Greene’s Jewelry Llc V. Lawson Breach of Confidentiality & Lawson V. Greene’s Countersuit for Wrongful Termination

Final Project Part 1: Millstone One

Memorandum

Brentwood Simpers

MBA-610 Business Law

10/08/2018

To:  Legal Department: Greene’s Jewelry

From: Brentwood A. Simpers Esq.

Date: 10/08/2018

Re: Greene’s Jewelry LLC v. Lawson Breach of Confidentiality & Lawson v. Greene’s countersuit for Wrongful Termination

1. Introduction

Greene’s (A jewelry Company with a Patented on Ever-Gold) has a breach confidentiality against Jennifer Lawson (Worked as Junior Administering Assistant) and she has a case against Greene’s for wrongful termination. The confidentially contract she signed when hired had a confidentially agreement which she signed, she breeched it by removing classified company papers (When She was laid off) and giving company secrets( Ever-Gold) to competitors (Howell), in her suit she is says she was fired against ADA Laws, Because she Was Pregnant and had just informed Human Resources).  

   “Medical Condition Related to Pregnancy or Childbirth. An employer may not discriminate against an employee because of a medical condition related to pregnancy and must treat the employee the same as others who are similar in their ability or inability to work but are not affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.  For example, under the PDA, since lactation is a medical condition related to pregnancy, an employer may not discriminate against an employee because of her breastfeeding schedule.” (U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.).) (eeoc.gov)

The Beech of Confidentially Agreement was MS. Lawson used papers to gain a job at Howell, who a soon as they gained the information fired MS. Lawson For Lateness to work. Ms. Lawson Was only offered the job after she mentioned that she had said papers. Which makes the Job offer a bad faith offer as Howell only wanted to gain the patented ‘’Ever gold” formula from MS. Lawson.

“If an employer makes intentional misrepresentations to convince an applicant to take a job, and the employee takes action in reliance on those statements (for example, by quitting a secure position to take the new one), the employee may have a fraud claim. These claims often come up if the new job either doesn’t materialize – leaving the applicant out of work and out of luck – or lasts only for a short time.”(Nolo)

1. Facts and Laws

Numerous considerations concerning Greene’s position in the wrongful termination case against Greene’s Jewelry brought by the ex-employee. The main component to consider is that as a pregnant individual she is considered a protected class. This was not a fact in evidence by the company when they reduced workforce by removing a job class from the company. All the Junior Administrative Assistants Were laid off. Almost a dozen people were removed from payroll in the downsizing of the company.

On the Wrongful Termination Greene’s is at will employer who did not know her condition as its was only told to the company after the decision to lay her off was and downsize the company.

1.   Precedent

While Ms. Lawson does meet the first condition pregnant, but this was not known about her and her pregnancy when the decision was made to lay her off. She also partly meets the second state – Lawson had a high rating for professionalism but had low scores for attendance recently. The Claimant does not meet the last two requirements for a clear-cut case since the position of junior executive secretary was eradicated from all departments within the company. There is no discrimination by Greene’s in this matter, and there is no case under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines.

 “The Geduldig v. Aiello case in 1974 involved a pregnant woman who was denied medical benefits under her disability insurance, citing the 14th Amendment, and claiming sex discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court found that there was no evidence of sex discrimination, and that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as men and women were both receiving equal protection under the insurance program, and since men cannot become pregnant, offering protections for pregnancy be unequal. This case also did not use a heightened level of scrutiny, meaning the court did not treat this case as one of high importance, which was criticized by Justice Brennan in a dissent noting that physical gender differences should not lead to unequal compensation, and gender cases should always use strict scrutiny.”        

And Under Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 Which States:

“An employer may not single out pregnancy related conditions for medical clearance procedures that are not required of employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.  For example, if an employer requires its employees to submit a doctor's statement concerning their inability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits, the employer may require employees affected by pregnancy related conditions to do the same.

Pregnant employees must be permitted to work if they are able to perform their jobs.  If an employee has been absent from work as a result of a pregnancy related condition and recovers, her employer may not require her to remain on leave until the baby's birth.  Nor may an employer have a rule that prohibits an employee from returning to work for a predetermined length of time after childbirth.”  

1. She is a member of the protected class (pregnancy)

“A plaintiff alleging that the denial of an accommodation constituted disparate treatment under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires employers to treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work,” may make out a prima facie case by showing that she belongs to the protected class, that she sought accommodation, that the employer did not accommodate her, and that the employer did accommodate others similar in their ability or inability to work. The employer may then seek to justify its refusal to accommodate the plaintiff by relying on “legitimate, nondiscriminatory” reasons for denying accommodation.” (Young v UPS)

1. Performance

Her job performance is reasonable, and but she was late everyday and with out knowing cause or being told by the worker she was added to the removed class, She was also an at will employee. The law for at will employee is as follows.” At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability.  Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences”

VI.   Company Policy/ Lay OFF 

The Company even so laid her off from her position while not knowing she was pregnant and a member of a protected class.

“Employment relationships are presumed to be “at-will” in all U.S. states except Montana.  The U.S. is one of a handful of countries where employment is predominantly at-will.  Most countries throughout the world allow employers to dismiss employees only for cause.   Some reasons given for our retention of the at-will presumption include respect for freedom of contract, employer deference, and the belief that both employers and employees favor an at-will employment relationship over job security.”   (http://www.ncsl.org)

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability.  Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

1. Confidentiality

Ms. Lawson gave protect materials to a third party to secure new employment.

“There are various forms of confidentiality agreements, ranging from “least” to “most” restrictive. A “least restrictive” agreement, for example, may only prohibit a party from discussing the monetary terms of a legal settlement with the media. A “more restrictive” agreement by contrast can prevent a party from disclosing to anyone the facts of a lawsuit, legal theories of a lawsuit’s plaintiff or defendant, or the terms of a lawsuit settlement.

In employment contracts, a non-compete agreement is the most restrictive while a non-solicitation agreement is moderately restrictive.  Each agreement seeks to restrict employees or former employees from participating in distinct activities.  Any party who files a breach of contract lawsuit will likely include a demand for damages for the harm he or she allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged breach.  The penalty for violating a confidentiality agreement varies depending upon the terms of the agreement. The violating party may be required to pay a fixed amount of money (as stated in the agreement); or the agreement may require the violating party to forfeit any funds received in a lawsuit settlement. If the agreement is silent about damages, then the party who alleges a breach will have to prove their actual damages and can only recover those.”