"Democracies
die behind closed doors....When government begins closing
doors, it selectively controls information rightfully belonging
to the people. Selective information is misinformation." So
spoke Judge Damon Keith in Detroit Free Press, et al.
v. Ashcroft. Judge Keith was discussing closed immigration
hearings in the wake of 9/11. He might have been talking
about the public's lack of access to legal information databases,
especially case law databases. Although many courts now publish
case law on the Internet for free, thousands of older cases
are not available to those who cannot pay. Hundreds of public
libraries across the country provide online access to their
patrons in an attempt to bridge the digital divide, covering
all areas of information need. Yet often these public libraries
are not allowed to offer access free or fee to legal
subscription databases maintained by the two largest legal
vendors in the U.S. And those same vendors also constitute
the largest publishers of legal materials in print. Amidst
a growing wealth of free, reliable information on the Internet,
there is a poverty of access to the decisions and opinions
of the courts that protect our liberties.
Response
From LexisNexis and West
LexisNexis
in the Library Market
Libraries
play a vital role in a democratic society, and
LexisNexis appreciates the service they provide,
along with the librarians who manage and staff
them.
Most
libraries are struggling more than they have
historically to meet the needs of their patrons
with a wider array of electronic information
technologies in addition to the traditional hard-copy
versions of publications. Public libraries are
no different. At the same time, the World Wide
Web facilitates the direct, free access to more
and more information from the courts, legislatures,
and university Web sites, raising awareness of
the vast amount of information available. This
situation is an irony, but certainly not a conspiracy
by the online publishing industry, as the author
seeks to imply.
Remembering
that LexisNexis is a business-to-business enterprise,
the company tries hard to accommodate its customers
in the library market with flexible, discounted
plans. LexisNexis sales reps discussed several
options with the writer, Melissa Barr, although
none of the plans would allow her to do what
she wanted to do give unlimited, unmediated
access in multiple locations to the LexisNexis
legal information service at an unrealistic price.
LexisNexis
provides numerous products and services that
allow public library patrons access to critical
information at a reasonable cost to libraries.
The first, of course, is our subscription-based
online services for news, business, and legal
information. These services are available to
public libraries on a mediated basis, that is,
a librarian will perform a patron's search for
them at no charge to the patron. If service were
not mediated, then LexisNexis would have no business
left from subscribing attorneys. If the library
doesn't have the budget to pay for a subscription,
then we offer lexisONE, designed for small-practice
attorneys but also useful to non-attorneys. lexisONE
combines 5 years of free case law, thousands
of free legal forms, and an Internet Legal Guide
with links to more than 20,000 law-related Web
sites. We only ask that the user register on
the site, and it costs nothing to do so.
LexisNexis
by Credit Card [http://web.lexis.com/xchange/ccsubs/cc_prods.asp] is specifically designed for non-subscribing
members of the general public who want to search
either business or legal information on our flagship
products, nexis.com or lexis.com. Case law is
available for searching regardless of how long
ago the cases were decided. There is no charge
to search or review a list of relevant documents
found, and charges are as low as $9 per document
to view a case, code, or statute, or $75 a week
to conduct a research project in the news and
business libraries.
LexisNexis
currently is trying to launch another program
that would address some of Ms. Barr's concerns.
We are seeking libraries with up-to-date PC technology
to pilot the LexisNexis legal service using an
authentication scheme that doesn't require librarian
involvement in the searching. To date, libraries
have had a security concern with allowing users
to directly log onto a PC using the library's
subscription ID and password. There has been
no way to prevent the user from running up charges
on the library's account using a remote terminal.
This is a security issue, not a denial-of-access
issue.
Lastly,
LexisNexis is a tireless supporter of the Special
Libraries Association's educational efforts.
It also has donated millions of dollars of direct
contributions or in-kind services to support
pro bono legal aid programs run by local bar
and state associations. For instance, LexisNexis
and the National Association of Bar Executives
(NABE) recently honored outstanding public service
programs of five bar associations by presenting
each with $25,000 in research credits. Pro bono
support offers the highest value for patrons
in the greatest need.
Hopefully
this brief description of the company's efforts
will reassure public librarians that LexisNexis
is concerned about and willing to work with them
to tailor and integrate our information content
and productivity tools into their environments.
West:
Unprecedented Access
to Legal Information
Access
to the nation's laws is critical to the success
of our democracy. Thanks to the Web, legal information
is readily accessible by more people today than
at any other time in history.
Facilitating
the flow of information from courts and lawmakers
is a vibrant tradition in which we at West are
proud to have played a key role. More than 125
years ago, founder and namesake John B. West
created the publication and editorial processes
that resulted in the National Reporter System.
His forethought and insight provided the groundwork
for every law firm and county law library in
the country to offer dependable, on-time access
to these materials.
Today,
West's attorney-editors read more than 200,000
judicial opinions annually, working with the
courts to make more than 100,000 corrections
to these rulings. Our unique editorial process
delivers powerful editorial enhancements synopses,
headnotes, and classification to the West Key
Number System that help legal researchers
find and analyze on-point information faster
and easier. Moreover, this process guarantees
the accuracy and integrity of these critical
legal information resources.
In
addition to using the bound volumes in their
local or firm law library, thousands of legal
professionals now access the National Reporter
System, as well as statutes, regulations, and
business news and information via Westlaw.
Services
such as Westlaw provide innovative research tools
that are specifically designed for use by legal
professionals. These professionals balance the
cost of using services such as Westlaw with the
time they save and the comfort they gain from
knowing they are using the most authoritative,
current, and accurate information.
West
employs over 7,000 full-time legal, software,
and business professionals dedicated to providing
the information and technology that makes Westlaw
possible. Add to that one of the world's largest
and most complex technology infrastructures and
around-the-clock customer service and research
support (including technical and legal specialists),
and you begin to understand the resources West
commits to meeting the daily needs of the legal
professional.
Of
course, the Web encourages healthy competition
from new businesses as well as from the various
governmental organizations. Users are benefiting
from a continuing, rapid innovation of services
and a broad diversity of offerings.
West
is vigorously and creatively responding to the
new world enabled by the Web. For example, in
January 2001, West acquired FindLaw [www.findlaw.com],
the leading legal information portal on the Web.
By providing a wealth of legal information, related
analyses, and legal data without charge, FindLaw
attracts businesses and individuals seeking legal
advice and directs them to appropriate legal
professionals. Recent statistics indicate that
FindLaw traffic is five times that of its nearest
competitors as measured by its user base.
West
remains dedicated to its long standing-tradition
of service to the bench and bar. Through FindLaw,
West has expanded this commitment to the larger
community.
Mike
Wilens, President, West |
Two
multinational corporations control print and electronic legal
research
materials used by courts and law firms in the U.S. Canadian
conglomerate Thomson Inc. owns Minnesota-based West Group
Inc., developer of the Westlaw legal database. Anglo-Dutch
conglomerate Reed Elsevier Inc. owns Ohio-based LexisNexis1 Inc.,
which owns the electronic database by the same name. For
over a decade these companies have been on a buying spree.
Thomson and West Group acquired nearly 20 legal publishers
in North America, the free FindLaw database, and the online
legal directory, Lawoffice.com. Reed Elsevier and LexisNexis
acquired nine legal publishers in North America and at least
three electronic databases2. Wolters Kluwer, another
Dutch corporation, acquired several legal and business publishers
in the U.S., but runs a distant third in this publisher's
sweepstakes.
Thomson
and Reed Elsevier have nearly cornered the market for legal
research
materials. Then-president of the American Association of
Law Libraries, Robert Oakley, expressed concern in an August
2000 Washington Post interview. "You've really got
only two publishers to choose from, and you can't go beyond
that. Together they exercise almost total control over the
marketplace."3 Through their numerous subsidiaries,
the two companies publish print versions of federal and state
court cases, federal statutes and codes, state statutes and
codes, and supplementary legal materials, including dictionaries,
encyclopedias, law firm and attorney directories, state and
federal handbooks, forms books, and manuals. Many of these
publications are recognized by courts as respected, authoritative
sources for legal opinions, definitions, and interpretations;
some have even become the "official" publications for statutes,
codes, and case law.
On
October 30, 2002, LexisNexis announced that it had signed
a 7-year
contract with the State of Virginia4 to maintain
the state statute Web site. This is a convenient contract,
since LexisNexis owns Michie Company and Michie has published
the Code of Virginia for so long that it was nicknamed the
Michie Code. LexisNexis has contracts to maintain free statute
sites for the states of Delaware, Mississippi, New Mexico,
Tennessee, and Vermont. The company also announced its merger
with Anderson Publishing Company5, a Cincinnati-based
legal publisher that maintains the official, free Web site
for the Ohio Revised Code, Ohio Administrative Code, and
Ohio Court Rules. Anderson publishes the print versions of
the Ohio codes and rules, as well as handbooks and manuals
for Ohio and 15 other states.
The
contract for the District of Columbia code is currently
held by Westlaw.
Published by Michie for many years, in 1999 publication of
the code was in limbo. LexisNexis acquired the contract when
it acquired Michie in 1994. The city put the contract out
to bid in 1999. West Group was awarded the contract a month
after the old contract expired. Because of the delay, LexisNexis
argued to have the contract rebid, but refused to give up
the subscriber list for the code. Without the list, West
didn't want the contract. LexisNexis offered to publish the
code in exchange for temporary copyright access to some materials.
City officials were outraged that LexisNexis wanted to "own" the
law6. In January 2001 the contract was awarded
to West7.
Many
court Web sites provide access to current case law, but sites
generally
go back only a few years and documents may require downloading
onto a hard drive or a disk, something not always possible
on public library Internet terminals. I surveyed each state's
case law Web site via FindLaw [http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/] and found that most state databases don't include opinions
prior to 1995. The oldest database is Oklahoma, with cases
from 1919 on. California starts in 1934, and Hawaii in 1989.
Six states include opinions from 1990 to 1994. A seventh
state, Ohio, has opinions from 1990 on for the Eighth District
Court of Appeals, but most Ohio appellate courts start in
1997. The Ohio Supreme Court site directs users to the FindLaw
Web site for older cases, as the court only archives current
cases. Although the FindLaw site archives Ohio Supreme Court
material back to 1997, for appellate court cases it links
to the official appellate court Web site. Cases cannot be
viewed on the screen as users must download documents to
a disk or a drive. I work at the eighth busiest library in
the country, Cuyahoga County Public Library in Ohio. The
library doesn't have download capabilities on its public
or staff terminals. Cases on the Ohio court Web site are
not accessible for anyone using a public terminal. The digital
divide is still there.
Numerous
gateway sites supply links to state and federal court sites.
The
once-independent FindLaw site is now owned by West Group.
FindLaw has U.S. Supreme Court cases back to 1896. Circuit
court of appeals cases vary by circuit, but most include
cases from either 1994 or 1995 on. The district court section
simply links to each court's site, so coverage varies.
Quite
a few universities have excellent legal gateways available
free
on the Internet, providing links to federal and state constitutions,
statutes, codes, and cases. The Cornell University Legal
Information Institute site [http://www.law.cornell.edu.] is my personal favorite, in part because I've memorized the
URL. A few years ago, I searched every state's statutes for
laws on the privacy of patron records. The Cornell Web site
was invaluable in locating the state statutes, but each state
database had to be searched one at a time, and the information
was indexed differently in each state. Some searches took
mere seconds, while others required repeated attempts and
literally took days. Louisiana and Pennsylvania were the
only states without their statutes available in full for
free on the Internet. Currently, Louisiana is up and running,
but Pennsylvania is still working on it.
No Public Libraries
Need Apply
Using
one of the legal vendors would have been much faster. Cuyahoga
County Public Library had a subscription to Westlaw and several
West CD-ROMs at that time. I wasn't willing to spend the
library's money at the rate of $14 per minute (plus print
costs) for Westlaw, when the information was available free.
Our Westlaw subscription was mainly used to pull up business
information or cases not available on the Ohio and federal
CD-ROMs. Patrons were not allowed to use the Westlaw subscription.
We also had a subscription to Ohio forms on LawDesk. The
content was great, but patrons found it difficult to use.
After much persuasion, West allowed the library to network
the Ohio CD-ROM material to public terminals at four of our
24 libraries.
When
our contract expired at the end of 2001, we attempted to
negotiate a flat-rate
Westlaw contract for all of the materials from the CD-ROMs,
plus some other databases. We hoped to make legal databases
available to the public at all of our branches, although
with a limited number of concurrent users. Neither Westlaw
nor LexisNexis was ready to offer such a contract to a public
library. LexisNexis' Academic Universe product includes a
legal database, but it is marketed only to schools and colleges.
Public libraries cannot subscribe to Academic Universe. LexisNexis
products available to public libraries don't have the legal
database. Westlaw does not have any similar products.
Bear
in mind that West Group and LexisNexis, the two largest vendors
of
online legal information in the country, do not offer
their online legal products to public libraries for patrons
to use. A quick check of the American Library Directory lists
16,598 public libraries in the U.S. There are 416 law libraries
listed under "Government Libraries" and 1,045 law libraries
listed under "Special Libraries." Some of those government
and special libraries and all of the public libraries are
open to the public, serving millions of patrons each year.
For many Americans, the public library is their only access
to the Internet.
LexisNexis
has a pay-as-you-use product called LexisNexis Courtlink.
Billed as "the online link to our nation's courts," the product
describes who needs to access the courts. In the "Who we
serve" section of the site, it states:
Law
firms, banks, insurance companies, corporations, government
agencies,
investigative firms, the media and other businesses rely
upon court records to make informed decisions and avoid costly
mistakes.... Courts who use CourtLink eAccess also benefit
through increased operating efficiencies, improved customer
service and a better-informed public" [http://www.courtlink.com/who/who.html].
The "other
businesses" include information providers:
Legal
information providers can offer private label access to federal
and civil
court cases. Investment services can supply potential investors
with access to recent court cases involving any public company.
News sites are able to list recently filed cases of interest
to their audience those involving local community issues,
local companies, hot topics, and more [http://www.courlink.com/who/providers.html].
The "LexisNexis
CourtLink for You" section is subtitled "Because all kinds
of people need access to court records" [http://www.courtlink.com/who/index.html].
The section continues: "Attorneys aren't the only ones who
need access to the nation's courts. Individuals in all types
of professions draw on court records to do their jobs" [http://www.courtlink.com/who/others/others.html].
In a later paragraph, it states:
A
traditional search can cost up to $300 and take several hours
or even
days to complete. With CourtLink eAccess the average search
costs less than $25, takes less than 5 minutes, and produces
more complete, up-to-date results.... LexisNexis Courtlink
is the leading provider of online access to and from the
nation's courts, with more than 200 million records in over
4,000 federal, state, and local courts.
Even
in its own advertising LexisNexis acknowledges that "all
kinds of people need access to court records."
Alternatives?
The
two main fee-based competitors available to public libraries
are Loislaw8 and
Versuslaw9. Another competitor, Quicklaw, was
acquired by LexisNexis' Canadian counterpart, LexisNexis
Butterworths Canada, in July 2002. The subscription services
offer one-stop shopping for case opinions, statutes, and
administrative regulations, with one search interface, rather
than data scattered across dozens of Web sites with sometimes
questionable URLs and search engines.
After
checking out these vendors, in 2002, we signed a contract
with Loislaw
[http://www.loislaw.com], as its product proved a good match
for our library's needs. According to our sales representative,
Travis Stephens, Loislaw was already available at over 50
public libraries across the country. We networked the subscription
to all 28 branches of our library system, using IP authentication
to eliminate the need for passwords or user IDs. The subscription
allows six concurrent users to search the entire Loislaw
database, but only Ohio and federal materials are available
in full text. Staff and patrons enjoy the easy access and
depth of coverage.
Loislaw
offers subscriptions to public libraries and anyone else
who wishes
to buy them. Versuslaw is available to anyone willing to
pay from $8.95 per month up to $34.95 per month for a subscription10.
The
two giants do let the paying public use their databases. Westlaw
and LexisNexis take credit cards on a pay-as-you-go basis,
charging flat rates for documents, with search and print
charges included. West documents cost $12 each; KeyCite checking
costs $4.25 for each result11. You get charged
when you click on the link to display the document or KeyCite
result. LexisNexis charges only $9 per document, and the
charges apply when a document is viewed. An accidental click
can result in big credit-card bills.
LexisNexis
offers the "free" LexisOne service, intended for small law
firms and sole practitioners. It requires users to register
to search the database. The U.S. Supreme Court case database
goes back to 1790. Only the last 5 years of U.S. Circuit
court cases and state court cases are available for free.
U.S. District Court cases are not available for free on LexisOne.
LexisOne allows users to purchase cases otherwise unavailable
(i.e., not free) cases.
The Lonely Litigant:
A Case in Point
In
1990, the American Bar Association conducted a study of pro se (self-represented)
litigants. Although limited to the Domestic Relations Court
in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, the numbers were significant
enough for the bar to take notice. "Research showed that
at least one party was self-represented in more than 88 percent
of the divorce cases, and in 52 percent of them, both parties
were on their own."12 Maricopa County courts are
among a handful of courts that have set up self-help programs
for pro se litigants or offered attorney training
on unbundling legal services, so an attorney can handle one
or two aspects of a case for a pro se client. The
ABA's Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services
offers help on its Web site [http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/delivery/delunbund.html].
Unfortunately, as with many legal research sites, the information
is geared for attorneys, not pro se litigants or ordinary
citizens. The site has a list of articles, books, court cases,
and so on about unbundling legal services and dealing with pro
se litigants. Links to four self-service centers are
buried at the bottom of the Web page.
The
legal field is more maze than field with overlapping systems
of courts,
statutes, codes, regulations, case opinions, and legal citations.
Legal jargon partly in Latin, partly in English, but mostly
in legalese adds to the confusion. Laws are written in
language broad enough to be applied to many factual situations,
yet specific enough to be applied to a recognizable legal
principle or situation. If the law says you must be 18 years
of age to vote, then you cannot vote if you are 17 years,
11 months and 29 days old on Election Day. Missing it by that
much doesn't cut it. However, many laws are less specific
and may be open to interpretation. That's when the courts
get busy. If politicians pass a "bad" law such as one
that is vaguely worded or cannot be enforced without violating
our civil rights the courts can overturn the law and in
essence tell the politicians to try again. If local governments
or law enforcement applies the law incorrectly, the courts
can clarify how the law should be enforced.
The
courts provide us with case opinions or legal opinions
collectively
known as case law, or cases. (An ongoing lawsuit may also
be called a case.) The opinion describes the facts of the
case, the law or laws applied to it, and how the court decided
to apply the law(s) to the facts. In the state court system,
trial courts are at the bottom of the pyramid, followed by
appellate and supreme courts, or their equivalents. Usually,
only appellate and supreme courts generate opinions. In the
federal court system, case opinions are generated by district
courts (the trial courts), circuit courts of appeal, and
the U.S. Supreme Court. The opinions are printed in a set
of books known as an official "reporter" and become part
of American case law. Other courts may use these opinions
in deciding new cases with similar facts and laws. Lower-level
courts follow decisions made by the courts above them, with
the U.S. Supreme Court at the top of the legal pyramid.
Why
should ordinary citizens be interested in opinions written
by judges
decades or even centuries ago? After all, we can read the
laws ourselves, since most public libraries buy copies of
the local ordinances and may also have state and federal
codes. And it's available free on the Internet. Do we really
need judicial opinions? Yes, we do, because even century-old
case law can still be "good law." A U.S. Supreme Court case
from 1888 was instrumental in overturning an Internet copyright
case covered in the February 2002 edition of Searcher.
Carol Ebbinghouse13 discussed the then-unresolved
copyright infringement case involving Peter Veeck, his Web
site, and the basic building codes of two small Texas towns.
Mr.
Veeck purchased an electronic (CD-ROM) copy of local building
codes and copied
them onto his free Web site for anyone to use. When the author
and purported copyright holder of the codes, Southern Building
Code Congress Inc., ordered Mr. Veeck to remove the codes,
he sued them, claiming the codes were in the public domain
because they had been adopted in full by the local communities
as official building codes. Mr. Veeck lost at the district
and circuit court levels but appealed to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals for a hearing en banc a hearing
by all of the judges on the court, rather than the smaller
panel of judges that had ruled against him. On June 7, 2002,
in an 8 to 6 split, the Court ruled in Mr. Veeck's favor.
In the court opinion, Judge Edith Jones quoted from a 115-year-old
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Banks v. Manchester14,
that exempted court opinions from copyright law as a matter
of public policy. FindLaw's
[http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html] free
database of Supreme Court opinions only goes back to 1896, but
fortunately Mr. Veeck had
posted a copy of the case on his Web site [http://regionalweb.texoma.net/cr/banks.html].
The Banks case
is worth a second look. The State of Ohio awarded a contract
to publish Ohio Supreme Court opinions and hired E.L. DeWitt
to prepare the opinions for printing. Mr. DeWitt copyrighted
the opinions on behalf of the State of Ohio. When another
publisher reprinted some of the opinions, it was sued for
copyright infringement. The Banks court stated that
the actual case syllabus, statement, and opinion were the
work product of the judges and neither the State, the judges,
nor anyone else could copyright the court's work product. "The
whole work done by the judges constitutes the authentic exposition
and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen,
is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration
of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution
or a statute."15
Without
access to 19th-century case law, the Fifth Circuit Court
might not
have found a precedent to overturn its earlier decision in Veeck.
In explaining why a particular law can or cannot be applied
to a particular case, courts establish a guide for politicians,
law enforcement personnel, and ordinary citizens in how to
write, enforce, and follow the law. Ignorance of the law
is no excuse for not following it. However, figuring out
what law is applicable to your situation and finding print
or electronic versions of cases to support your position
can be costly in both time and money.
Still the People's
Law
Westlaw
and LexisNexis add copyrighted editorial enhancements to
their
versions of the court opinions to aid attorneys and judges
in interpreting major and minor points of the case and to
locate similar cases. Those enhancements are copyrighted,
and rightly so, being original work product added to the
material. Wherever the two firms couldn't corner the copyrights,
they bought the competition.
However,
the courts and the court's words belong to us. In more ways
than
one, the American people have already paid for the case law
produced by our courts. Commercial vendors must not be allowed
to highjack our law or dictate who may have access to it.
By refusing to allow public libraries to purchase electronic
subscriptions that can serve their patrons, Westlaw and LexisNexis
are closing the door on information.
Footnotes
1 In
recent year LexisNexis played around with variations
on the company name, even shortening it to Lexis, but
recently reverted back to LexisNexis without the original
hyphen.
2 Based
on information reported in the "Legal Publishers List" maintained
by the American Association of Law Libraries, Committee
on Relations with Information Vendors (CRIV). Data
was as of 10/25/02, with the sale of Anderson Publishing
Company to LexisNexis pending shareholder approval.
3 Sewell
Chan, "District Finds Itself Without a Legal Clue," The
Washington Post, 25 August 2000, section B, p.
1. (http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21251-2000Aug25.html)
4 LexisNexis
news release dated October 30, 2002, "LexisNexis Signs
Seven-Year Contract, Named Official Publisher of Virginia
Code." http://www.lexisnexis.com/about/releases/0548.asp.
5 LexisNexis
news release dated October 9, 2002, "LexisNexis, Anderson
Publishing Company to Merge."
http://www.lexisnexis.com/about/releases/0543.asp.
6 Chan, "District
Finds Itself Without a Legal Clue," section B, p. 1.
7 Chan, "Update:
On the News," The Washington Post, 5 February 2001,
Section B, p. 2.
8 Loislaw
is currently owned by New York based Aspen Publishers,
Inc., a subsidiary of Dutch publishing company Wolters
Kluwer. Wolters Kluwer is the third largest legal publishing
company in the U.S., after Thomson and Reed Elsevier
9 LexisNexis
holds a minority interest in Versuslaw, according to
the "Legal Publishers List."
10 These
rates were per the Versuslaw Web site in October 2002
at http://www.versuslaw.com.
11 All
prices are as of October 2002, according to the West
Group and LexisNexis Web sites.
12 Terry
Carter, "Self-Help Speeds Up," ABA Journal,
July 2001, p. 34+.
13 Carol
Ebbinghouse, "Not All Laws Are Free: The Importance
of the Veeck Case," Searcher: The Magazine
for Database Professionals, February 2002, vol.
10, no. 2.
14 Banks
v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888).
15 Banks
v. Manchester, 128 U.S. 244 (1888), citing Nash
v. Lathrop, 142 Mass. 29, 35. |
The
opinions expressed in this article are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of her employer. |