5-1 Final Project Part I: Milestone Two

MBA 6

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper
10

Final Project Part One Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric

Overview

In Milestone Two you will continue to submit sections of the memorandum. In Module Five, submit the Application of the Law to the Facts and the Impact Assessment (IID and IIE) of the memorandum.

Prompt

In the Application of the Law to the Facts section, use the precedents you have selected in case law, regulations, and substantive law, assess the strengths and weaknesses of your company’s arguments in court. In the Impact Assessment section, based on your analysis, how do you believe this situation may affect public perception of your selected company? Make sure to incorporate the feedback you receive on this assignment into your final submission.

You are an intern at the legal department at one of the companies in the following scenario (Greene or Howell) and tasked with compiling a memo for your supervisor, which will be used to formulate an official executive brief of these lawsuits.

Scenario

Mary Jane and Allen Greene, a married couple, own a high-end costume jewelry manufacturing and distribution company called Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC. The principal place of business for Greene’s Jewelry is in Derry, New Hampshire, where it owns a warehouse and two storefronts. Originally started in 1957, the company expanded over five decades, and it now employs 502 individuals in a variety of departments, including sales and marketing, research and development, human resources, and manufacturing.

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

The primary asset of Greene’s Jewelry is its process for creating a synthetic gold-colored material called “Ever-Gold,” which is used in Greene’s necklaces, rings, earrings, and bracelets. Ever-Gold is impervious to scratches, discoloration, oxidization, and is marketed as “everlasting gold.”

Jennifer Lawson, who has been employed for three years as a junior executive secretary in the research and development department at Greene’s Jewelry, has just learned that she is pregnant. She has earned high marks on each of her annual reviews with the company, with the exception of the fact that she routinely shows up 15 to 30 minutes late for work. Otherwise, she is deemed to be professional, articulate, diligent, and skilled in her role with the company. When Lawson advises the head of human resources, Lisa Peele, that she may have to take additional time off as a result of some high-risk factors that she will face during the course of her pregnancy, she is told that her position has been eliminated. The specific words are: “Congratulations Jennifer! That is exciting news for you. We do not need to worry about time off, though, because, regrettably, I was just going to let you know that we are downsizing and no longer have a need for any of our junior executive secretaries.”

Jennifer is distraught, and immediately returns to her desk to clear it out as instructed. She removes all of her personal items, as well as the projects she was working on prior to her discussion with Lisa Peele. When she returns to her home, she realizes that she has inadvertently taken a draft letter to Greene’s patent attorney, which details the secret process for creating Ever-Gold.

Although Greene’s Jewelry requires all of its executives to sign covenants not to compete and confidentiality agreements, Jennifer was only required to sign a confidentiality agreement, by which she agreed never to disclose any information that she might acquire from Greene’s regarding the process used to create Ever-Gold.

Panicked, and knowing that she needs a job, she calls one of Greene’s competitors, Howell Jewelry World, and advises its hiring manager that she is a former employee of Greene’s, that she needs a job, and that she has confidential information about Ever-Gold that would help Howell compete with Greene’s. The hiring manager at Howell, Naomi White, schedules an interview with Jennifer for the following day.

At the end of the interview, Naomi makes an offer to Jennifer to begin work with Howell immediately, but she conditions the offer on Jennifer’s execution of an employment contract. The contract contains two specific provisions that Naomi insists Jennifer read and initial, in addition to signing the contract as a whole. One of those provisions states that Jennifer will disclose the information she has regarding the Ever-Gold process prior to commencing work with Howell. The other provision is a covenant to not work for any competitor of Howell for two years after she leaves the employ of Howell, irrespective of the reason for leaving, and whether she quits or is fired. Jennifer initials both of the provisions, signs the contract for employment, and gives Naomi a copy of the letter that she removed from her desk at Greene’s.

One week after she starts working with Howell, Jennifer is fired for chronic tardiness, and she thereafter gets a job working as a sales associate with the only other jewelry company in town, Triumph Jewels.

Meanwhile, Greene’s learns that Howell has acquired knowledge of the secret process used to create Ever-Gold, and that Howell has tweaked the process slightly so as to avoid any patent infringement issues but to still create a product with similar characteristics and qualities of Ever-Gold. Howell, for its part, has learned that Jennifer is working for a competitor and fears that Jennifer will disclose the process to Triumph. Finally, one of Howell’s customers had developed a disfiguring rash as a direct result of the new process Howell has begun using in its jewelry.

Greene’s sues Jennifer for breach of the confidentiality agreement when it learns that she has given confidential information to Howell. Jennifer counter-sues Greene’s for wrongful termination. Howell sues Jennifer for breach of the covenant not to compete, and Jennifer counter-sues for fraudulent inducement, believing that she was tricked into signing the employment contract with Howell and that Howell was never interested in hiring her, but was interested only in acquiring information on the process to create Ever-Gold. Howell also sues Triumph, claiming that it knew or should have known that Jennifer was subject to a covenant not to compete, and that Triumph should therefore be bound by its provisions.

Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

  1. Client’s CaseApplication of the Law to the Facts: Using the precedents you have selected in case law, regulations, and substantive law, assess the strengths and weaknesses of your company’s arguments in court. Is it probable your company will win this legal dispute?Impact AssessmentBased on your analysis, how do you believe this situation may affect public perception of your selected company? Will the public discourse reflect possible legal outcomes? Be sure to use specific examples.Make suggestions on how to alleviate any damages to your selected company’s public perception going forward. Will action(s) related to the other party be appropriate?Recommend how the company should modify specific business practices to avoid similar situations in the future.

What to Submit

Your memorandum should be 4–5 pages, using 12-point Times New Roman font and one-inch margins. You should use current APA style guidelines for your citations and reference list. Generally speaking, the best memos include references to at least two cases for each point of law that is mentioned. Students also earn high marks when they cite cases that appear to support a different legal resolution than the one presented by the student, and then distinguish that case from the scenario described in this assignment. Such distinctions demonstrate exemplary understanding of the course materials.

Final Project Part One Milestone Two Rubric

)

Application of the Law to the Facts

Impact Assessment: Public Perception

Impact Assessment: Damages

22

Impact Assessment: Business Practices

22

Articulation of Response

10

100%

Criteria Proficient (

100% Needs Improvement (75%) Not Evident (0%) Value
Logically assesses the strengths and weaknesses of company’s arguments in court based on selected laws and precedents, addressing likelihood of winning legal dispute Assesses the strengths and weaknesses of company’s arguments in court based on selected laws and precedents, addressing likelihood of winning legal dispute, but with gaps in logic, detail, or relevance to selected laws or precedents Does not assess the strengths and weaknesses of company’s arguments in court based on selected laws and precedents 24
Logically evaluates how legal situation may affect public perception of company, providing specific examples Evaluates how legal situation may affect public perception of company, providing specific examples, but has gaps in logic or detail Does not evaluate how legal situation may affect public perception of company 22
Makes appropriate suggestions for how to alleviate damages to company’s public perception, addressing whether actions related to other party are appropriate Makes suggestions for how to alleviate damages to company’s public perception, addressing whether actions related to other party are appropriate, but not all suggestions are appropriate or key details are missing Does not make suggestions for how to alleviate damages to company’s public perception
Makes appropriate recommendations for how the company should modify specific business practices to avoid similar situations in the future Makes recommendations on how the company should modify specific business practices to avoid similar situations in the future, but not all recommendations are appropriate or key details are missing Does not make recommendations for how the company should modify specific business practices to avoid similar situations in the future
Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas
Total:

1
MBA 610 Final Project Part One Milestone One
Christine Sarkissian
Southern New Hampshire University
MBA-610: Business Law
Professor David Bretl
March 10, 2024
2
MBA 610 Final Project Part One Milestone One
Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC can rely on its ability to act legally and defend as long
as it follows all employment law rules. The central purpose of the argument is that the corporation
holds that its confidentiality agreements are legally binding, including one with Jennifer Lawson,
which she violated because she divulged the company’s proprietary information to a competitor.
This breach is not only a violation of Greene, as per the security agreement that exists between the
company and the employee, but it is also an attack on the legal rights of the company to protect its
trade secrets, which are usually the major center of attention in the high-fashion jewelry market.
Another important point is the release of Jennifer from her job. This is mostly a normal and
legal workforce downsizing procedure in the external market environment or within the
organization. However, it is done to increase the business’s profits. Adequate and uniform
recording of information on termination and transparently communicating reasons will be the
firm’s legal procedures, and the purpose is that the company strictly adheres to fairness and
transparency. By giving close attention to the complex managerial relationships that involve
employment discrimination, unlawful dismissal, as well as contract disputes, in combination with
the case law, which is well-considered and with contracts that are all-encompassing and protect
the investments, the intellectual interests of personnel and the company’s policies, Greene’s
Jewelry Wholesale, LLC, becomes legally dependent.
Facts and Laws
a. Unlawful Termination
Based on the laws of unlawful termination and employment discrimination, the explanation
of Jennifer Lawson’s downsizing at the Green’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC implies that the events
were based on the principle of non-discrimination and lawful termination in contrast with the cases
3
of discrimination or unlawful termination itself. It might be said that her firing was just after she
let some gossip out from the official rules so that the employer can deal with discrimination in
pregnancy, childbirth, and its relative medical conditions according to the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act. Nonetheless, the legal basis of Greene’s case is that the rationalization of the
company structure and the downsizing of the supporting positions are the broader context, rather
than Lawson being the target of such actions. The company’s case would be reinforced by
exhibiting a series of downsizing across the different departments, with no case of discrimination
intended or practiced. Thus, the termination of the employment contract with Lawson by Greene’s
following sound business needs rather than pregnancy-based factors is legally compliant with the
employment provisions.
b. Contract Issues
The nub of the legality of Greene’s Jewelry’s legal position against Jennifer Lawson also
involves violating the confidentiality agreement and the central role of covenants not to compete.
The actions of Lawson following the termination, particularly the information about the Ever-Gold
process she offered to Howell Jewelry World, align with the confidentiality agreement she signed
with Greene. This signed nondisclosure is a legally binding contract that explicitly prohibits
unauthorized disclosure of the company’s proprietary information to protect the trade secrets and
keep the company’s competitive edge (Holland & Knight, 2023). Besides, the importance of noncompetition covenants emerges through Lawson’s employment with Howell, where she breached
her confidentiality agreement with Greene and potentially violated the non-compete principles by
actively engaging in work that was essentially aimed at undermining her previous employer in the
market (Holland & Knight, 2023). This raises crucial legality for businesses such as Greene to
4
protect their property rights and market interests, as shown by the implications of Lawson’s breach
of contract, which are quite serious for both parties involved.
Precedent
a. Unlawful Termination
Greene’s Jewelry’s defense against Jennifer Lawson’s claim of wrongful termination finds
robust support in the landmark case of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792, 1973).
This case, in particular, set up a framework for the review of discrimination in employment claims,
and now, plaintiffs are supposed to be the first to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination
(Holland & Knight, 2023). In Lawson’s case, she was laid off due to downsizing, which was the
formal cause given by the employer; they might have proved that the termination was not
discriminatory by displaying a genuine, non-discriminatory reason for termination. Since Lawson
was allegedly late to work and the company was forced to cut staff in the McDonnell Douglas
principles, Greene’s case showed that the management erroneously fired her. The precedent set by
this case shows that legal grounds for the termination of employment exist when genuinely
operational reasons are involved, as long as the employer can demonstrate that these reasons are
not related to discrimination and are job-related.
b. Contract Disputes
In the realm of contract disputes, particularly regarding confidentiality agreements, the case
of PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond (54 F.3d 1262, 7th Cir. 1995) serves as a significant precedent
supporting Greene’s stance. Here, the court stated that nondisclosure agreements are binding only
under the circumstances where they are designed to safeguard legitimate business interests, such
as trade secrets or proprietary information. The court’s decision to enforce a confidentiality
agreement in favor of PepsiCo can encourage Greene’s Jewelry to take advantage of this precedent
5
on Lawson if the company sues her. Lawson’s revealing of Ever-Gold’s secret formula to a rival is
a breach of the confidentiality agreement and a direct case of PepsiCo’s confidential information
being shared with a rival (Holland & Knight, 2023). This case law backs Greene’s legal
groundwork, showcasing the powerful effect of confidentiality agreements to inhibit publicity that
may harm the business interests and the intellectual property rights against unauthorized
disclosures, thus reaffirming the company’s strong legal position in the Lawson case.
Facts to be Determined
a. Facts Needed for Better Analyzing Company’s Position
The legal strategy of Greene’s Jewelry should be strongly reinforced based on the following
facts that need clarification. First of all, it is necessary to collect all information on the downscale
decision and the reasons for the dismissal of Jennifer Lawson, including the criteria for selection
of posts for the elimination and the documents proving that this process was not selective and had
no discrimination. It is critical to specify whether the dismissal of Lawson was a result of her
pregnancy or whether other employees in similar posts were also terminated in order to avoid
charges of discriminatory dismissal (Employment Law Handbook, n.d.). Further, the details about
how Lawson will be communicated to and acknowledged with the confidentiality agreement can
make Greene assert that the contract has been breached. To be sure, it is important to find out if
Lawson had any training or notification that he must be very careful when dealing with confidential
material and its legal consequences. Finally, it is imperative to determine if Lawson had previous
knowledge that she would have a high-risk baby and if this had any bearing on her decision-making
process. This will also aid in finding out whether her termination was legal or not.
b. Establish Legal Rights/Obligations
6
Unmistakably, clarifying these facts will significantly impact Green’s legal rights or
obligations. Documented evidence of a broad and non-discriminatory downsizing process will
confirm that Greene wished to reorganize the workforce by using employment discrimination as a
defense. The company can thus claim its legal entitlement to protect its intellectual property and
pursue legal action against breach by establishing that Lawson knew about the nondisclosure
agreement and the importance of Greene’s inventions being kept secret. Moreover, proving that
the termination was not due to Lawson being pregnant will back up Greene’s claim about not being
a victim of unlawful termination (Katz Banks Kumin LLP, 2023). These details, deemed
established, are a show of Greene’s compliance and its obligation to enforce the contract and
promote a fair and non-discriminatory workplace, preserving reputation and legal standing.
In conclusion, Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC, is shielded by a strong legal position
built on its steadfast adherence to employment laws and active safeguarding of trade secrets. The
enforceability of its confidentiality agreement, in combination with the legal precedents upholding
its claims on non-compete agreements and wrongful termination, creates a solid base for affirming
its charges and defenses. The detailed study of the facts will strengthen Greene’s ability to use the
intricate legal landscape to the maximum and to ensure that the company’s proprietary processes
and business practices are guarded against any robust opponents. The wise use of significant case
law and the detailed analysis of the dispute of contracts and employment-related issues would be
a great example of a jewelry company that is responsible and ethical and, therefore, a better
business in the jewelry industry. Combinatory strategy, focused thus on both preventive and
reactive legal aspects, is a reason why Greene’s Jewelry is more likely to protect its interests and
remain popular.
7
References
Employment Law Handbook. (n.d.). Court Upholds Confidentiality Clauses For Workplace
Investigations. Retrieved from https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/courtupholds-confidentiality-clauses-for-workplace-investigations/
Holland & Knight. (2023). NLRB Decision Restricting Broad Confidentiality/NonDisparagement Clauses Applies Retroactively. Retrieved from
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/03/nlrb-decision-restricting-broadconfidentialitynondisparagement
Katz Banks Kumin LLP. (2023). New York Further Limits Scope of Nondisclosure Agreements
in Employment Discrimination Cases. Retrieved from https://katzbanks.com/New-YorkFurther-Limits-Scope-of-Non-Disclosure-Agreements-in-Employment-DiscriminationCases

Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order your essay today and save 25% with the discount code LAVENDER