Korb v. Raytheon Corp.
574 N.E.2d 370, 410 Mass. 581 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private employer does not violate the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine by terminating an employee whose public speech directly conflicts with the employer's core financial interests and renders the employee ineffective in their designated role as a company spokesperson.
Facts:
- Raytheon Corporation, a defense contractor, hired Lawrence J. Korb as its vice president for Washington operations, a role that involved lobbying and acting as a spokesperson to government bodies.
- With Raytheon's permission, Korb joined the executive board of the Committee for National Security (CNS), a nonprofit organization.
- On February 25, 1986, Korb spoke at a CNS press conference, where he criticized increased defense spending and advocated for scaling back the U.S. Navy.
- The Washington Post reported on Korb's comments, identifying him as an employee of "arms maker Raytheon Co."
- Following the article, officials from the Navy, Air Force, and the Senate Armed Services Committee—key Raytheon clients and contacts—complained to Raytheon about Korb's statements.
- On March 12, 1986, Raytheon informed Korb he would be terminated from his position because his statements had angered their government contacts and compromised his effectiveness.
Procedural Posture:
- Lawrence J. Korb filed a complaint against Raytheon Corporation in Massachusetts Superior Court for wrongful termination and violation of the State Civil Rights Act.
- Raytheon removed the case to the U.S. District Court, which subsequently remanded it back to the Superior Court after Korb amended his complaint to remove federal claims.
- The Superior Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of Raytheon.
- Korb, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, on its own motion, transferred the case for its review before the Appeals Court could rule.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private employer wrongfully discharge an at-will employee in violation of the public policy favoring free speech when it terminates the employee for making public statements that contradict the employer's economic interests and undermine the employee's effectiveness in their role as a company spokesperson?
Opinions:
Majority - Abrams, J.
No. An employer does not wrongfully discharge an employee in violation of public policy when the employee, hired as a spokesperson, makes public statements contrary to the employer's financial interests that render them ineffective at their job. Korb was not merely a private citizen speaking out; he was Raytheon's designated advocate whose statements were perceived by the public and key clients as representing the company. By publicly criticizing defense spending, Korb directly undermined the financial interests of Raytheon, a defense contractor. This rendered him ineffective in his role as a spokesperson and lobbyist. The court reasoned there is no public policy that prohibits an employer from discharging an ineffective at-will employee. Similarly, the State Civil Rights Act claim fails because a business decision to fire an employee who has lost their utility is not considered 'threats, intimidation or coercion' interfering with a secured right; while Korb has a right to his opinions, Raytheon has no obligation to pay him to express views that harm the company.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the limits of the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine concerning employee speech. It establishes a critical distinction between the speech of a regular employee and that of an employee hired specifically to be a spokesperson. The ruling affirms that a private employer's business interests can outweigh an employee's free speech rights when that speech directly undermines the employee's ability to perform their job. This precedent narrows the scope of wrongful termination claims based on speech, particularly for high-level employees in advocacy or public-facing roles.
Unlock the full brief for Korb v. Raytheon Corp.