USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
MBA 6
10
Final Project Part Two Milestone One Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
In Milestone One of Final Project Part II, you will submit an outline of your memorandum highlighting the following concepts:
Assess the legal implications of moving business abroad specific to your chosen country. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a move?
Prompt
For the second part of your summative assessment, you will assume the role of an employee at a fictional company and prepare an executive memo pertaining to the legal and ethical implications of a company doing business internationally.
Scenario
You are working for a major U.S. corporation that wants to expand its reach globally and has narrowed the search down to either Mexico or Japan. Your supervisor has asked you to prepare a memo that analyzes potential compliance issues with respect to aspects of law and ethics that are specific to one of the two countries. You will choose to prepare your memo for either Mexico or Japan and address the critical elements below. This will help inform the final executive decision.
Because you have some fluency with domestic laws, and given your background and history with the corporation, you have been asked to assess the pros and cons of the decision, and to provide your insights with respect to the ethical and legal implications of the expansion.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
- What pertinent aspects of U.S. law should the company be aware of in its goal to do business internationally?
- Assess the legal implications of moving business abroad specific to your chosen country. What are the advantages and disadvantages?
What are the ethical implications involved in this business decision?Explain how other domestic companies have managed to comply with the U.S. laws related to this business decision in the past. How did these companies address potential compliance issues?
What to Submit
Your outline should be 2-3 double-spaced pages listing each of the four critical element questions above, with a minimum of three supporting statements for each. Include 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 Two Milestone One Rubric
| Criteria | Proficient ( | 100% | Needs Improvement (75%) | Not Evident (0%) | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| States the aspects of U.S. law appropriate for company’s goal to do business internationally | States aspects of U.S. law for company’s goal to do business internationally, but with gaps in accuracy or detail | Does not state the aspects of U.S. law appropriate for company’s goal to do business internationally | 22 | ||
| Emphasizes legal implications of moving business abroad specific to the chosen country, differentiating their advantages and disadvantages | Emphasizes legal implications of moving business abroad specific to the chosen country, differentiating their advantages and disadvantages, but with gaps in logic or detail | Does not emphasize legal implications of moving business abroad specific to the chosen country | 23 | ||
| Exposes the ethical implications involved in this business decision | Exposes the ethical implications involved in this business decision, but with gaps in logic or detail | Does not exposes the ethical implications involved in this business decision | |||
| States how domestic companies complied with U.S. laws related to business decision | States how domestic companies complied with U.S. laws related to business decision, but with gaps in accuracy or detail | Does not states how domestic companies complied with U.S. laws related to business decision | |||
| 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
Memo: Application of the Law to the Facts and Impact Assessment
Christine Sarkissian
Southern New Hampshire University
MBA-610: Business Law
Professor David Bretl
March 31, 2024
2
Memo: Application of the Law to the Facts and Impact Assessment
TO: Mary Jane and Allen Greene
FROM: Jennifer Lawson
DATE: 3/29/2024
SUBJECT: Application of the Law to the Facts and Impact Assessment
Application of the Law to the Facts
Our position in the lawsuit is echoed in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792, 1973)
as a pertinent precedent that established a framework for evaluating claims of unlawful termination that is
linked with racial discrimination. Considering that the termination of Jennifer Lawson’s employment was
due to downsizing, the claims of potential discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act holds no
ground. The precedent proved that when there are factors such as race, gender, and pregnancy are at play,
the dismissal of an employee may be seen as a “harmless error.” Our argument aligns with the precedent
because it legitimatizes business rationale for downsizing and Lawson’s termination was a consequence of
the broader strategy. With the absence of discriminatory intent proven by the defendant, it is crucial to
protect organizations to freely exercise the operations such as downsizing. Therefore, we are inclined that
the defendant’s claims of discrimination-based unrightful dismissal as unfounded.
Our argument is also supported the precedent set the Texas Department of Community Affairs v.
Burdine (450 U.S. 248, 1981). In the precedent, the Supreme Court established a framework for examining
the basis of claims of employment discrimination based on gender discrimination. In its prudence, the court
stressed on the need for considering the employer’s reasons for adverse employment action against their
employees. We can establish that Jennifer Lawson’s termination was part of the organization’s broader
downsizing and restructuring efforts. Considering that our decision to terminate the defendant’s contract
3
was made before she came in visited the human resource department to ask for a maternity leave, it is clear
that it was not influenced by her pregnancy status.
Plainly, Lawson breached a confidentiality agreement that she was bound to and her counterargument is unrelated to her offence. Be drawing from the PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond (54 F.3d 1262, 7th
Cir. 1995), the defendant committed the breach of the confidentiality agreement and demonstrated contempt
of contractual agreements. It is clear that contrary to a confidentiality agreement with us, the defendant
deliberately divulged information about the classified Ever-Gold process to Howell Jewelry World. As a
former employee, Lawson is legally bounded by the contract to safeguard Green Jewelry Wholesale, LLC’s
trade secrets to preserve assets and capabilities. Legitimate businesses like Greene’s have rightful and legal
obligation to protect their intellectual property and commercial interests. Therefore, we hold Lawson liable
to the breach of contract and the substantial implications imperiling our company. Our case would be
supported by the precedent set by the Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America (254 U.S. 143, 1920) where
the court upheld the protection of trade secrets and emphasized on the importance of safeguarding
proprietary information. The precedent underscores the significance of confidentiality agreements to protect
the integrity of trade secrets and procedures such as the Ever-Gold process. Inarguably, Lawson’s breach
of the confidentiality contract threatens our competitive position in the market.
The four precedents prove that Greene Jewelry Wholesale LLC would reasonably win in the
prevailing legal dispute against Jeniffer Lawson. Precedents such as PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond and CocaCola Co. v. Koke Co. of America demand that we should always uphold contractual obligations and protect
proprietary information. Additionally, we are in a position to demonstrate that we had a legitimate business
rationale for downsizing, satisfying the courts’ requirements as stated in the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine bolsters its defense against claims of
discrimination. We are aware of the burden to provide compelling evidence that Lawson’s termination was
solely based on legitimate business reasons and ready to disambiguate any inadequacies in the
confidentiality agreement.
4
Impact Assessment
Public Perception
We are afraid that courtesy of these breaches, the Greene Jewelry Wholesale LLC would suffer
significant adverse impacts. In essence, the breach not only exposes our unique production procedure to
our rivals but also would instigate public discourse that may influence how the company is viewed by
consumers, investors, and stakeholders. We believe that our ask to defend for the protection of proprietary
information and adherence to contractual obligation makes the public perceive us as a responsible and
trustworthy business entity. On the other hand, the exoneration of Lawson’s acts of contempt to the signed
confidentiality contract would pose us to the risk of negative perception from the public, which would
potentially lead to reputational damage and loss of consumer trust. Our organization is ready to implement
proactive steps to protect the public’s perceptions, and among these steps is to curb those who endangers
our proprietary rights. For instance, in 2007, Mario Industries of Virginia, Inc. sued a former employee for
using and sharing proprietary information when working in the company, even when they were not bounded
by non-compete or confidentiality agreements (Hill, 2010). The lighting manufacturer and supplier
successfully convinced the court that employees have a fiduciary duty to the former employer. In this case,
the court affirmed that employees that breach the fiduciary duty should be charged a penalty ranging from
$1 million.
Damages
We recommend the company to improve its communication strategies especially during the
initiation and termination of employment contracts. The organization should transparently convey the need
for all employees to remain committed and adhere to legal obligations, even after the termination of the
employment contract. The organization should ascertain that the employees completely understand the
employment contract, reminding them that they are bound to the conditions that are rendered by the
agreement. Furthermore, the company should issue public statements and press releases with the intention
5
of clarifying our stance and obligation to protect proprietary information and uphold contractual agreements
with all our stakeholders. Secondly, we recommend that the company should engage its current employees,
reminding them of their responsibility to honor and abide by their contractual agreements. The organization
should always seek to cultivate the values of goodwill and trust amongst its employees to prevent future
reoccurrences. Lastly, the organization could pursue setting other diplomatic channels such as grievances
and resolution committees to resolve lingering disputes with current and former employees. Despite the
outcome, Jennifer Lawson’s actions caused significant harm to Greene Jewelry Wholesales, LLC.
Therefore, it would be prudent for the company to explore avenues for amicable resolution. Some of these
strategies include mediation and negotiating for settlements. Our willingness to resolve conflicts before
engaging in costly legal disputes demonstrate our responsible and conscientious approach to guarding our
image in the public.
Business Practices
The current legal dispute necessitates our management to formulate and modify several business
practices to avert from similar situations in the future. We should start by reviewing the policies that guide
the operations and procedures of the human resource management department. In this review, we should
ensure that our human resource teams have comprehensive understanding of the relevant employment laws
and regulations. Furthermore, the organization should assess and evaluate its managers and employees on
topics such as anti-discrimination policies and the significance of confidentiality agreements. The
management should also assess members of the human resource department on their knowledge regarding
proper handling of sensitive information. Furthermore, the organization should offer clear guidelines
regarding employment contracts during downsizing or restructuring efforts, thus preventing potential
discrimination claims. We believe that this will help the organization safeguard its legal interests, uphold
ethical standards, and maintain a positive reputation among the public and its stakeholders.
6
References
Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co., 254 U.S. 143 (1920). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/254/143/
Hill, L. L. (2010). Gone but Not Forgotten: When Privacy, Policy and Privilege Collide. Nw. J.
Tech. & Intell. Prop., 9, 565.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/792/
Seyfarth Shaw. (2009, November 6). Analyses of PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262. Casetext CoCounsel. https://casetext.com/case/pepsico-inc-v-redmond2/analysis?p=1&sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=&citingPage=1&sortCiting=dateascending
Texas Dept. of community affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981). (n.d.). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/450/248/
Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co., 254 U.S. 143 (1920). Justia Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/254/143/
