Loew's, Inc. v. Cole

185 F.2d 641 (1960)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Loew’s, Inc. v. Cole

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
185 F.2d 641 (1960)


In 1947 the House Un-American Committee (HUAC) was on a mission to rid America of the influence of Communist operatives, particularly in the movie industry. HUAC held hearings in an effort to identify secret members of the Communist Party. Before the hearings, one of the executives of Loew’s, Inc. (plaintiff) indicated that he did not care whether his employee, Lester Cole (defendant), was a Communist, and another leader indicated that he would not fire a writer who was assumed to be a Communist if the writer’s political affiliation had not been proved. At the hearing, however, industry leaders tried to assure the HUAC and the public that their movies and staff were free of Communist influences, and that they welcomed HUAC’s investigation. Officials of Loew’s testified that they would not hire writers who were proved to be Communists. HUAC then questioned 11 screenwriters, including Cole, regarding whether they were Communists. Though Cole had told his employer he was not a Communist, the screenwriters decided before the hearing they would not answer HUAC’s questions, and they each declined to answer. This gave the public the impression that Cole and the others were in fact Communists. During this period, Cole had signed an extension of his contract with Loew’s. The contract contained a morals clause providing that Cole could not do anything that would “degrade him in society or bring him into public hatred, contempt, or scorn or ridicule, or that would shock, insult or offend the community.” After Cole’s testimony, there was a public outcry. Fearing a movie boycott or legislation, Loew’s suspended Cole. Cole could return to work on the condition that he be acquitted or be purged of contempt by testifying under oath that he was not a Communist. Cole refused, arguing that he had no control over acquittal, purging was impossible, and the studio had no right to demand he take the oath because, in his view, Loew’s executives were fine with Cole’s conduct until the public outcry. Loew’s terminated Cole’s contract. Cole sued the studio for wrongful dismissal in federal court. The trial court ruled in Cole’s favor, and Loew’s appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Pope, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 733,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership