LEGAL MEMORANDUM TO: Professor Asia Diggs Meador, Esq. FROM: Marc Evans DATE: 02/25/2018 RE: Greene’s Jewelry vs. Jennifer Lawson – Breach of Confidentiality Agreement Introduction Greene’s Jewelry is suing Ms. Jennifer Lawson for breach of a confidentiality agreement contract after her termination which was the result of a staff reduction of Greene’s Junior Executive Secretary positions. Greene contends that Ms. Lawson disclosed intellectual property to a competitor to gain employment and as retribution for what Ms. Lawson considers wrongful termination. Greene’s Jewelry has created a unique procedure for creating a synthetic gold-colored material called “Ever-Gold”, which is used in all of product line of necklaces, rings, earrings, …show more content…
v. Redmond 1985 in which the court agreed with PepsiCo in granting an injunction against a William Redmond from divulging PepsiCo trade secrets and confidential information in his new job with Quaker and from assuming duties with Quaker relating to beverage pricing, marketing, and distribution (PepsiCo, 1995). In 1994 PepsiCo had launched a new competitive sports drink to compete with Quakers’ Gatorade which was until then the market leader. Quaker also holds the lead in the new-age drink market as well and recently purchased the Snapple Beverage Corp. Both companies saw 1995 as an important year for their products: PepsiCo had developed extensive plans to increase its market presence, while Quaker was trying to solidify its lead by integrating Gatorade and Snapple distribution. Meanwhile, PepsiCo and Quaker each faced intense competition from Coca Cola Co., which had its own sports drink, "PowerAde," and which introduced its own Snapple-rival, "Fruitopia," in 1994, as well as from independent beverage producers. William Redmond, Jr., worked for PepsiCo in its Pepsi-Cola North America division ("PCNA") from 1984 to 1994. Redmond's relatively high-level position at PCNA gave him access to inside information and trade secrets. Redmond, like other PepsiCo management employees, had signed a confidentiality agreement with PepsiCo. That agreement stated in relevant part …show more content…
Redmond then proceeded to discuss the offer with his immediate supervisors at PCNA indicated to them that he had not yet accepted the position, as well he misstated his situation to several of his PCNA colleagues and told them that he had been offered the position of Chief Operating Officer at Gatorade and that he was leaning "60/40" in favor of accepting the new position. PepsiCo also showed that Redmond had intimate knowledge of PCNA "attack plans" for specific markets. Pursuant to these plans, PCNA dedicates extra funds to supporting its brands against other brands in selected markets. PepsiCo offered evidence of PCNA trade secrets regarding innovations in its selling and delivery systems. Having shown Redmond's intimate knowledge of PCNA's plans for 1995, PepsiCo argued that Redmond would inevitably disclose that information to Quaker in his new position, at which he would have substantial input as to Gatorade and Snapple pricing, costs, margins, distribution systems, products, packaging and marketing, and could give Quaker an unfair advantage in its upcoming skirmishes with