Paper Sample on Capstone Corp Dismissal: Paula's Right to Free Speech

Conferring to this particular scenario, Paula is devoid of any lawful provisions to commence a complaint against either the Capstone Corporation or Freddy. The primary rationale for this is that she happens to have been dismissed based on publicizing reproachful remarks on social media regarding the management and the Capstone Corporation. However, it is critical to articulate that all employees possess the right to free speech based on the First Amendment (Campbell, 2017). Besides, it is also fundamental to note that federal and state regulation excludes bosses from dismissing employees devoid of a substantial rationale. Essentially, what ought to be considered in this particular scenario is the work agreement formulated between Paula and the Capstone corporation. In essence, this is because, in every employment undertaking, there is an endowment for At-Will employment (Arnow-Richman, 2016). Precisely, this concept grants employers the privilege to dismiss their employees at any given time, unless prohibited.

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

Save 25%

Based on this context, Paula is devoid of any possibility of winning litigation against the Capstone Corporation. Precisely, this is due to her deed of posting pained remarks to the general public. Moreover, she lacks the appropriate, permissible deference and is not protected as per the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regulations. Furthermore, on the basis that Paula utilized the company email for personal communication, this can be considered a violation of the company's policies. Based on the fact that Paula is an employee of the company, she ought to have the compulsion towards the company’s policies. In the event there is some level of violation of those policies, Capstone Corporation has the mandate to terminate her working contract.

Regarding purchasing the car, Paula agreed to purchase a vehicle from one of her neighbors, known as Freddy. Precisely, Freddy decided to vend it for the price of $1000, and consequently, Paula agreed to deliver the money the subsequent day. However, Paula realized that Freddy had already ended the vehicle to another individual on the next day. Based on this occurrence, it is undoubtedly conspicuous that Freddy and Paula had a verbal contract concerning the car purchase deal. Apparently, the law articulates that oral contracts can be enforced appropriately if there is legitimate witness proof or any other written documentation about that specific agreement. Nevertheless, as per the Union Commercial Code 2-201, there is the stipulation that any agreement for commodities worth above $500 ought to be implemented in a written format (Gabriel, 2018). Notably, it is evident that Paula did not adhere to this regulation; hence she has no lawful provisions to commence a lawsuit against Freddy.

Concerning the right to privacy, Paula is deprived of that particular right in the utilization of the Capstone Corporation’s email system. Specifically, the right to privacy can be defined as the concept that guarantees to safeguard an individual's personal information from the general public examination (Warren & Brandeis, 2019). Apparently, it is often considered to be a very imperative and essential human right. Besides, it is enunciated in the majority of the global and local human rights implements. An estimated 130 nations enshrine constitutional declarations regarding the fortification of privacy. Given Paula's context, her right to privacy does not arise in the utilization of the company's emailing system, for she is only allowed to convey messages solely concerning the company. The company policies elucidate properly that personal information communication through Capstone Corporation's email system is direly prohibited.

As per the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), there is an explicit provision of instructions concerning employees' 'Protected Concerted Activity.' Fundamentally, this means explicitly that an employee possesses the right to present their complaints on social media platforms regarding their specific working environs, aggravation, or any form of discrimination. In addition to this, there is also the concept of free speech. Free speech is a principle that backs people's freedom or a particular society to express their diverse opinions and notions devoid of the fear of reprisal, suppression, or legal sanctions. However, as mentioned earlier, in the event a particular company endorses the provision of At-will employment, employers are granted the mandate to dismiss the employees who fail to adhere to the guidelines established by the company. Specifically, this is considered a violation of the signed working agreement; hence there is an override of free speech. Precisely, it happens to be the case in Paula's scenario. Despite her right to free speech, she went against Capstone Corporation's policies hence her dismissal.

It is undoubtedly accurate to articulate that Paula and Freddy have a contract regarding the car's sale. However, it is also in order to state that the agreement can be deemed as being voidable based on the rationale that Paula has not committed any payments for the vehicle yet. Besides, the contract is alive to the various elements that define a contract. Some of those elements can be affiliated to the facts in the scenario given as follows:

Offer - An offer can be defined as an assurance to act, and in several circumstances, to abstain from acting in interchange for established terms (Peel & Treitel, 2007). In this scenario, Paula made an offer to purchase Freddy's Mustang

Acceptance – It is a form of acknowledging the offer made. Freddy recognized the offer made by Paula.

Consideration - Precisely, this happens to be the worth brought by each party to a contract. In this scenario, the consideration is Freddy's Mustang and Paula's promise of making the payment the subsequent day.

Mutuality of obligation - Basically, this is the guarantee that both parties are similarly bound.

Competency and capacity - Both parties in a contract ought to be legally proficient and have the aptitude to implement its terms. In this scenario, Paula has the capability of purchasing the car, and Freddy has that of vend his Mustang.

References

Arnow-Richman, R. (2016). Modifying At-Will Employment Contracts. BCL Rev., 57, 427. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/bclr57&section=13

Campbell, J. (2017). Natural Rights and the First Amendment. Yale LJ, 127, 246. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ylr127&section=9

Gabriel, H. (2018). Uniform Commercial Code Article Two Revisions: The View Of The Trenches. Barry Law Review, 23(2), 4. https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=barrylrev

Peel, E., & Treitel, G. H. (2007). The law of contract (pp. 1-2). London: Sweet & Maxwell. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/641b/02fa606215f549230899baa8c00e8d88177d.pdfWarren, S., & Brandeis, L. (2019). The right to privacy. Litres.