Email: support@essaywriterpros.com
Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

Analyze the facts related to employment discrimination or unlawful termination based on a company’s perspective.

For Final Project Part I of this course, you will create a memorandum. In Milestone One, submit your Memo Introduction, Facts and Laws, Precedent, and Facts to be Determined sections (Sections I, IIA and IIB, and IIC) of the memorandum.

In the Memo Introduction section, articulate what you feel are the strengths of your company’s (you will choose one!) legal claim or defense. In the Facts and Laws section, analyze the facts related to employment discrimination or unlawful termination based on your company’s perspective. In the Precedent section, select cases that support your company’s position in terms of employment discrimination or unlawful termination. Justify why they support its case. In the Facts to be Determined section, determine any facts that will help you better analyze your company’s position. Make sure to incorporate the feedbackyou receive on this assignment into your final submission.

I.

Memo Introduction: Articulate what you feel are the strengths of your company’s legal claim or defense.

II. Client’s Case

A.

Facts and Laws

1. Analyze the facts related to employment discrimination or

unlawful termination based on your company’s perspective.

2. Analyze the facts related to

contract issues based on your company’s perspective.

3. Identify the operative employment and contract

laws that apply to your company’s case.

B.

Precedent

1. Select cases that support your company’s position in terms of employment discrimination or

unlawful termination. Justify why they support its case.

2. Select cases that support your company’s position in terms of

contract disputes. Justify why they support its case.

C.

Facts to be Determined

1. Determine any

facts that will help you better analyze your company’s position. In other words, what questions do you need answered before you can proceed?

2. Explain how the identified facts will help

establish the legal rights and/or obligations of the defendant in relation to your company. In other words, how would those facts reflect on the propriety and legality of the decisions that were made?

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.

The primary asset of Greene’s Jewelry is its patented 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 thecontract 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 thereaftergets 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 theprocess 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 inacquiring information on the process to create Ever-Gold.

In Module One, we discussed contract law in detail, including discussion of covenants not to compete. You will apply contract law to the Final Project scenario. The contract and employment law issues contained within the Greene’s dispute are of equal importance, so be sure to address them both.

In Module Two, you will read about employment law and will also apply it. Here are some supplemental resources to get you started:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: http://www.eeoc.gov/

Federal Laws Prohibiting Discrimination Q & A: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Punitive Damages, Due Process, and Employment Discrimination: Punitive Damages, Due Process, and Employment Discrimination.pdf

Trade Secrets Laws: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/state-law-trade-secrets

There are so many interesting employment discrimination cases out there to guide your analysis of the employment law issues raised by the Final Project scenario. First, identify the elements of a workplace discrimination claim; then identify potential legal defenses for the employer. Last, identify potential damages if the plaintiff-employee wins, which in some cases can include punitive damages. Keep in mind that some of the employment laws have minimum employee requirements, exempting smaller businesses. Here are cases to get you started:

Shipping giant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., (FedEx Ground) violated federal law nationwide by discriminating against a large class of deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers and job applicants for years, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced October 14, 2014. The EEOC says that FedEx Ground failed to provide needed accommodations such as American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation and closed-captioned training videos during the mandatory initial tour of the facilities and new-hire orientation for deaf and hard-of-hearing applicants. The shipping company also failed to provide such accommodations during staff, performance, and safety meetings. Package handlers physically load and unload packages from delivery vehicles, place and reposition packages in FedEx Ground’s conveyor systems, and scan, sort and route packages. The EEOC charges that, in addition to failing to provide communications-based accommodations for mandatory meetings, FedEx Ground refused to provide needed equipment substitutions and modifications for deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers, such as providing scanners that vibrate instead of beep and installing flashing safety lights on moving equipment.

These widespread failures to provide reasonable accommodations occurred despite FedEx Ground having longstanding knowledge that it receives applications from, and has employed, a significant number of deaf and hard-of-hearing people in the package handler position throughout the country, including at facilities in Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Kansas, Illinois, Maryland, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia. Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of disability. The ADA requires employers to provide reasonableaccommodations for applicants and employees with a disability unless the employer can show that doing so would be an undue hardship.

The EEOC’s lawsuit arose as a result of 19 charges filed throughout the country citing discrimination against deaf and hard-of-hearing people by FedEx Ground. The agency consolidated these charges and conducted a nationwide systemic investigation of these violations. The EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (EEOC v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-03081-WMN), after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.