With regards to the case that puts Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale as a defendant and former employee Jennifer Lawson as the plaintiff. The company rests at a position in which it sues Jennifer for breach of confidentiality agreement while also battling for the dismissal of Jennifer’s case against it. The plaintiff stipulates that the company is being sued for wrongful termination of employment. Through research, it has been determined that the company stands a chance of winning the case by tackling it through the revelation of the downsizing spells that have been experienced in the company. Greene’s company also stands to gain by revealing the binding contracts that it had with the plaintiff concerning confidentiality agreements.
Many components are required for a contract to be legally binding. All executives in the company are expected to sign confidentiality agreements and covenants that prevent them from competing with the Greene’s Jewelry company. Jennifer Lawson who had previously worked for about three years before being laid off was subject to the confidentiality agreement which she signed with acceptance. The genuine assent by both the former employee and the company is backed by the fact that the parties involved were of legal capacity to go into contract. The contract should also be deemed as legally enforceable by the legality of purpose. The agreement is purposefully presented to executives to ensure the safety of the company’s trade secrets. The contract is Greene’s Jewelry’s strategy to keep with the competitive state of the jewelry industry. As it has been revealed, the plaintiff told the company’s secrets to a direct rival in the business industry.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The plaintiff, Jennifer Lawson calls for the court to charge Greene’s jewelry for wrongfully terminating her employment, citing allegations of discrimination. Her employment period and annual reviews prove a contradiction to her statements. The company, through intense research, is confident to challenge the case. In the three years that Jennifer Lawson worked as a junior executive secretary in the research and development department, she was accredited with good reviews for her professionalism in her duties. The decision to release her from the company cannot be termed as a discriminatory move since it was a layoff that affected all junior executive secretaries. The plaintiff has no sincerity in her statement by claiming the company specifically targeted her to be fired for her revelation of her pregnancy. According to the records, it clearly shows that the decision to make the necessary downsizing of the staff in the company was made before the revelation of the plaintiff’s pregnancy. Her engagement with the human resource head, Lisa Peele is not viewed to be with conflict since records reveal the show of remorse from Lisa towards Jennifer Lawson concerning the downsizing. She also congratulated Jennifer for the pregnancy, showing that the company had no ill motives for her release. It was merely an act to keep the company’s financial status in check.
With the acquired information based on the case and the plaintiff’s profile, the company stands a good chance of winning the case. The company can prove that the decision Jennifer took to share the trade secrets, bounded by the confidentiality agreement of Greene’s Jewelry company was a revenge move fueled by the bitterness the plaintiff felt for a layoff that was not personal but professional. The company is also able to show that the decision to fire Jennifer Lawson was but a business strategy and that she was not subject to being personally targeted. The plaintiff may decide to approach the court to draw sympathy, but the facts stand at a higher chance of contradicting her words. The sensitivity of the pregnancy claim proves to be a challenge that may bring support from the public and thus be a threat to the company’s win in court.
The case is one that requires the company and its executives to come out as professionals. The public perception that may present a bad image is the idea that the company has no sympathy for its employees, especially the females. It is important to note that public opinion has some effect to the case at hand and it is important for the company to ensure its image is not tainted. Proper notification of downsizing plans should be implemented to provide such misunderstandings to be avoided. A public acknowledgment by the company on its support for all employees and working mothers is also an option to explore to ensure the image of Greene’s Jewelry is maintained. The company also needs to revise the system in which they issue the different contracts to its employees to prevent loopholes that may cause a contract to be rendered faulty.
