Shelia A. Lucas
Dr. Angela Parham
Constitutional and Administrative Law
March 1, 2012
Lawrence J. Korb served with the United States Department of Defense as the assistant secretary of defense for manpower, installations, and logistics between the years of 1981 to 1985. After his government employment ended, Korb was hired as vice president in charge of Washington relations by a company named Raytheon. Raytheon is a large Corporation that builds equipment for the U.S. Military.
In December of 1985, Korb joined the executive board of the Committee for National Security, which is a non-profit organization dedicated to informing the public about any issue dealing ...view middle of the document...
Korb was hired to be Raytheon’s spokesperson and he blatantly spoke against the corporation. It did not matter whether Korb agreed or disagreed with any of Raytheon’s policies or beliefs, he was in a position that gave him no right to speak his own personal opinion. The court also ruled that Raytheon was in no way trying to suppress Korb’s freedom of speech, nor is there in reason to believe that Raytheon discharged Korb in an attempt to deny him of a contractual benefit to which he was otherwise allowed. So therefore his lawsuit was denied.
Novosel v. Nationwide Insurance Company was argued in front of the United State Court of Appeals on September 14, 1983 and decided October 26, 1983. There was a rehearing and the rehearing was denied November 28, 1983. Novosel was employed with Nationwide Insurance Company from December 1966 until November 1981. At the time of his termination from the company, he was a district claims manager, a candidate for division claims manager and had a blemish free record. In October 1981, Nationwide circulated a memorandum through their offices soliciting participation of all their employees in an effort to lobby the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. This Committee was actively supporting the passage of House Bill 1285 that was currently before the state legislature. Novosel chose not to participate in the lobbying effort and was discharged from the company for doing so and for privately stating his opposition to the company’s political stand. Novosel sought damages, reinstatement and declaratory relief. Novosel felt there was a breach of contract by the company.
“Novosel’s tort allegations raise two separate issues: first, whether a wrongful discharge claims is cognizable under Pennsylvania law; second, if such a claim can go forward under state law, by what standard is a court to determine whether the facts set forth in the complaint present a sufficient basis for a successful tort action.” Even though Nationwide did not file an answer to the complaint, they did present a motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion on January 14, 1983. This case was governed by the Pennsylvania common law that confined it. “The issues were to determine whether the tort and contract claims proffered by the plaintiff state a sufficient cause of action under applicable Pennsylvania State law to survive a motion to dismiss.”
Michael Holodnak, who had worked at AVCO plant for nine years, brought action against AVCO Corporation and Local 1010 of the United Auto Workers of America due to his dismissal on May 28, 1969 for publishing an article in a biweekly newsletter published by the American Independent Movement. Holodnak felt as if his discharge violated his First Amendment rights and his contractual rights under the collective bargaining agreement. He felt that he should be fully reinstated and fully compensated for losses suffered. The First Amendment is protection against governmental...