Greene's Jewelry Case Study
No one can disagree that the timing of the conversation with Lisa Peele was not ideal, however one can argue that Jennifer had access to confidential information as evidenced by her removal of the letter that contained the recipe for Ever-Gold and concocted her pregnancy allegations to coincide with her discharge from the company to appear as discriminatory on the part of Greene’s in order to secure her position within the company.
While “at will employment is not the sole focus here it should be mentioned that Greene’s Jewelry is protected in New Hampshire as an “at will “employment state. The “at will” employment status negates responsibility from the employer for the lawful discharge of an employee. This protects the employee and the employer
from routine litigation (The At-Will Presumptions and Exceptions to the Rule, n.d.) Greene’s was in the midst of the restructuring and downsizing of non-essential personal which include the job classification that Jennifer held while still employed at Greene’s. It should be noted that Jennifer’s employment was predicated by with the downsizing of the company with the target of improving organizational efficiency and was in no part targeting a specific person as protected under Ttitle VII but rather targeted a position. Ms. Lawson should not be on a re-hirable status as she did disclose trade secrets to a competitor which is a clear violation of the confidentiality agreement that Jennifer singed which is protected by New Hampshire Title XXIII and Title XXXI Trade and Commerce which does protect against giving information to unauthorized parties. The four principles of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in a prima facie case do not exist and justify a dismissal of the complaint against Greene’s by Jennifer Lawson.
In the case of Nguyen, Matsushita Avionics Sys. Co. the defendant successfully showed that the discharge of Nguyen was a justified component of a downsizing program. Nguyen like Jennifer shared with her human services representative that she was pregnant at the time her employment was being terminated. The courts conclude that her condition does not bar her from downsizing and that the human services representative was not accountable for the discussion of pregnancy alone. This almost mirrors Jennifer Lawson’s case and therefore is crucial case for reinforcing the decision to proceed with the downsizing on the part of Greene’s Jewelry.
While “at will employment is not the sole focus here it should be mentioned that Greene’s Jewelry is protected in New Hampshire as an “at will “employment state. The “at will” employment status negates responsibility from the employer for the lawful discharge of an employee. This protects the employee and the employer
from routine litigation (The At-Will Presumptions and Exceptions to the Rule, n.d.) Greene’s was in the midst of the restructuring and downsizing of non-essential personal which include the job classification that Jennifer held while still employed at Greene’s. It should be noted that Jennifer’s employment was predicated by with the downsizing of the company with the target of improving organizational efficiency and was in no part targeting a specific person as protected under Ttitle VII but rather targeted a position. Ms. Lawson should not be on a re-hirable status as she did disclose trade secrets to a competitor which is a clear violation of the confidentiality agreement that Jennifer singed which is protected by New Hampshire Title XXIII and Title XXXI Trade and Commerce which does protect against giving information to unauthorized parties. The four principles of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in a prima facie case do not exist and justify a dismissal of the complaint against Greene’s by Jennifer Lawson.
In the case of Nguyen, Matsushita Avionics Sys. Co. the defendant successfully showed that the discharge of Nguyen was a justified component of a downsizing program. Nguyen like Jennifer shared with her human services representative that she was pregnant at the time her employment was being terminated. The courts conclude that her condition does not bar her from downsizing and that the human services representative was not accountable for the discussion of pregnancy alone. This almost mirrors Jennifer Lawson’s case and therefore is crucial case for reinforcing the decision to proceed with the downsizing on the part of Greene’s Jewelry.