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

Application of the Law to the Facts:
The Captain Co. v. Towne case showed us that it is an inextricable requirement to prove that the information the plaintiff seeks to protect must be unique to that particular organization and not general knowledge acquired working within an industry. As previously discussed, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the New Hampshire iteration of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and its definitions confirm that Ever-Gold is a trade secret, covered by the confidentiality agreement, and was …show more content…
Occasionally, New Hampshire courts have difficulty deciphering how to treat confidentiality agreements. The questions that may be raised have to do with the manner in which Ms. Lawson was able to misappropriate the Ever-Gold process and to also determine why she was exempt from the non-compete covenant since she was privy to a large amount of information that executive level employees also have access to. The defense may be raised that Greene’s Jewelry should have taken steps to safeguard the information if they did not want the information to be revealed to another competitor. Also, since Ms. Lawson had access to similar information as executives, why then was she not required to sign the same non-compete agreement. The courts will confirm that the Ever-Gold process is a trade secret and that Howell’s …show more content…
V. Green framework, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Title VII as discussed protects specific classes. The case here would be based on whether the decision was made based on sex. As discussed earlier, the layoff was unilateral and covered people of both sexes, and even more so, alleged discrimination against parenthood per se is not a protected class. The MacDonnell Douglas case provided the framework for instances where a position continued to exist in an organization, but subjective criteria were used to justify refusal of rehiring which led to the disparate treatment of an individual, and not an entire class. The appellate court determined that the employer’s justification for their decision was nothing more than a subtext for racial discrimination. In this instance, Ms. Lawson was removed from employment since a specific position, which multiple people held, was removed from the organization as part of an organizational restructuring. For this same reason, she was treated legally, consistent with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. As discussed earlier, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act necessitates that an employer treats all employees the same in employment decisions, which includes hiring, the employment relationship, and any decisions related to the separation of employment. From Greene’s Jewelry’s perspective, the removal of