What Is The Jennifer Lawson's Jewelry Case

MEMORANDUM
TO:
Cheryl Olsen, Legal Counsel for Greene’s Jewelry
FROM:
Kyle Hulce
SUBJECT:
Jennifer Lawson – Confidentiality Violation and Alleged Wrongful Termination
DATE:
September 26, 2018
CC:
Lisa Peele, Head of Human Resources
I. Memo Introduction:
Greene’s Jewelry separated Jennifer Lawson, consistent and compliant with legislation related to protected classes under Title VII-PDA, FMLA, and ADA. Greene’s Jewelry was not acting in a discriminatory manner or giving any one individual preferential treatment, as all junior executive secretary positions were eliminated. Jennifer Lawson willfully delivered intellectual property to Howell’s Jewelry in exchange for employment and therefore violated the terms of her confidentiality agreement.

Ordinarily, executives for Greene’s Jewelry sign both a non-compete covenant and a confidentiality agreement. Ms. Lawson was only required to sign the confidentiality agreement. The agreement states that she agreed, “never to disclose any information that she might acquire from Greene's regarding the process used to create Ever-Gold.” After her separation from Greene’s Jewelry, she sought employment with Howell’s Jewelry and offered her knowledge of the Ever-Gold process. This is evidenced by the fact that they have a created a process nearly identical to that which is used to manufacture Ever-Gold. She willfully offered information that is considered trade secret and not that which is obtained from her experience working as a junior executive secretary for our

Lawson was not bound by the non-compete covenant, she was bound by a confidentiality agreement which precluded her from sharing that information with another entity. In Captain & Co. v. Towne, (Kline & Floyd) the plaintiff had employed the defendant on a contract basis, requiring him to sign both a non-compete and a confidentiality agreement. The Plaintiff employed Towne in insurance cleanup and restoration work. Towne sought employment with a competing company that performed the same type of work. The Plaintiff pursued an injunction to prevent Towne from using alleged trade secrets, such as how they acquired clients, to lure customers away by intentionally underbidding for jobs. However, the court contended, clarifying the fact that the defendant’s new employer handled work with individuals that had insurance and those that did not. Furthermore, the court specified that the defendant was simply using residual knowledge and experience and nothing further. (Kline & Floyd) For that reason, the court did not find in favor of the plaintiff. Ms. Lawson, however; transferred the delineated process for Ever-Gold to a competitor. Since Ms. Lawson was not a jeweler, she would not have learned the process in the normal course of her employment. Based on this case precedent, the court may find that Ms. Lawson most certainly misappropriated trade