Constitutional Rights

1. Running Head: Constitutional Rights
1
Constitutional Rights
Carma Hooper
Instructor Dr. Angela Smith
PAD 525 Constitutional and Administrative Law
June 05, 2014

2. Running Head: Constitutional Rights
2
Analyze and evaluate each case independently by providing the following (about two
paragraphs per case):
Korb v. Raytheon
Korb was the Vice President at a large corporation called Raytheon which built
equipment for the military. He was granted permission to join the executive board of Committee
for National Security-CNS. This company (National Security-CNS) was a nonprofit organization
which informed the public of any issues that were directly related to national security and the
prevention of nuclear war. Mr. Korb gave a press conference for CNS in which his remarks were
frowned upon and angered the military officials. He gave the press conference during his lunch
hour and felt because it was during lunch hour that he would not be associated with Raytheon.
After the remarks Korb made at the press conference, Raytheon promptly terminated Korb’s
employment as a lobbyist and as Vice President for Washington operations of Raytheon
Corporation. The termination came because he spoke to the media publicly and expressed his
views, which was conflicting with the corporations’ interest. Korb was hired to be the company
spokesperson but he spoke against the interest of the corporation. Although he was given
permission by his company Raytheon he still had to uphold certain values in which the
corporation expected. Mr. Korb feelings were that he wouldn’t be associated with Raytheon but
the reporters who were present at the conference certainly reported the day after the conference
on the event. One of the reporters was “The Washington Post” newspaper whose article
described Korb as critical of increased defense spending. Because of the article, a couple of
Navy officials and a staff member from the Senate Armed Services Committee called Raytheon
and expressed that they were unhappy about the remarks that Korb’s made at the press
conference. After Raytheon spoke with Korb’s he wrote a letter to Washington Post as an effort
to clarify his statements. Even after the letter the court determined that Raytheon wasn’t as

3. Running Head: Constitutional Rights
3
valuable and had lost his effectiveness as a public spokesperson. After Korb was dismissed from
Raytheon he sued the company in Massachusetts state court because he felt he was wrongfully
terminated. “Raytheon removed the case to Federal District Court and Korb counteracted by
amending his complaint to delete all references to the United States Constitution”(Standler,
2000). In the end Korb’s appeal was denied and the judgment was in Raytheon’s favor denying
the claims for wrongful termination and the violation of State Civil Rights Act.
Garcetti v. Ceballos
The second case is in regards to Richard Ceballo’s who was employed as a deputy district
attorney since 1989 for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Ceballos was asked
by defense counsel in a case handled by his office to review the accuracy of an affidavit in
support of a crucial search warrant in that attorney’s case. Ceballos agreed to investigate, and
agreed with the defense attorney that there were misrepresentations in the affidavit, subsequently
forwarding his findings to his superiors in the form of a memorandum that recommended
dismissal of the case. His superiors chose to proceed with the prosecution. Ceballos was called as
a witness at that trial, and recounted the substance of his findings, “the judge nevertheless denied
the motion and upheld the warrant” (Szypsak, 2011). Thereafter, Ceballos claims he was the
victim of retaliation by the Los Angeles district attorney’s office, as he was transferred,
reassigned, and denied a promotion. He filed a 1983 action in federal court claiming that his
superiors, principally Gil Garcetti who was in charge of his office, had violated his First
Amendment rights by retaliating against him based on the contents of his memo. The district
court judge granted summary judgment to Garcetti, and on appeal the Ninth Circuit reversed,
concluding that Ceballos memo was of public interest and entitled to First Amendment
protections. “The court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant

4. Running Head: Constitutional Rights
4
to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First
Amendment protection” (Szypsak, 2011).
Analyze and explain the challenges with freedom of speech
“Freedom of speech definition the right to speak without censorship or restraint by the
government and is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution” (Dictionary.com,
2014). The challenges with freedom of speech is when people bring their First Amendment
challenges into the court system and decisions are made, principles get established which help to
define such boundaries as free speech for everyone. Most Americans do believe that there should
be some limits which guide free speech and free expression, however there is a lot of
disagreement about what is considered to be constitutional speech and what limits should be
made. Because of this, freedom of speech ends up being one of the most contested rights.
Analyze and explain any challenges with freedom of information
Some challenges to freedom of information are bad record keeping and management
systems not to mention problems with access and enforcement. People often have problems
when it come to facing present request such as they are required to formally present such request.
Other issues are significant delays and extremely high fees in regards to disputing freedom of
information request responses. “The principle of maximum disclosure dictates that individuals
grant access to all information held by public bodies, except for very limited and clearly
specified categories, subject to harm and public interest testing” (World Press Freedom Day).
Analyze and explain any challenges with employment law
The challenges of employment laws are quite complex because there are many pitfalls for
an employer. In fact all employers at some point and time will face employment and labor issues.

5. Running Head: Constitutional Rights
5
Employment litigation comes into play and is often very contentious because employers take
allegations of harassment or discrimination personally. Employers have a hard time separating
litigation from business. Employment law is known as the employment at will concept meaning
that employers can end an employee’s employment at any time without just cause as long as the
reason is not discriminatory or illegal.
Analyze and discuss the public perceptions of Raytheon and its influence with the
Department of Defense.
The Raytheon Company is the largest company in Lexington, Massachusetts and is a
major defense contractor who manufactures mass weapons of destruction for the military not to
mention other military products. Raytheon is an American arms industrial corporation and the
world’s largest producer of guided missiles. Raytheon makes a lot of its revenue by obtaining
defense contracts through the government. Because of the long history of collaboration with the
U.S. Department of Defense, Raytheon shares a very close relationship with the U.S.
government, getting huge grants from the National Science Foundation and persuading the
government through heavy lobbying.
Analyze and discuss any fraud or misrepresentation on either side of the case
I do not believe that there was any fraud in the case of Korb v. Raytheon however I feel
that there was a form of misrepresentation in that Korb misrepresented the company. Yes, he was
on his lunch hour however he was still a paid employee who was hired by Raytheon to be a
spokesperson for their company. He went outside of the moral boundaries that Raytheon had set
and began to lobby against the company. This ultimately caused his dismissal which was at the
discretion of the company. The company had the right to dismiss any employer who was not
considered a valuable asset anymore. Raytheon did not misrepresent Korb in that they had the

6. Running Head: Constitutional Rights
6
right to dismiss Korb when he caused the company confrontation. He was no longer valuable in
fact he was a hindrance.
Provide at least four (4) additional court cases that support your analysis.
In the case of Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), Pickering was a high school
science teacher in Illinois who wrote a letter to the editor of a local community newspaper,
criticizing the board of education’s allocation of funds between academics and athletics. The
school board terminated the teacher, stating that the letter contained false statements that
infringed upon the integrity of the school system. The teacher then sued the school claiming that
the board violated his First Amendment rights by terminating him after he exercised his right to
freedom of speech.
The next case is Perry v. Sindermann (1978), where Robert Sindermann was a professor
at Odessa Junior College in Texas for four years, working under one-year contracts. After his
election as president of the Texas Junior College Teachers Association, he had several public
disagreements with the Odessa Junior College Board of Regents. In May 1969, after the
expiration of his teaching contract, Sindermann was not offered a new contract and terminated
by the college's Board of Regents. While the Board of Regents did issue a press release accusing
him of insubordination, they did not provide official reasons for his termination or the option of a
hearing for him to challenge his termination. Sindermann filed suit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas. He alleged that his termination was due to his
disagreements with the Board of Regents, a violation of his First Amendment right to free
speech, and that the lack of a hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.
The District Court ruled for the Board of Regents without a full trial. “He appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that his termination would have been

7. Running Head: Constitutional Rights
7
unconstitutional if it was based on his exercise of free speech or if he had a reasonable
expectation of continued employment” (Standler, 2000). The Fifth Circuit remanded the case to
the District Court.
The third case is Novosel v. Nationwide Insurance Company (1983). John Novosel was
an employee of Nationwide from 1966 to 1981, in which time a memorandum was passed
around lobbying employees sign coupons on bearing insignia of the Pennsylvania Committee for
No Fault Reform. This Committee was actively supporting the passage of House Bill 1285, the
"No-Fault Reform Act," then before the state legislature. The allegations of the complaint charge
that the sole reason for Novosel's discharge was his refusal to participate in the lobbying effort
and his privately stated opposition to the company's political stand. “The court found that the
free speech provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the United States Constitution’s First
Amendment did protect Novosel’s refusal under the employee at will act” (Employee at Will).
The fourth and final case is Rankin v. McPherson (1987) where a former clerical
employee by the name of Ardith McPherson worked in the county constable’s office where she
later brought suit against constable and county, alleging that she was denied both her First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights when she was fired by constable for political remarks that were
made to co-workers during private conversations. The conversation was based on an attempted
assassination on the President in which case McPherson proceeded to say she hoped they shot
him the next time. After bring suit against constable and the county, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas entered summary judgment in favor of constable and the
county. After remand, the court entered judgment for constable and county and deputy appealed.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, reversed, remanded, and certiorari was then granted.
“The Supreme Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President’s life would not be protected

8. Running Head: Constitutional Rights
8
speech, a comment made on the matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee
with no policy making functions and no public interaction, would be protected (Rankin v.
McPherson, 2014).

9. Running Head: Constitutional Rights
9
References
Dictionary.com. (2014). Dictionary.com. Retrieved June 07, 2014, from Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freedom+of+speech
Employment at Will. (n.d.). Retrieved June 08, 2014, from Legal Dictionary: http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Employment+at+Will
Rankin v. McPherson. Oyez project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 07 June 2014.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_2068
Standler, R. (2000). Freedom of Speech in USA for Employees of Private Companies. Retrieved
from http://www.rbs2.com/afree2.htm#anchor222333
Szypsak (2011). Understanding Law for Public Administration. Boston Jones & Bartlett
World Press Freedom Day. (n.d.). Freedom of information: Current status , challenges and
implications for news media. Retrieved June 8, 2014, from World Press Freedom Day:
http://www.un.org/en/events/pressfreedomday/2010/freedom.shtml