Giere V. Eaton Corporation

The case that I selected was in the area of law concerning employee confidentiality agreements and trade secrets. My employer, Eaton Corporation, is the plaintiff in this case and was the second reason for its selection. I personally have been involved in trade secret discussions with colleagues regarding information that was deemed “trade secret” and I wanted to find out more about it which is the third reason for this topic to be selected.

Facts of the case:

David Giere (Giere) was an employee of Eaton Corporation (Eaton) starting on January 2, 1980 where he worked as a mechanical engineer. Giere held a couple of roles in the design of transmissions that primarily focused on the lawnmower and snow blower markets. Giere resigned on
Nicholas C. Andreadakis (Andreadakis) is a supporting case for Eaton where the employee breached a confidentiality agreement. Andreadakis was hired at Modern in January of 1976 and on his first day of employment was also asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. The agreement was to establish confidentiality in his role as well as a non-compete clause for a period of two years after leaving the company. In June of 1977, Andreadakis left Modern and accepted a similar role at Burroughs, a competitor of Modern. In that the Modern confidential information was used at Burroughs, Andreadakis is not able to use this information while working in this role at
Michael J. McGrover (McGrover) is a supporting case for Giere. In this case the employee McGrover was employed by Spencer from March of 2003 through early 2012 where he was the Vice President of the Commercial and Industrial Lending department. McGrover left Spencer for a similar role at Union which I assume to be another bank. While employed at Spencer there was an employee handbook which referred to a confidentiality clause. This clause was not formal in that it was not considered to be a legal document as there was no signature and the like. The confidential information that was allegedly taken from Spencer was simple documents which included some forms. These forms were not considered to be proprietary and/or controlled and therefore the confidentiality agreement was informational only.
The case of Hauck Mfg. Co. (Hauck) v. Astec Industries Incorporated (Astec) is also a case that would support Giere. This case focuses on supposed confidential information that was exchanged for the development of burners used specifically for these businesses. The problem with this case is that all of the plaintiff’s assertions for the use of confidential information is assumed and was not proven. In that it was only alleged and not enough factual information was provided to prove that a breach of confidential information occurred. This case was found in favor of the