Greene’s Jewelry Legal Department Greene’s Jewelry v. Jennifer Lawson (2017) Countersuit Jennifer Lawson v. Greene’s Jewelry – Wrongful Termination Legal Memorandum
Greene’s Jewelry Legal Department Greene’s Jewelry v. Jennifer Lawson (2017) Countersuit Jennifer Lawson v. Greene’s Jewelry – Wrongful Termination Legal Memorandum
JOHN J. DAVIS March 10, 2017 Legal Memorandum TO: Elisabeth Shapiro – Director FROM: John J. Davis – Intern DATE: January 27, 2017 RE: Greene’s Jewelry v. Jennifer
Lawson / Countersuit Jennifer Lawson v. Greene’s Jewelry – Wrongful Termination INTRODUCTION This legal memorandum provides information and standings for Greene’s
Jewelry v. Jennifer Lawson case. Jennifer Lawson is a former employee of Greene’s Jewelry. She held the position of junior executive secretary for three years. Her
position was eliminated by the Greene’s Jewelry due to downsizing, as well as financial, productivity, and other business reasons. Greene’s Jewelry eliminated all of
four existing junior executive secretary positions. The company’s elimination of junior executive secretary position is solely decided based on business and financial
needs. After her termination from the company, Jenifer Lawson is believed to have taken confidential and BUSINESS TRADE secrets documents belonging to the Greene’s
Jewelry, including confidential process of creating Ever-Gold; a process patented by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It is solely owned by Greene’s
Jewelry and it is fundamental to the company’s success, competition, and differentiation of the Greene’s Jewelry from its competition. It has been found out that
Jenifer Lawson provided documents and trade secret from the Greene’s Jewelry to Howell Jewelry World, a competitor of the Greene’s Jewelry right after her termination
from her former position from the Greene’s Jewelry for an agreement of exchange of securing employment at the Howell Jewelry World. It has been also found out that
Howell Jewelry World is knowledgeable of the details of current confidential and patented process for Ever-Gold and is in the process of creating a similar method that
does not violate Greene’s Jewelry‘s patented process. Although Jennifer Lawson did not sign a covenant agreement with Greene’s Jewelry, she did sign a confidentiality
agreement, commonly known as a NonDisclosure Agreement (NDA), which she has clearly violated by sharing confidential patented Ever-Gold process with anyone including
the Howell Jewelry World. On the other side, Jennifer Lawson claims in a separate lawsuit against Greene’s Jewelry that she was wrongfully terminated due to her
pregnancy notice to the human resources manager Lisa Peelet, on the same day that her termination was announced. It is vital to note that the Greene’s CONFIDENTIAL
Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC 2 Legal Memorandum Jewelry, prior to Jennifer Lawson’s pregnancy announcement, already had made the decision to eliminate all junior
executive secretary positions due to financial productivity and business reasons . It is clear and based on documentations and evidence that the Greene’s Jewelry did
not violate any legal terms in its decision to eliminate all four junior executive secretary positions and its decision has no ground for any discrimination of any
employees but solely for business reason. We only need to determine that if proper notice prior to termination has been provided or required based on any legal
requirements. There is also no ground and evidences for Jennifer Lawson’s claims against the Greene’s Jewelry for wrongful termination. After careful investigation,
follow thru fact, and documentations and benchmarking similar legal cases, the legal department of Greene’s Jewelry believes that the company has strong standing in
this lawsuit against Jennifer Lawson for breach of the Greene’s Jewelry’s NonDisclosure Agreement (NDA). Further, they also believe that Jennifer Lawson’s counter
claim of wrongful termination has no legal ground , evidence, or any documentations other than her own perception, and will be dismissed upon all documentations and
evidences provided during discovery. Greene’s Jewelry will also seek legal action to sue Howell Jewelry World for using the patented Ever-Gold process, which is
confidential property that belongs to Greene’s Jewelry. Damages caused and documentations will be provided during discovery. FACTS & LAW: UNLAWFUL TERMINATION Jennifer
Lawson maintains in the counter claim of wrongful termination against the Greene’s Jewelry’s that the company terminated her solely because of her pregnancy and she is
being discriminated based on her pregnancy status. Jennifer Lawson was employed at Greene’s Jewelry’s for three years with no documentation of any disciplinary action.
She has also a good record of performance evaluation. She claims and accuses Greene’s Jewelry of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (Reference -2) and the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) (Reference-3). The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of
employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, such as leave and health insurance, and any other term or
condition of employment (Reference-3). Based on the evidence, the position the Jennifer Lawson CONFIDENTIAL Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC 3 Legal Memorandum held with
The Greene’s Jewelry was eliminated prior to Jennifer Lawson declaring her pregnancy to human resources manager Lisa Peele due to downsizing. There is neither evidence
nor documentations that the Greene’s Jewelry has prior knowledge or information about neither Jennifer Lawson’s pregnancy information nor her health records
information. Evidence supporting the termination of the position has been made in the last section of this memorandum. Then, it is also clear that the company did not
violate the Americans with Disabilities Act in regards to Jennifer Lawson’s claims. The Greene’s Jewelry also terminated three other employees along with Jennifer
Lawson without any preference or discrimination based on the fact that all positions have been eliminated due to the same business reasons. When the company initially
hired Jennifer Lawson, she was required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) stating that she would follow good judgment and protect company’s trade secrets and
confidential information. Unfortunately, it has been found out that Jennifer Lawson intentionally and willfully provided and shared essential business secrets from the
Greene’s Jewelry to the Howell Jewelry World, a competitor of the company. It is believed that she released documents providing the process of “Ever-Gold” to The
Howell Jewelry World. Jennifer Lawson not only violated her legally binding NDA contract with the Greene’s Jewelry, she also violated the New Hampshire Trade Secret
Law (Reference -4). According to Nolo Legal resources, to win a pregnancy discrimination case someone must show that they were treated differently than other employees
who were similarly situated, and that the difference in treatment was based on the pregnancy (Reference-4). The Greene’s Jewelry eliminated all four positions due to
downsizing, and the other three employees were not pregnant. Here is a similar case Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation we can benchmark : two sixth circuit
decisions issued last week underscore the hazards associated with terminating an employee between the time that she announces her pregnancy and any time shortly after
she returns from pregnancy leave. Fortunately, both decisions, which uphold lower court summary judgment decisions, also demonstrate that an employer can escape
liability when it has valid reasons for the termination, even when the termination was made at a time that was temporally close to the pregnancy announcement or the
pregnancy itself. In the first decision, Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation, the court upheld summary judgment for the employer on CONFIDENTIAL Greene’s Jewelry
Wholesale LLC 4 Legal Memorandum Madry’s claim that the FMLA required her employer, Gibraltar, to reinstate her to the position that she held prior to her leave.
Gibraltar defended on the grounds that an employee returning from FMLA leave is not entitled to restoration unless she would have continued to be employed if she had
not taken FMLA leave. Gibraltar claimed that Madry was terminated for lack of work caused by economic reasons. It does not appear that Madry relied on the retaliation
provisions of the FMLA nor any state or federal pregnancy discrimination statutes to support her contention that her termination was unlawful (Reference-6- By Brian
Hall on May 20, 2013). In another case, Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated, the plaintiff alleged that her employment was unlawfully terminated on the basis of her
pregnancy and that her employer interfered with benefits due her under the FMLA and ERISA. The facts of this case are quite long and involved. Suffice it to say that
Megivern had ongoing performance issues that resulted in her being placed on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) approximately two weeks after announcing her
pregnancy to co-workers. Approximately five weeks later, she was terminated for not improving to satisfactory status after being placed on the PIP. As these cases
typically develop, in upholding the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in Glacier Hills’ favor, the Sixth Circuit focused ultimately on whether Megivern had
sufficient evidence to prove that Glacier Hills’ proffered performance reasons for the termination decision were pretextual. In particular, the court found that the
temporal proximity between the pregnancy announcement and the termination was not sufficient by itself to establish pretext. Instead, the court required Megivern to
present other, independent evidence of pretext, which she was unable to do. The court rejected her primary argument that the reasons for her termination shifted over
time, finding instead that “the rationale given for terminating Megivern’s employment was clearly articulated in the termination notice prepared by Thompson and has
remained the same since. In addition, the court found that the final decision-maker’s failure to congratulate her on her pregnancy did not provide evidence of pretext,
especially since there was no evidence that Megivern had ever told that she was pregnant directly. Finally, Megivern presented “me too” testimony from three other
employees who contended that they too were treated badly based on their pregnancy, but the court upheld the rejection of this evidence because the others’ situations
were all factually distinct from Megivern’s ( Reference-6- By Brian Hall on May 20, 2013). CONFIDENTIAL Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC 5 Legal Memorandum As seen from
these two similar cases we have strong ground in defending Jennifer Lawson’s counter claim against us. FACTS & LAW: CONTRACT ISSUES Jennifer Lawson clearly did violate
the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with the Greene’s Jewelry right after her termination. Jennifer Lawson also broke the New Hampshire Trade Secret Law by sharing
company confidential information with the Howell Jewelry World in exchange for to secure job at Howell Jewelry World. The state of New Hampshire implemented this law
from the federal Uniform Trade Secrets Act. It relates to the theft of trade secret as misappropriation. Under New Hampshire law, “misappropriation” includes the
disclosure or use of a trade secret without consent by someone who used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret (Stim, 2016). Jennifer Lawson released
confidential information which is the process of patented and protected Ever-Gold process to competitor Howell Jewelry World. The relevant precedent case can be used
against the Howell Jewelry World. An example is the case of Dow Corning Corp. v. Xiao (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2011). The plaintiff corporations alleged, among other
things, that defendant, an individual and multiple companies he formed, misappropriated plaintiff’s trade secrets by hiring a former employee of plaintiff and
consequently stealing plaintiff’s processes for manufacturing a specific chemical compound. Defendant moved to dismiss this portion of the complaint, arguing that
plaintiff had not identified a specific trade secret that was misappropriated. In denying defendant’s motion, the court pointed out that plaintiff had specifically
described in its complaint the relevant chemical compound and some of the basic processes involved in the plaintiff’s manufacture of this compound, and that plaintiff
alleged that those processes, and the specifications and conditions necessary to run them well, were trade secrets. This amounted to sufficient factual information to
let the court reasonably draw the inference that Defendant was liable (Reference -11). The company has strong evidence against the defendant. The defendant totally
violated the nondisclosure agreement with the company. As we mentioned in the above, it is easy to demonstrate that the defendant broke NDA. FACTS & LAW: LAWS
CONFIDENTIAL Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC 6 Legal Memorandum Breech of non-disclosure agreements are governed by contract law. Breach of legally binding contract is
found out between Jenifer Lawson and the Greene’s Jewelry. Patent law is found under Title 35 of the United States Code. Under United States law, a patent is a right
granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to
exclude others from using a new technology (Reference-9). The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Women affected by
pregnancy or related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work (Reference-
7). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) The ADA is a comprehensive civil rights law. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, state and
local government programs, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications (Reference-10). New Hampshire Trade Secret Law: The
state of New Hampshire adopted this law from the federal Uniform Trade Secrets Act. It outlines the theft of company trade secrets as misappropriation.
Misappropriation is defined as acquisition of a trade secret and the disclosure of said secret without the consent of The Company. The Defendant is very much guilty of
violating such. (Stim, R., n.d.) Economic Espionage Act of 1996: Title 1 of his law dictates the protection of trade secrets. The Defendant was one of the employees in
Greene’s Jewelry who was not notified of the patented process of “Ever-Gold”. We believe that The Defendant stole documents for reasons currently unknown to The
Company; hence, violating the sanctity of The Company’s legally-protected trade secrets (“Criminal Law-Economic Espionage”, 2016). CONFIDENTIAL Greene’s Jewelry
Wholesale LLC 7 Legal Memorandum PRECEDENT: UNLAWFUL TERMINATION We, as the legal department of Greene’s Jewelry, have researched several laws and case precedents that
are relevant to the unlawful termination claim of this case. They are as follows: Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation we can benchmark : two sixth circuit
decisions issued last week underscore the hazards associated with terminating an employee between the time that she announces her pregnancy and any time shortly after
she returns from pregnancy leave. Fortunately, both decisions, which uphold lower court summary judgment decisions, also demonstrate that an employer can escape
liability when it has valid reasons for the termination, even when the termination was made at a time that was temporally close to the pregnancy announcement or the
pregnancy itself. In the first decision, Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation, the court upheld summary judgment for the employer on Madry’s claim that the FMLA
required her employer, Gibraltar, to reinstate her to the position that she held prior to her leave. Gibraltar defended on the grounds that an employee returning from
FMLA leave is not entitled to restoration unless she would have continued to be employed if she had not taken FMLA leave. Gibraltar claimed that Madry was terminated
for lack of work caused by economic reasons. It does not appear that Madry relied on the retaliation provisions of the FMLA nor any state or federal pregnancy
discrimination statutes to support her contention that her termination was unlawful.(Referance-6- By Brian Hall on May 20, 2013) In the second case — Megivern v.
Glacier Hills Incorporated — the plaintiff alleged that her employment was unlawfully terminated on the basis of her pregnancy and that her employer interfered with
benefits due her under the FMLA and ERISA. The facts of this case are quite long and involved. Suffice it to say that Megivern had ongoing performance issues that
resulted in her being placed on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) approximately two weeks after announcing her pregnancy to co-workers. Approximately five weeks
later, she was terminated for not improving to satisfactory status after being placed on the PIP. As these cases typically develop, in upholding the lower court’s
grant of summary judgment in Glacier Hills’ favor, the Sixth Circuit focused ultimately on whether Megivern had sufficient evidence to prove that Glacier Hills’
proffered performance reasons for the termination decision were perpetual. In particular, the court found that the temporal proximity between the pregnancy
announcement and the termination was not sufficient by itself to establish pretext. Instead, the court required CONFIDENTIAL Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC 8 Legal
Memorandum Megivern to present other, independent evidence of pretext, which she was unable to do. The court rejected Megivern’s primary argument that the reasons for
her termination shifted over time, finding instead that “the rationale given for terminating Megivern’s employment was clearly articulated in the termination notice
prepared by Thompson and has remained the same since. In addition, the court not surprisingly found that the final decision-maker’s failure to congratulate her on her
pregnancy did not provide evidence of pretext, especially since there was no evidence that Megivern had ever told that she was pregnant directly. Finally, Megivern
presented “me too” testimony from three other employees who contended that they too were treated badly based on their pregnancy, but the court upheld the rejection of
this evidence because the others’ situations were all factually distinct from Megivern’s.( Reference-6- By Brian Hall on May 20, 2013) As seen from these two similar
cases we have strong ground in defending the Jennifer Lawson’s counter claim against us. PRECEDENT: CONTRACT DISPUTES We, the legal department of Greene’s Jewelry,
have compiled several laws and cases precedents that we feel are pertinent to the success of this case. Here are some examples : Dow Corning Corp. v. Xiao, (E.D. Mich.
May 20, 2011) Plaintiff corporations alleged, among other things, that Defendants, an individual and multiple companies he formed, misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade
secrets by hiring a former employee of Plaintiff and stealing Plaintiff’s processes for manufacturing a specific chemical compound. Defendant moved to dismiss this
portion of the complaint, arguing that Plaintiff had not identified a specific trade secret that was misappropriated. In denying Defendant’s motion, the court pointed
out that Plaintiff had specifically described in its complaint the relevant chemical compound and some of the basic processes involved in the Plaintiff’s manufacture
of this compound, and that Plaintiff alleged that those processes, and the specifications and conditions necessary to run them well, were trade secrets. This amounted
to sufficient factual information to let the court reasonably draw the inference that Defendant was liable (Reference -11). StorageCraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby
CONFIDENTIAL Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC 9 Legal Memorandum On March 11, 2014, The Tenth Circuit held that a plaintiff may recover damages under a reasonable
royalty theory, even in cases where the defendant had not profited financially from the misappropriation. StorageCraft Technology Corp. (StorageCraft), a developer of
data storage and recovery software, brought suit against James Kirby, a former officer and director who was also one of the company’s original founders. The complaint
alleged that Kirby had misappropriated StorageCraft’s trade secrets, and had subsequently shared this information with NetJapan, one of StorageCraft’s main
competitors. The complaint did not allege that Kirby had profited financially from the misappropriation. A jury awarded StorageCraft $2.92 million in damages based on
the estimate of what would constitute a reasonable royalty for use of the misappropriated trade secrets. Kirby appealed, arguing that the award was excessive because
he had not profited from the misappropriation. The Tenth Circuit rejected Kirby’s argument and affirmed the award, noting that the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets Act
“doesn’t distinguish between a misappropriator’s venial motives.” While reasonable royalty damages are commonly sought in cases where the defendant has profited
financially from the misappropriation of the plaintiff’s trade secrets, this decision makes clear that, at least in Utah, such damages are available regardless of the
defendant’s motive in the misappropriation. Ref 12FACTS TO BE DETERMINED: ESTABLISH As, the legal department of Greene’s Jewelry, believe the company has a strong
ground and evidences in a favorable outcome in the case of Greene’s Jewelry v. Jennifer Lawson (2017). We will further investigate and collect documentations of
establishing a stronger case and seek for approval of several subpoenas against Howell Jewelry World and Jenifer Lawson. Here are the facts to be determined listed as
follows: 1. Did Jennifer Lawson intentionally violate the terms of the confidentiality agreement? 2. Did Jennifer Lawson provide trade secrets to a competitor despite
understanding that it was wrong? 3. Did Greene’s Jewelry terminate Jennifer Lawson from her position for an unlawful reason? CONFIDENTIAL Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale
LLC 10 Legal Memorandum 4. Did Greene’s Jeweler decide to terminate Jennifer Lawson prior to learning about her 5. 6. 7. 8. pregnancy and medical condition? How many
junior executive secretaries’ positions were eliminated in the company? Did Jennifer Lawson access the company downsizing plans? Did Jennifer Lawson illegally give
trade secrets to anyone other than Howell Jewelry World? What are the direct financial damages that Greene’s has incurred due to the loss of the trade secrets of
manufacturing Ever-Gold? 9. What are the short term and long terms, financial damages that Greene’s will incur due to the loss of the trade secrets of manufacturing
Ever-Gold? 10. Will Greene’s pursue litigation for “Misappropriation” against Howell Jewelry World under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act? 11. Did Jennifer Lawson file a
Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before filing a lawsuit against Greene’s? 12. Where is the confidentiality agreement that
Jennifer Lawson signed and documented correctly? 13. What laws were broken by Jennifer Lawson when she removed the company intellectual property? 14. Documents
supporting that the decision to eliminate the position of “junior executive secretary”; of all employees due to downsizing and companies previous plan of action to
execute this by current timeline . 15. A subpoena of Howell Jewelry World employees who are creating process similar to EverGold requesting documents that were
provided to them by The Jenifer Lawson regarding to the process of Ever-Gold. 16. A subpoena of documents for Howell Jewelry World’s new process for their new
material. APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE FACTS Based on the application of the laws and findings below it would be strongly possible that the Greene’s Jewelry will win
this legal dispute and based on below assessments, laws to the facts that the Greene’s Jewelry has strong ground in court to win this case. Based on clear evidences
found that Jennifer Lawson clearly did violate the nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with the Greene’s Jewelry right after her termination and violated both Federal and
State laws with her unlawful activities. Jennifer Lawson also broke the New Hampshire Trade Secret Law by sharing company confidential information with the Howell
Jewelry World in exchange for to secure job at Howell Jewelry World. The Stat…