The public and the staff of the nation’s oldest newspaper of continuous circulation might be interested to know that The Courant’s legal position is that it was has the right to fire a columnist if he or she is too tough on its advertisers or it they are too critical of a University of Connecticut basketball coach.
In oral arguments this week before Hartford Superior Court Judge Marshall Berger, Attorney Victoria Chavey said the newspaper has an absolute right to publish or not publish anything it wants to and has the legal right to tell reporters and columnists how cover an issue. And since Connecticut is an at will employee state, it means that it can fire a reporter or a columnist for a good reason, a bad reason or for no reason.
And she said reporters and columnists cannot count on the Courant’s published mission statement to save their jobs. They can be fired for following the mission statement, which she said is only “aspirational.”
The arguments were in response to The Courant’s motion to strike, asking Judge Berger to throw out my wrongful discharge suit because it said I had no legal rights in this case.
While, my attorney, Joseph Garrison agreed that newspapers had the right to edit my columns or even not publish them, he insisted that by giving me the assignment to protect the public as a consumer advocate, The Courant had given me free speech rights and could not fire me for doing what I was required to do.
And, Garrison said, the mission statement has additional protection in my case because the management had given me oral guarantees that I would be protected in case of complaints from advertisers.
Judge Berger is expected to rule in a couple of months.
The Courant fired me effective Aug. 14 after refusing to publish my column on state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s announcement of an investigation into Sleepy’s, one of The Courant’s largest advertisers.
The Courant has denied firing me, claiming that it simply eliminated my position.
Lawyers for The Courant deposed me for two days. We are now awaiting documents we have requested in discovery from The Courant and will then begin deposing its managers.
Interesting stuff and sad that the Courant and I think other news outlets have fallen so low in the face of the internet, money problems, etc.
That said, the lawsuit is a loser. Mr. Gombossy as his role as a consumer “watchdog” is not a whistleblower and doesn’t have any extraordinary freedom of speech powers. He was an employee of the Tribune and it’s their sandbox pure and simple.
The “mission statement” is not a contract. As noted, CT is an at will employment state. Whether he was fired or not, the basis of his suit is NA.
Continued good luck with your blog….
Thanks for your note and support. I believe that not only will we prevail on the motion to strike motion, but I also believe we will win at trial. This is not a whistle blower case, its a first amendment case where The Courant made promises to me and to the public which were not kept. Under Ct laws I believe we have a good chance to prevail.
George
Your headline to your story on this matter [“Courant tries to avoid trial”] doesn’t tell the entire story. Just because someone brings a law suit doesn’t mean that they have any automatic right to have a trial by jury or otherwise. A claimant has to first establish that there is a rule of law that will allow recovery based upon the facts alleged in the complaint. If there is no such rule of law, the defendant can ask court to dismiss the claim. If the request to dismiss the complaint is granted the plaintiff or complainant can appeal. You should also realize that even if there is a legal rule that supports the claim being made there may still be a trial by jury or otherwise. If after discovery (i.e., exchange of documents and depositions) is completed, either party may seek to have the judge make the decision on the papers and documents (seek a summary judgement) on the basis that there is no dispute as to facts.