Jennifer Lawson, Former Employee – Breach of Confidential Agreement

MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION

An employment contract comes in two forms; in the form of a traditional agreement signed upon and agreed by both employee and the employer, and in the agreement taken by both employee and employer. These agreements can come in the form of company memorandum or in the form of a handbook for the employees or policies that are immediately adopted when the employee is being employed. Usually, employee contracts are used by the employee to give an evidence that the employer has limited rights when it comes to terminating the employment contract. In many of the states, employment is mostly considered something done “at will.” this means that the employer can terminate the employment or the employee leaving voluntarily at any point of time. The right of an employer to fire an employee is sometimes limited. However, if an employee can show that an employer has got the employment contract as an explicit one and allows for being retained for some time, then the contract dictates that the employee should be terminated under some specific reasons including disciplinary.

Jennifer Lawson is a defendant in a case involving Greene’s Jewelry. In the case of Greene’s Jewelry v. Jennifer Lawson, the defendant Jennifer Lawson, is a former employee of the subject company, Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC which at located in Derry New Hampshire. Before being fired, the defendant was holding the position of the junior executive for research and development. The defendant claims that the company released her because she was pregnant. However, Greene’s jewelry maintains that the company was downsizing and that her position was no longer needed. The defendant left the company while she was still in possession of the company documents that were used to process the main assets of the company, the ever-gold. Ever-good is impervious to scratches and oxidation and therefore is usually marked with the writings everlasting gold. After being released from the company, the defendant has partnered with Howell jewelry world which is a competitor to the former company. Howell jewelry world is also confident that the defendant has confidential information about their former company and how they were processing the ever-gold. After getting the job with her new company, the defendant signed the confidential agreement, all the non-disclosure agreement. It is important to note that the defendant did not sign any covenant agreement with the new company. The non-disclosure gives provision for creating a legal obligation to privacy and also compels the subjects to provide specific information or top secret information.  The defendant violated this contract with the company. It is important to note that the defendant is also suing the company as she feels that the company wrongfully terminated her because the company is aware that she is pregnant. She states that the problems started when she announced to the company about her pregnancy, especially after sharing the information with their head of human resource department. The head of the human resource department known as Lisa peele also made it clear to the defendant as the company had already contemplated on downsizing the company to eliminate her position of the junior executive. The company had already concluded terminating a contract even before she announced her pregnancy.

FACTS AND LAWS

The defendant, miss Jennifer Lawson is suing the company for being wrongfully fired, and her contract terminated because of her being pregnant. The discriminatory pregnancy act condemns discrimination based on pregnancy especially concerning employment (Dornin, 2007, -COKE Dorrain, 2014). According to this act, hiring and firing employees should not be affected by the pregnancy condition of a female employee. As well it should not affect the assignment, benefits, promotion or any other conditions. The company is, therefore, being accused because they violated this law. The position which Mrs. Lawson was holding of the junior executive was eliminated in the company. The defendant signed an NDA which states that she should not disclose the information about the process that the company used in making  Ever-gold asset. Even though the defendant knew about this, she decided to give Howell jewelry world confidential information that was used in processing ever gold and it would help the company compete with the former company. It is also believed that the defendant and signed a contract with Howell as she revealed the document of processing ever-gold. It is also believed that the contract was signed by the defendant to secure employment. Because of this, the defendant has violated the contract that he had with the company, and she has also violated new Hampshire trade secret law.

PRECEDENT

As the legal department of Greene’s jewelry company, we have the following laws and cases as presidents that will support this case. The cases are as follows.

1. New Hampshire Trade Secret Law: Within the state of New Hampshire, there is the New Hampshire trade secret law that was adapted from there trade secret act of the federal union (Stim, 2016). It stated that the business secret of the company should not be misappropriated. This means that acquiring the secretary and disclosing them without the consent of the company is a crime. The defendant is guilty of violating this law.

2. Pepsi v. Coca-Cola (2007). The case of Pepsi vs. coca-cola of the year 2007 involved the two former employees of coca cola who were sentenced to prison because they conspired to steal the trade secrets of coca-cola to rival company Pepsi (Dornin, 2007). These employees offered Pepsi samples of coca cola for the amount of 1.5 million. This case is related to what our company has gone through as the company believes that the defendant sold confidential information regarding the secrets of processing ever-gold and that their information was given to a rival company. The defendant has violated the secrets of the competitor’s company and had illegally share trade secrets. This case is also an example of how a company can gain an unlawful advantage over the competitor by stealing their trade secrets and should have consequences.

3. O’Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company (1996): When it comes to the contract dispute, this residence is of relevance because it sets the discharging course and termination of an employee with a reason which is legitimate. The company is aware that it is unlawful to not terminate an employee for discriminatory reasons such as being pregnant. However, in regards to the claims made against the company about unlawful termination of the contract, the request has been made with proper documentation. It is simple to get an establishment for the defendant who was dismissed formally because her position was eliminated from the company and not because of her condition or any other discriminatory reason.

FACTS TO BE DETERMINED

As the legal department or green jewelry, we are requesting documents that are specific to be sent to the company so that we can establish a better case. There are also subpoenas that have been said against Howell jewelry world. The documents needed at the following:

1. a document or a statement that can prove that the company terminated the position of junior executive. This will help the company to prove that they did not illegally terminate the defendants’ contract because of her pregnancy.
2. The nondisclosure agreement (NDA)- the defendant signed a non-disclosure before the company hired him. This document will help prove that the defendant did violate the non-disclosure the company.
3. A subpoena of the document for Howell Jewelry World- this document will show how this company is processing their new material. It is believed that this new material is equivalent to the one that the company processes ever gold with or has the same characteristics as ever-gold.

4. A subpoena of Howell Jewelry World- this document of employees will pertain to examine whether the defendant got compensation or employment opportunities because of their shared trade secret.

APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS

In the cases below, regulations and laws which are substantive are used against the defendant in helping the company proceed with the case. With evidence provided, it looks like the company will win the case as a legal dispute against the defendant. We, the legal representatives of greens jewelry have compiled different laws and cases that will support the case against the defendant.

Case Laws and Public Policies that concerns The Lawsuit Against miss Lawson

1.  The defendant violated a non-disclosure agreement in the first place. The defendant author violated new Hampshire trade secret law (Dornin, 2007). This is a low that was adapted from the union trade secrets act that outlined misappropriation of trade secrets and theft for company secrets defendant released confidential information about the most valuable asset of the company, how to process ever-gold. The secret was shared with a competitor to the company. The company can also prove this by determining an assigned non-disclosure act when the company gave her the job. By criminally and illegally accessing the documents and sharing it with the competitor unlawfully, this is an illegal act that should be acted upon.

The other relevant case against the defendant is for Pepsi against coca-cola of the year 2007. The case involved trade secrets of coca cola secrets being shared with Pepsi by a former employee. It is stated that the two former employees who are working for coca-cola were sentenced to federal prison because they conspired to sell the secrets to a rival company which was Pepsi for the amount of 1.5 million. The case is relevant because Mrs. Lawson is also a former employee to the company that she is now not part of anymore. She stole the company trade secrets and sold it to the competitor. The only difference is that instead of getting money, she got employment instead.

Case Laws & Public Policies Concerning the Lawsuit Against The Company

Ownership of inventions

In this provision, there is a recommendation for employees who are inventing things as their primary job. In this provision, an employee agrees that whatever he or she invents during the time she or he has been terminated from the job becomes an invention of the employer and not an invention of the employee. Employees usually sign the inventions to the employer as part of the agreement, or they can co-operate with the employer so that they can get patent with the invention and also keep information about that trade secrets as well. Consequently, the employer can agree to share with the employee a certain percentage of royalties because of the invention. The company has learned that Howell has taken knowledge and is secretly using it to process and create ever-gold. Also, Howell has tweaked some of their processes to avoid patent infringement but creat products with the same characteristics and qualities mutual service ever gold. If the intention was for the defendant, then she is right to share it.

Termination

A standard part of any employment contract is the “termination” clause. It states that either party may terminate the employment contract for any reason by giving prior notice. It may also give the employer the right to terminate the contract without notice if the employee violates the contract in any way. Another aspect of the termination clause is a statement that the employer has the right to terminate the contract if the employee becomes permanently disabled because of ill health, physical or mental disability such that the employee can no longer do the job. In this case, the employee is not suffering from any of the above.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: PUBLIC PERCEPTION

From this case, the way the public perceives the company may break it or make it depending on the outcome. If this company is respectable and one that creates products that are quality, it is easier to win back the customers. However, based on this case, the company can lose its reputation. The companies reputation is one of the crucial elements of the success. Even though the company may not have violated the law, the process of using the pregnant woman will be seen by the public as something negative. The company also will be viewed as the main culprit that has been against a pregnant woman. It will be seen as if the company had fired a pregnant woman who will be a struggling mother without a job. The company, however, sees this as a moral act and that they have not done anything wrong. It will receive negative publicity. Apart from this, the general public will be reflecting on the legal outcomes of the case in case these legal lawsuits go to the civil jury. A perfect example is the case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s of the year 1992 (McAdams et al., 1996). In a lawsuit, the leading corporation is viewed as the plaintiff as Liobet was the elderly and a fragile grandfather that received sympathy from the public (The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds’ Coffee Case., 2016,).  However, it had a significant impact on the reputation of the company.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: BUSINESS PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Business practices refer to processes and procedures or rules that a company follows when they are pursuing their goals. They are done collectively to create a focused agenda. The company should have several practices to avoid similar situations (What is business practice, 2016). It is essential that a company make changes to the contract especially those that deals with termination of employment contracts and those that deals with medical leave for pregnant employees (Pregnancy Discrimination, 2016). The first practice that this company needs to focus on is the termination process. The head of the human resource department announced that the defendant was eliminated because of the downsizing process and that sounded heartless to the defendant. Termination is essential and is also part of our company. Ethical practices that the company should focus on his medical leave. Pregnancy discrimination act forbids any form of discrimination against pregnant women, especially when assigning them, promoting them, or employing them. It should also provide benefits for health insurance. Also, the company should be sensitive to complex situations such as someone being pregnant so that they do not feel that their termination was because of their pregnancy. These recommendations will ensure that the public perception of the company is not damaged in the case involving the defendant and any future case that will take place. It is crucial for the company to start implementing the recommendations to avoid a recurrence of a similar case in the future.

REFERENCES

Dornin, R. (2007, May 23). 2 sentenced in Coke trade secret case. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/23/news/newsmakers/coke/

Dorrain, P. (2014, November 20). AutoZone Must Pay $185 Million in Punitive For Pregnancy Bias, Retaliation, Judge Rules. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from http://www.bna.com/autozone-pay-185-n17179912162/

McAdams, T., Neslund, N., Zucker, K. D., & Neslund, K. (n.d.). Law, business, and society.

O’Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 79 F.3d 756 (1996)

Pregnancy Discrimination. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2016, from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm

Stim, R. (n.d.). Nondisclosure Agreements | Nolo.com. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/nondisclosure-agreements-29630.html

Stim, R. (2016). New Hampshire Trade Secret Law | Nolo.com. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/new-hampshire-trade-secret-law.html

The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds’ Coffee Case. (n.d.). Retrieved March 31, 2016, from http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

What is business practice? Definition and meaning. (n.d.). Retrieved April 07, 2016, from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business-practice.html

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?