Jennifer Lawson Case Summary
Jennifer Lawson [hereby referred to as The Defendant] is a former employee of Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC [hereby referred to as The Company] located in Derry, New Hampshire.
The Defendant was terminated from the position of junior executive secretary at The Company upon the decision by The Company to downsize. The Defendant acquired confidential information upon her departure regarding the process for creating Ever-Gold; a patented process which is fundamental to The Company’s success. Shortly after, The Defendant became an employee for a competitor of The Company, Howell Jewelry World [hereby referred to as Howell]; where she willingly released unknown documents and trademark secrets. The Defendant was required to sign a confidentiality agreement which The Company claims has been violated.
The Defendant, in turn, has filed a countersuit against The Company on the grounds of wrongful termination. Information about the termination was given to The Defendant after she reported that she would be requiring additional time off due to high-risk factors related to her …show more content…
pregnancy. The Company claims the decision to downsize and eliminate the position of junior executive secretary resulted in The Defendants termination.
Facts and Laws The Company, who currently employees 502 individuals, determined to eliminate the junior executive secretary positions in an effort to downsize.
This, in turn, resulted in the termination of The Defendant. All junior executive secretaries are not required to sign a covenant not to compete but are required to sign a confidentiality agreement which states that they will not disclose any information acquired about the creation process of Ever-Gold, The Company’s patented primary asset. The Defendant inadvertently acquired confidential documents about the Ever-Gold process upon her termination but then knowingly disclosed this information to Howell in order to gain employment. Howell has, in turn, created a similar product that does not infringe upon The Company’s patent. As a result, The Defendant has violated the confidentiality agreement as well as the New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets
Law.
The Defendant was employed by The Company for three years as a junior executive secretary in the research and development department. Annual reviews have shown high marks with the exception of her routine tardiness. The Defendant reported to Lisa Peele, the head of human resources, that she would be requesting additional time off due to high-risk factors related to her pregnancy at which point she was informed about the termination of her position. The Defendant is suing The Company in violation of The Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Precedent
The legal department at Green’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC has compiled the below laws and case precedents in support of these cases.
Cases in relation to contract dispute
1. New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Law. This statute protects valuable trade secrets that are subject to misappropriation. Misappropriation occurs when an individual acquires trade secrets by improper means (Stim, 2016).
a. RSA 350-B: The patent for Ever-Gold is considered a trade secret under this statute because the process is not “readily ascertainable by proper means” to other parties who could “gain economic value from its disclosure or use” (“Title XXXI”, 1990).
b. The Defendant acquired a draft letter intended for The Company’s patent attorney by “improper means” and with the knowledge that she must refrain from disclosing the information, did so without the consent of The Company. In doing so, The Defendant was able to “gain economic value” through the means of employment at Howell. As such, the Defendant is in violation of this statute by the means of misappropriation.
c. A case can also be filed against Howell according to “Reason to Know”. This statute “prohibits use of trade secrets by a company that has ‘reason to know’ that the material constitutes a trade secret” (Stim, 2016). Howell violated this act by employing The Defendant under the condition that they were provided information regarding the Ever-Gold process, something that they would otherwise not be able to obtain or reverse engineer.
2. Wilcox Industries Corp. v. Hansen, 870 F.Supp.2d 296 (D.N.H. May 7, 2012). Wilcox Industries Corp is a manufacturer of military equipment who filed a lawsuit against Hansen, a former employee turned consultant. The court held that Wilcox provided sufficient evidence of a trade secret by identifying it with respect to a specific product. There was also sufficient evidence proving the use of the trade secret by Hansen despite knowing it was improper to do so (“Wilcox”, 2012).
a. This case has many factors similar to the breach of contract lawsuit against The Defendant. Both The Defendant and Hansen were required to sign a confidentiality agreement or a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). They both acquired trade secrets through “improper means” and used them for “economical gain”.
3. Contour Design, Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Co., 794 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D.N.H. 2011). Contour designs and markets ergonomic computer pointing devices. Contour enlisted Chance to manufacture its products. Chance signed a NDA stating that certain information and designs provided by Contour are confidential. Chance later began to market a device similar to one of the design specifications of Chance (“Contour”, 2011). The court ruled in the favor of Contour.
a. Like the previous cases discussed, this case also illustrates the breach of a NDA resulting in a favorable outcome for Contour.
Cases in relation to unlawful termination
1. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. This act “prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy” (“The Pregnancy”, 1978, para. 1).
a. The burden of proof falls on The Company in this case. The Defendant will argue that The Company only terminated her position after she disclosed information about her pregnancy to the head of human resources. This would be a direct violation of this act if The Company is not able to present any evidence to the contrary.
2. New Hampshire Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). In accordance with this act, an employer is required to give advanced notification to its employees in the case of mass layoffs or closures allowing the employees to seek remedy.
a. An employer is defined by “one hundred or more employees, excluding part-time employees; or one hundred or more employees who in the aggregate work at least 3,000 hours per week” (“Title XXIII”, 2012, IV). This act is applicable to The Company as they currently employ 502 individuals.
b. A mass layoff is defined as the loss of employment for at least 250 full time employees or at least 25 employees, “if they constitute at least 33 percent of the full-time employees of the employer” (“Title XXIII”, 2012, VI b). A 60-day notice has to be given to the employees affected by the layoffs prior to their termination. Additional evidence will be required from The Company to determine if they are required to abide by this act.
3. Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 12-1226 (2015). Young was employed as a part-time driver handling packages at the United Parcel Service (UPS). UPS informed Young that due to her pregnancy she could not work under the pregnancy lifting restrictions. Young was denied similar accommodations given to other employees with lifting restrictions (“Young”, 2015). Summary judgment was granted in the favor of Young.
a. The Company will need to provide concrete evidence that the layoffs were due to economic circumstances and no alternative position could be given to The Defendant.
4. Rosario Juarez v. AutoZone Stores, Inc., (2014): Upon revealing her pregnancy to employer AutoZone, Rosario Juarez was demoted and soon fired. Juarez filed a lawsuit against AutoZone in which she was awarded $185 million on the basis of gender discrimination (“Employer”, 2014).
a. The Company must provide irrefutable proof that the termination of The Defendant was premeditated and in no way was related to the disclosure of her pregnancy.
Facts to be Determined
Below, the legal department of Green’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC has provided a list of facts to be determined to further justify or dispute the cases.
1. The signed confidentiality agreement by The Defendant. The content of the agreement, as well as the signature, will be used to justify that The Defendant was aware that the process to create Ever-Gold was confidential and that The Defendant knowingly signed and then violated the agreement.
2. The Patent letter obtained by The Defendant to The Company’s patent attorney. This document will be required to determine if the information contained in the letter revealed the patented process required to make Ever-Gold, thus classifying the document as a confidential record and therefore be classified as a trade secret.
3. Documentation to support the fact that layoff decisions were made prior to the notification of The Defendants pregnancy. Financial or economic reasoning to justify layoffs. Termination notifications for all employees who hold the position of junior executive secretary. These documentations are needed to justify that there was no wrongful termination of The Defendant and that the notice of the pregnancy was just “bad timing” resulting in the claim filed by The Defendant.
4. Any form of training provided to employees of The Company that reviews discrimination laws. This training will indicate that The Company is aware of current laws related to discrimination and has put forth an effort to educate its employees.
5. Employment contract for The Defendant. This document will be needed to understand if the position held at The Company was “at-will” in which case there is no restriction on her immediate termination given no legal laws have been violated.
6. Employment contract for The Defendant at Howell. This document will determine if the verbiage in the contract directly points to the economic gain of The Defendant as well as the requirement to disclose classified information to Howell. This, in turn, will justify that Howell was aware that the information obtained from The Defendant was, in fact, confidential in which case further analysis will be needed to determine if a case can be filed against Howell.
Strictly based on the information provided, the legal department at Green’s Jewelry Wholesale concludes that there is an existence of a valid case that can be built against The Defendant in regards to a contract violation. However, the likelihood of a positive outcome in regards to wrongful termination is slim due to lack of evidence at the current state. After the acquisition of these facts, a better analysis can be conducted regarding these cases and the legality of both.
The Defendant was terminated from the position of junior executive secretary at The Company upon the decision by The Company to downsize. The Defendant acquired confidential information upon her departure regarding the process for creating Ever-Gold; a patented process which is fundamental to The Company’s success. Shortly after, The Defendant became an employee for a competitor of The Company, Howell Jewelry World [hereby referred to as Howell]; where she willingly released unknown documents and trademark secrets. The Defendant was required to sign a confidentiality agreement which The Company claims has been violated.
The Defendant, in turn, has filed a countersuit against The Company on the grounds of wrongful termination. Information about the termination was given to The Defendant after she reported that she would be requiring additional time off due to high-risk factors related to her …show more content…
pregnancy. The Company claims the decision to downsize and eliminate the position of junior executive secretary resulted in The Defendants termination.
Facts and Laws The Company, who currently employees 502 individuals, determined to eliminate the junior executive secretary positions in an effort to downsize.
This, in turn, resulted in the termination of The Defendant. All junior executive secretaries are not required to sign a covenant not to compete but are required to sign a confidentiality agreement which states that they will not disclose any information acquired about the creation process of Ever-Gold, The Company’s patented primary asset. The Defendant inadvertently acquired confidential documents about the Ever-Gold process upon her termination but then knowingly disclosed this information to Howell in order to gain employment. Howell has, in turn, created a similar product that does not infringe upon The Company’s patent. As a result, The Defendant has violated the confidentiality agreement as well as the New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets
Law.
The Defendant was employed by The Company for three years as a junior executive secretary in the research and development department. Annual reviews have shown high marks with the exception of her routine tardiness. The Defendant reported to Lisa Peele, the head of human resources, that she would be requesting additional time off due to high-risk factors related to her pregnancy at which point she was informed about the termination of her position. The Defendant is suing The Company in violation of The Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Precedent
The legal department at Green’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC has compiled the below laws and case precedents in support of these cases.
Cases in relation to contract dispute
1. New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Law. This statute protects valuable trade secrets that are subject to misappropriation. Misappropriation occurs when an individual acquires trade secrets by improper means (Stim, 2016).
a. RSA 350-B: The patent for Ever-Gold is considered a trade secret under this statute because the process is not “readily ascertainable by proper means” to other parties who could “gain economic value from its disclosure or use” (“Title XXXI”, 1990).
b. The Defendant acquired a draft letter intended for The Company’s patent attorney by “improper means” and with the knowledge that she must refrain from disclosing the information, did so without the consent of The Company. In doing so, The Defendant was able to “gain economic value” through the means of employment at Howell. As such, the Defendant is in violation of this statute by the means of misappropriation.
c. A case can also be filed against Howell according to “Reason to Know”. This statute “prohibits use of trade secrets by a company that has ‘reason to know’ that the material constitutes a trade secret” (Stim, 2016). Howell violated this act by employing The Defendant under the condition that they were provided information regarding the Ever-Gold process, something that they would otherwise not be able to obtain or reverse engineer.
2. Wilcox Industries Corp. v. Hansen, 870 F.Supp.2d 296 (D.N.H. May 7, 2012). Wilcox Industries Corp is a manufacturer of military equipment who filed a lawsuit against Hansen, a former employee turned consultant. The court held that Wilcox provided sufficient evidence of a trade secret by identifying it with respect to a specific product. There was also sufficient evidence proving the use of the trade secret by Hansen despite knowing it was improper to do so (“Wilcox”, 2012).
a. This case has many factors similar to the breach of contract lawsuit against The Defendant. Both The Defendant and Hansen were required to sign a confidentiality agreement or a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). They both acquired trade secrets through “improper means” and used them for “economical gain”.
3. Contour Design, Inc. v. Chance Mold Steel Co., 794 F. Supp. 2d 315 (D.N.H. 2011). Contour designs and markets ergonomic computer pointing devices. Contour enlisted Chance to manufacture its products. Chance signed a NDA stating that certain information and designs provided by Contour are confidential. Chance later began to market a device similar to one of the design specifications of Chance (“Contour”, 2011). The court ruled in the favor of Contour.
a. Like the previous cases discussed, this case also illustrates the breach of a NDA resulting in a favorable outcome for Contour.
Cases in relation to unlawful termination
1. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. This act “prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy” (“The Pregnancy”, 1978, para. 1).
a. The burden of proof falls on The Company in this case. The Defendant will argue that The Company only terminated her position after she disclosed information about her pregnancy to the head of human resources. This would be a direct violation of this act if The Company is not able to present any evidence to the contrary.
2. New Hampshire Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). In accordance with this act, an employer is required to give advanced notification to its employees in the case of mass layoffs or closures allowing the employees to seek remedy.
a. An employer is defined by “one hundred or more employees, excluding part-time employees; or one hundred or more employees who in the aggregate work at least 3,000 hours per week” (“Title XXIII”, 2012, IV). This act is applicable to The Company as they currently employ 502 individuals.
b. A mass layoff is defined as the loss of employment for at least 250 full time employees or at least 25 employees, “if they constitute at least 33 percent of the full-time employees of the employer” (“Title XXIII”, 2012, VI b). A 60-day notice has to be given to the employees affected by the layoffs prior to their termination. Additional evidence will be required from The Company to determine if they are required to abide by this act.
3. Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 12-1226 (2015). Young was employed as a part-time driver handling packages at the United Parcel Service (UPS). UPS informed Young that due to her pregnancy she could not work under the pregnancy lifting restrictions. Young was denied similar accommodations given to other employees with lifting restrictions (“Young”, 2015). Summary judgment was granted in the favor of Young.
a. The Company will need to provide concrete evidence that the layoffs were due to economic circumstances and no alternative position could be given to The Defendant.
4. Rosario Juarez v. AutoZone Stores, Inc., (2014): Upon revealing her pregnancy to employer AutoZone, Rosario Juarez was demoted and soon fired. Juarez filed a lawsuit against AutoZone in which she was awarded $185 million on the basis of gender discrimination (“Employer”, 2014).
a. The Company must provide irrefutable proof that the termination of The Defendant was premeditated and in no way was related to the disclosure of her pregnancy.
Facts to be Determined
Below, the legal department of Green’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC has provided a list of facts to be determined to further justify or dispute the cases.
1. The signed confidentiality agreement by The Defendant. The content of the agreement, as well as the signature, will be used to justify that The Defendant was aware that the process to create Ever-Gold was confidential and that The Defendant knowingly signed and then violated the agreement.
2. The Patent letter obtained by The Defendant to The Company’s patent attorney. This document will be required to determine if the information contained in the letter revealed the patented process required to make Ever-Gold, thus classifying the document as a confidential record and therefore be classified as a trade secret.
3. Documentation to support the fact that layoff decisions were made prior to the notification of The Defendants pregnancy. Financial or economic reasoning to justify layoffs. Termination notifications for all employees who hold the position of junior executive secretary. These documentations are needed to justify that there was no wrongful termination of The Defendant and that the notice of the pregnancy was just “bad timing” resulting in the claim filed by The Defendant.
4. Any form of training provided to employees of The Company that reviews discrimination laws. This training will indicate that The Company is aware of current laws related to discrimination and has put forth an effort to educate its employees.
5. Employment contract for The Defendant. This document will be needed to understand if the position held at The Company was “at-will” in which case there is no restriction on her immediate termination given no legal laws have been violated.
6. Employment contract for The Defendant at Howell. This document will determine if the verbiage in the contract directly points to the economic gain of The Defendant as well as the requirement to disclose classified information to Howell. This, in turn, will justify that Howell was aware that the information obtained from The Defendant was, in fact, confidential in which case further analysis will be needed to determine if a case can be filed against Howell.
Strictly based on the information provided, the legal department at Green’s Jewelry Wholesale concludes that there is an existence of a valid case that can be built against The Defendant in regards to a contract violation. However, the likelihood of a positive outcome in regards to wrongful termination is slim due to lack of evidence at the current state. After the acquisition of these facts, a better analysis can be conducted regarding these cases and the legality of both.