Mitzi is about to graduate from UF and has just signed her hrst contract for emp private company, PPC. Mitzi realizes that there is a clause in her contract, drafted by PPC, that prohibits her from speaking about the trade secrets that PPC uses. Mitzi believes that this clause violates rights under the First Amendment. Therefore, Mitzi tells some of her friends at school ab the company and the wording of the contract; however, she does not say anything else about PF its customers, or what it does. Mitzi does not know that her friend Juliet's father is the head of PPC. Juliet tells her father about what Mitzi has said, and he immediately fires Mitzi. Would Mitzi have a case against PPC under

icon
Related questions
Question
Mitzi is about to graduate from UF and has just signed her first contract for employment with a
private company, PPC. Mitzi realizes that there is a clause in her contract, drafted by PPC, that
prohibits her from speaking about the trade secrets that PPC uses. Mitzi believes that this clause
violates rights under the First Amendment. Therefore, Mitzi tells some of her friends at school about
the company and the wording of the contract; however, she does not say anything else about PPC,
its customers, or what it does.
Mitzi does not know that her friend Juliet's father is the head of PPC. Juliet tells her father about
what Mitzi has said, and he immediately fires Mitzi. Would Mitzi have a case against PPC under the
rights granted in the First Amendment?
O No, company policy prohibits speaking about the trade secrets, and this is not protected by the First
Amendment.
O No, because Mitzi could only bring a case for abusive discharge, retaliation, or defamation; neither she nor
PPC could ever have any First Amendment rights related to commercial matters.
O Yes, because she did not give away any trade secrets (which would be an exception to free speech).
O Yes, the First Amendment protects her from being terminated without first having a hearing before a neutral
arbiter (eg. a judge).
O Yes, as Mitzi has the right to do, she was just criticizing the wording of her contract with PPC.
Transcribed Image Text:Mitzi is about to graduate from UF and has just signed her first contract for employment with a private company, PPC. Mitzi realizes that there is a clause in her contract, drafted by PPC, that prohibits her from speaking about the trade secrets that PPC uses. Mitzi believes that this clause violates rights under the First Amendment. Therefore, Mitzi tells some of her friends at school about the company and the wording of the contract; however, she does not say anything else about PPC, its customers, or what it does. Mitzi does not know that her friend Juliet's father is the head of PPC. Juliet tells her father about what Mitzi has said, and he immediately fires Mitzi. Would Mitzi have a case against PPC under the rights granted in the First Amendment? O No, company policy prohibits speaking about the trade secrets, and this is not protected by the First Amendment. O No, because Mitzi could only bring a case for abusive discharge, retaliation, or defamation; neither she nor PPC could ever have any First Amendment rights related to commercial matters. O Yes, because she did not give away any trade secrets (which would be an exception to free speech). O Yes, the First Amendment protects her from being terminated without first having a hearing before a neutral arbiter (eg. a judge). O Yes, as Mitzi has the right to do, she was just criticizing the wording of her contract with PPC.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

Blurred answer