Assignment 3: Constitutional Rights

Assignment 3: Constitutional Rights

Assignment 3: Constitutional Rights Research, review and analyze Korb v. Raytheon, 707 F.Supp. 63 (D.Mass. 1989). Based on your research and the case, write a 5-6 page paper in which you: 1. Analyze and evaluate each case independently by providing the following (about two paragraphs per case): 1. Facts of the case 2. Issues

WRITE THIS ESSAY FOR ME

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper.

Get Help Now!

3. Rule 1. Analyze and explain the challenges with freedom of speech. 2. Analyze and explain any challenges with freedom of information. 3. Analyze and explain any challenges with employment law.

4. Analyze and discuss the public perceptions of Raytheon and its influence with the Department of Defense. 5. Analyze and discuss any fraud or misrepresentation on either side of the case. 6. Provide at least four (4) additional court cases that support your analysis.

Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic/organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric found here .

Background image of page 1
Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.
View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Assignment 3: Constitutional Rights PAD 525 Korb v. Raytheon Korb the Vice President at Raytheon, a large corporation that build equipment for the military, was given permission to join by his employer to join 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. Remarks made by Korb at a CNS press conference angered military officials.

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 (Standler, 2000). 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, the court determined that Korb had lost his effectiveness as a 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 did not alter the rule (Standler, 2000). Garcetti v. Ceballos Richard Ceballos had been employed since 1989 as a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office.

After the defense attorney in a pending criminal case contacted Ceballos about his motion to challenge a critical search warrant based on inaccuracies in the supporting affidavit, Ceballos conducted his own investigation and determined that the affidavit contained serious misrepresentations. Ceballos then communicat………………………