actually occurred. Often, fraud occurs when the rights of one person are expensed at the interest of other people. The employment of Mr. Korb is terminated due to complain by what the case terms as congressional figures and the defense department.

Mr. Korb had worked with the defense department previously and other security agencies before joining the Raytheon Corporation (Korb v. Raytheon Co., 707 F. Supp. 63 (D. Mass. 1989), 2019). Apparently, he must have had information about these departments which in any case would affect key congressional figures. His expression on the media concerning the defense budget seemed not to be a welcome by these two groups. Most probably, the budget was not favorable it these congressional figures and the defense department.

The support of Mr. Korb of the issue publicly is thus a threat to then, considering the influence he has due to his previous positions. As a reiteration, the two groups present complains to Raytheon corporation which then terminates the employment of Korb and gives him an indirect demotion in the same of an assignment in Philadelphia. This was a fraud since the employment rights of Korb are terminated in the interest of the defense department and the congressional figures.

On misrepresentation, Korb comments on the budget of the defense department forgetting he is an executive in the Raytheon Corporation and thus representing the company. The fact that he previously worked with the defense department and the CNS security service does not give him the mandate to interfere with their activities, least provides support to their budget. Being an executive at the Raytheon Company, he should realize that anything he does in public has an impact on the reputation of the corporation. In this issue, therefore, he misrepresented the company.

References

Christianson v. Colt Ind. Operating Corp., 870 F.2d 1292 (7th Cor. 1989). United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circu

Hennessey, E. (2019). Bally v. Northeastern University, 532 N.E.2d 49 (Mass. 1989). Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Korb v. Raytheon Co., 707 F. Supp. 63 (D. Mass. 1989), 707 F. Supp. 63 Civ. A. No. 87-2992-Wd Memorandum and Order for Remand Woodlock, District Judge. (United States District Court, D., Massachusetts. 2019).

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 106 S. Ct. 3229, 92 L. Ed. 2d 650, (1986).

T.B. Harms Company v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1964) FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge: (United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit 2019).