Jennifer Lawson had been working with the Greene’s jewelry wholesale as a senior executive in the research department. The company was started by a couple; Mary Jane and Allen Greene, in 1975 , and it has its main headquarter in Derry, New Hampshire. The company manufactures and distributes high end customized jewelry , a nd its main asset is the ‘ever-gold’ which is patented. This material is a synthetic type of gold that does not discolor, fade, is impermeable to scratches and has no oxidation. The case here is that Greene’s jewelry was suing Jennifer Lawson for breach of the confidentiality agreement as she had shared the company secrets with a rival company , Howell jewelry world, after her termination at Greene’s. It all began when Jennifer approached Greene’s human resource manager to explain that she needed additional time off because she was pregnant and the risk factors were immense. The human resource manager informed her that her request was not necessary because the company was downsizing and had decided to discharge all its junior executive secretaries. In retaliation, Jennifer took a draft letter detailing the ever-gold manufacturing process and shared it with Howell jewelry in exchange for a job in the rival company. She got the job but was fired a week later because of extreme tardiness, a weakness she had exhibited at Greene’s jewelry.
There are two main issues that present themselves , Greene ’s jewelry is suing Jennifer for breaching the confidentiality regulation that she had signed when she was being hired at Greene’s and the discrimination defense that Jennifer would use in defense for her actions. All employees are to sign two letters before they are hired at Greene’s jewelry, the confidentiality and the non-compete letters. In this case , Jennifer was asked to sign only one, the confidentiality letter. The illegal acquisition of the letter and how it was used falls in the categories , yet the non-compete argument cannot be validated since Jennifer did not sign the non-compete letter. Jennifer’s sign to the confidentiality letter can be used as evidence against her , but the case can be dismissed that Jennifer was only retaliating to Greene’s discrimination against her pregnancy or it may be concluded that she did it out of ignorance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Application of the law to facts
The discrimination claim would be substantiated because of the timing that termination occurred. Jennifer says and the Greene ’s jewelry agrees that she had been laid off on the day that she had asked for extra time off. In the New Hampshire law, Greene can use the ‘misappropriation’ clause to back its claims of contract breach and shift the burden of proof to Jennifer. The New Hampshire state law defines misappropriation as the use of improper means to acquire trade secrets of a company and disclose the secrets to a third party knowingly. The improper means can be theft, breach, misrepresentation, bribery or breach inducement to maintain secrecy. An extension to the word ‘misappropriation ’ includes the use of the acquired secrets without the consent of the owner or his representative. It is important to note that Jennifer had signed a confidentiality letter with Greene ’s and the act of presenting the secret to Howell jewelry shows that she was well aware of the illegality of her actions and that she had malicious intentions. Greene ’s jewelry had patented the ever-gold manufacturing process, which means that this information was confidential and it was not to be shared to people outside the company or to rival companies.
Just like in the Picker International versus Carl Blanton case, the plaintiff was asked to prove that the information they claimed was misappropriated was indeed a secret. T he defendant had gotten the information because of the relationship she had with the company and the defendant had used the secret to works against the former company. To answer the three questions, Picker I nternational had to produce the copy of the confidential letter and none-compete letters that Blanton had signed and also prove that Blanton had used the material and knowledge from his former employer to compete against him. All the three questions were answered satisfactorily by Picker International , and Carl Blanton was found guilty of the offen s e and it was proved that he acted in contempt. The exact sequence of questions may be asked toGreene and the likelihood of Jennifer being found guilty are high. The time that the information was divulged to Howell’s jewelry and Jennifer was hired also coincided with the time that Blanton provided the documents to Picker’s rival company and the time he was hired.
In Jennifer’s defense, the pregnancy discrimination case can be used to show that Jennifer had only acted unlawfully as retaliation to the injustice she had received from Greene’s J ewelry. This issue can be related to the Young versus the United Parcel Service when Young had filed a pregnancy discrimination case against her employer for forcing her to go for unpaid leave because she was pregnant. The re is a slight difference in the extreme actions of Jennifer because she had unlawfully acquired and used her former employer secrets , but the timing in which she was laid off can be proof that the employer acted inappropriately and Jennifer was naturally bound to react. The pregnancy report and the layoff timing are similarities that stand out and are protected by the law. The civil, Christian and business groups that backed Young’s case showed the magnitude of the case. There might be a complexity in admitting of the offen s e by Greene because Jennifer had not been laid off alone; in fact , the whole lot of junior secretaries was laid off without any sort of discrimination. The court might not buy the defendants explanation because there is a constitutional blind spot that exist s in laws to protect the pay and clinic buffer zones of pregnant women.
In Greene’s defense, the company must show that the layoff was not discriminatory but part of the normal procedures. They must show that Jennifer’s layoff would have happened even if she had not reported her pregnancy or asked for time off. Similarities can be found between the Greene versus Jennifer case and the O’ Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company (1996) case. Day had taken the Douglas helicopter Company to court for terminating his contract due to his age. Day was an engineer above 40 years and he had worked for the helicopter company for over 17 years and he had not received any promotion, a matter which he stated and proved that it was a breach of his contract. He illegally acquired copies of his file from the manager’s office and used it as evidence in a court of law, a matter which he believed led to his unlawful termination. Discrimination and illegal acquisition of company property again comes as similarity on Jennifer’s side , but Greene jewelry can explain that the termination would have been eventual without bringing in the pregnancy. This is true because Jennifer was laid off alongside other workers , and Greene had not made any attempt to replace the laid off workers. An addition should be that the Greene Company was more accommodative and considerate of Jennifer’s tardy character than the later employer whom the secrets were leaked to. This can be proved by the fact Jennifer only lasted for a week in Howell’s Company. By doing this, Jennifer’s defense can be quashed and as the burden of proof would have shifted.
Cases of such a nature usually take a long time before they are decided upon because of the backlog of cases and the blind spot that exist in the laws. The blind spot is whereby the law does not dictate how pregnant women should be treated in their jobs or the kind of salary they can receive. The finances of running such cases are usually and the Greene jewelry might get a drop in profits due to the negative publicity that comes with such cases. The likelihood of Greene ’s J ewelry losing female customers is high which might be detrimental to business. Keeping in mind that women are the main customers to jewelry business, this may be the end of the company if clear strategies are not formulated and implemented. This issue can be referenced to the Young and the united postal service case. The case lasted three years in court and the company lost its market share. It lost mostly the female clients which can be attributed to the number of female groups that backed the claims of Young.
There are a number of strategies that can be used to curb the effect. Settling the issue with Jennifer outside the court might be the most preferred option as the negative publicity would not be given time to spread. This will reduce the likelihood of many civil and women groups backing the claims of Jennifer as they had done with Young. This option will also reduce the waste of resources as there are financial constraints that usually come with maintaining such cases. Escalation of the issue may also be curbed by hosting training programs for pregnant women; this can be done within the employee workforce in the company or as a social corporate responsibility. This approach will be a proper way of attracting the female customers and rebuilding the brand.
