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…
