Former Hartford Courant consumer columnist George Gombossy has filed his long-awaited lawsuit against the paper and parent Tribune Co., and I have to say it takes a novel approach to the concept of free speech.
I would be lying, however, if I said I thought it has a prayer to succeed … in a court of law, anyway.
George’s lawyer Joseph Garrison takes the position that George’s rights under the Connecticut Free Speech statute were violated when the paper fired him for refusing to placate an advertiser and after pressuring him not to write negatively about it.
According to Garrison, the statute protects workers from being fired or punished for exercising their First Amendment rights in the workplace. If successful, the suit “should result in less pressure on journalists to commit unethical acts on behalf of advertisers as media publishers will know that it will be at their peril,” George said.
“It’s the very essence of being an American, having the right to speak out in the workplace, especially on issues vital to the public,” Garrison said in a prepared statement.
Ah, if only journalists weren’t subject to the unethical demands of the folks who pay them; and if writers could take their pay and say whatever they like in the publisher’s newspaper. Good luck with that.
I’m no lawyer, but even if the facts of his dismissal were not in dispute — and they most certainly are [ courant-statement] – George’s suit under a Connecticut statute might bump its
head on the U.S. First Amendment, which I loosely interpret to mean: “Free speech extends to those who own a press.”
George can report on Sleepy’s mattress company from dusk to dawn on his own blog, but I doubt he will be able to collect from Tribune because they wouldn’t let him do it on theirs.
I always thought I was an at-will employee when I worked at The Courant, and if they wanted me to be party to their unethical conduct I could comply or decide to leave; and if I didn’t comply or leave voluntarily, they could escort me out. Here’s another interpretation.
From a personal perspective, I like Garrison’s view of workplace rights better.
Anyway, the suit is only part law. The rest is PR, and bloody good effective it is.
It makes a big fat national stink over something that should be made a stink of: that publishers want to bend the rules for advertisers in service to the almighty dollar instead of their readers and the truth. George’s reputation as a consumer watchdog, loyal to his readers at any price, is amplified — even if the courts or public never agree on the facts or rightness of his case. The coverage will only help his new venture, CTWatchdog.com, and cast the Courant as a villian — a role it has helped foster through its recent amateurish behavior.
George’s suit wins as PR if only because it drags the paper’s decision-making out into the sun for all to see and evaluate — a concept all newspapers readily endorse until it applies to them.
Loading ...
Trust me, the suit has a real chance of success. This is not a PR stunt. The severance that I gave up to file this suit was not a small figure.
Joe Garrison is one of the best employment lawyers in this state. I don’t believe he has ever lost a case against The Courant.
He would never have taken the case if he did not believe we have an excellent chance of winning.
Both he and I have put a lot of chips on the table because we both believe its worth the risk, not only for us, but for journalists and the public and we believe we will win. Getting by the first issue of being fired will be easy – lots of emails.
The dog
I admire your brass.
Not the emails I’ve seen on dog’s site; hope he’s got others if he thinks he’s going to win this suit…and his lawyer is happy to take this case, win or lose, as it puts him in the spotlight..
I just caught up with this story, as I was away when it was the suit was filed. I wondered what George’s grounds for suing would be. Gosh, if I had the right he thinks I had, I could have sued the Courant a thousand times. When I was doing investigations, there were debates on every project about what could be published and what could not. As you might expect, I was generally on the side of publishing, and I lost a few of those battles. I should have hired Joe Garrison.
Like we all did, you had the right to stop working there. Of course, you didn’t get fired for disagreeing with the boss, either, as George maintains.
The difference is that I was assigned to be the Watchdog and the Courant has a written policy saying all subjects of stories will be treated equally. When I was fired for writing columns a couple of advertisers objected to, its not the same as having debates over news stories where the sole issue is not whether the advertiser will be happy or unhappy. As we all know there can be many other issues – accuracy, fairness, sources,…..
If the Courant wants to legally protect its advertisers from negative publicity, it should remove its mission statement and instead publicly say that key advertisers will have a free pass from even being reported on when the attorney general says he is investigating them. but it can’t have it both ways. It can’t pretend that it has the highest ethics and then attempt to force its reporters and columnist to do unethical things.
George