Greene's Jewelry Argument Paper

The following arguments will be used by Greene’s Jewelry against the defendant; violation of None Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in both Federal and State laws and the countersuit for wrongful termination. Greene’s has the original signed NDA by the defendant, which can be used as evidence. This signed NDA can illustrate the defendant has violated the legally binding agreement she had agreed to while employed under Greene’s jewelry. Howell Jewelry is Greene’s competitor; their intention for hiring the defendant was solely to use confidential documents she had from her previous employer when she was terminated. In addition to violating the NDA, the defendant violated both federal and state versions of the New Hampshire Trade Secret Law, that “safeguards

both private and public entities from the misappropriation of trade secrets” (Stim, 2016), which was adopted from Federal Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The Defendant also violated the Federal Law of Economic Espionage Act of 1996, “which prohibits the theft of a trade secret intending or knowing that the offense will injure a trade secret owner” (Stim, 2016). Greene’s Jewelry has a strong argument and possible judgment in their favor for both trade secrets, as well as, violation of the NDA. Kewanee Oil Co. V. Bicron Corp. Et Al., “U.S. Supreme court ruled in favor of Kewanee suit for violation of NDA and misappropriation of trade secrets” (Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. Et Al., 1974).
In regards to the defendant’s countersuit against Greene’s Jewelry for wrongful termination, Greene’s Jewelry needs to prove that they did not wrongfully terminate the defendant. Greene’s Jewelry needs to establish that the Defendant was terminated due to Greene’s Jewelry decision to eliminate the position as a general decrease in workforce and not as a result of the defendant announcing her pregnancy. The defendant’s announcement was coincidental of the action to reduce the amount of employers that Greene’s Jewelry currently has. Williams v. General Motors Corporation and O’Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company, establishes that Greene’s Jewelry acted lawfully in the termination of the Defendant. (Dennis V. O'Day, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant - Appelle (Two Cases), 1996). Greene’s chose to end the workplace relationship with the Defendant due to her constantly arriving to work late, she was terminated because of her inability to show up on time to work, and secondly because of the reduction in staffing, it was not due to her pregnancy. In addition, the state of New Hampshire is an at-will state which means “an employee can generally be fired at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all” (Stim, 2016).

Impact Assessment
“Public perception can be seen as the difference between an absolute truth based on facts and virtual truth shaped by popular opinion, media coverage and/or reputation” (Beat, 2012). Public Perception of a company can be a promising partner or a challenging destructive irritation. Companies can strive to do good things but if the public believes otherwise, businesses can suffer by seeing a decline in sales, support from partners and their reputation can cause the company to close its doors. The way in which a company is seen by the public has a direct relationship to its profits and survival. Public opinions and perception can be swayed by others opinions as well as what is represented in the media. In this situation, while Greene has not conducted its self in any inappropriate way the way the public view, how the defendant was treated whether fairly or unfairly will cause the public to feel that they acted unethically. Positive support for the company will be lost from their clients and this will also create an unfavorable judgment. In terms of a civil trial and the jury, the public’s opinion can make or break the case. Public perception of how the defendant was treated by the company can cause the jury and the court to sympathies with the defendant based on the fact that she may be a single mom and was treated unfairly by being fired. This countersuit from the defendant may jepardize Greene’s customers, sales/profits, and reputation, therefore, it is smart of Green’s to settle in this court case. “Public perception can change easily and is largely dependent on the powers that control the press and media” (InnovateUs, 2016).
Damages moving forward/Business Practices
In order to help the public perception of Greene’s Jewelry, it is important that they try to avoid a jury trial and settle with the defendant outside of court.

The social environment has a strong “influence on public perception” (InnovateUs, 2016). It is within the Greene’s Jewelry to keep this court case private from the general public, although it is rather hard to do because of outlets such as the media. After the process Greene’s Jewelry will have to make some adjustments to their company policies in order to help assure that the company cares about their reputation as well as fixing it. Greene’s Jewelry communication department needs to make sure that they make a point to state that the defendant had not been performing adequately to company standards and was not a really great employee. The defendant regularly showed up to work late, she was untrustworthy on account of stealing confidential documents and sold them to the competitor in exchange for a job, due to actions such as these, the defendant proved she was not a good employee. Greene’s needs to alter the public’s perception from negative to positive, the company must show the defendant not in a single mother light but in that of a bad, untrustworthy employee. Since Howell utilized the information that the defendant provided to make a similar product that resulted in profits, it is possible for Greene to bring suit against Howell but in an attempt to minimize the negative public perception it would be best to handle one suit at a time and table at this

time.
Moving forward in order to ensure that Greene’s Jewelry minimizes their risks toward wrongful termination lawsuits and to ensure that they don’t take any additional damages to public perception it is important that they put several business practices in place. Placing these business practices can help show the public that Greene’s is doing everything in their power to ensure the company is showing fair judgment at all times. The first action they need to take is to review their termination policies, medical leave processes and ensure that all employees, regardless of position review, understand and sign not only the NDA but also a covenant agreement. The human resources department at Greene’s must ensure that they have clear guidelines for the medical leave policy and the appearance of firing someone is clear. HR needs to ensure that the performance of all employees is being documented adequately as to ensure that if they are ever terminated it is with due cause and with substantial evidence that it is due to their performance and not in violation of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity.
References
1. Beat, T. P. (2012, August 24). The Powers That Beat. Retrieved from What is Public Perception : https://powersthatbeat.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/what-is-public-perception/
2. Dennis V. O'Day, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant - Appelle (Two Cases), 92-15625, 92-16512 (Unites States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit March 26, 1996). Employee Non Disclosure Agreement. (2016, March 17). Retrieved from NDAS for Free: http://www.ndasforfree.com/NDAS/GetEmployee.html
3. InnovateUs. (2016, March 29). What Factos Influence Public Perception? Retrieved from innovateUs: http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-factors-influence-public-perception
4. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. Et Al., No. 73-187 (Supreme Court of United States 1974).
5. McAdams, T., Zucker, K. D., Neslund , N., & Neslund, K. (2015). Law, Business, and Society. New York: McGraw Hill .
6. NOLO. (2016, April 6). New Hampshire Wrongful Termination Laws. Retrieved from Wrongful Termination Laws: http://www.wrongfulterminationlaws.com/resources/wrongful-termination-law/state-job-termination-laws/new-hampshire.htm
7. SNHU University. (2017). MBA 610 Final Project Part I, Milestone One Guidelines and Rubic. Greene Jewerly Scenario.
8. Stim, R. (2016, March 17). New Hampshire Trade Secret Law. Retrieved from NOLO: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/new-hampshire-trade-secret-law.html
9. U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016, March 16). Pregnancy Discrimination . Retrieved from Types of Discriminations: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm
10. Williams v. General Motors Corporation, Nos. 79-2857, 80-7192 (United States Cours of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit B September 14, 1981).