8-2 Final Submission: Final Project Part I

APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS: CASE MEMORANDUM 1

APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS: CASE MEMORANDUM

 

 

 

5-1 Final Project Part1: Millstone 2

Abdussamet Akca

Business Law

10.18.2020

Subject: Greene's Jewelry Wholesale, LLC- Application of the Law Facts

Introduction

According to the case presentation, Jennifer Lawson's case presents significant lawsuits involving three fundamental Companies’, including Greene, Howell, and Triumph Jewelry Company. Notably, in a lawsuit memorandum, applying the existing laws on novelty facts in the case provides a platform for identifying underlining issues and legal ideas that relate to the case presentation and further determination. In the case presentation, the Greene Jewelry company sues Jennifer Lawson to breach a confidentiality agreement after the Greene learns on confidential information to Howell, a competitor company within the Jewelry manufacturing and production. According to the author, legal facts and acts for reasons positing an underscore segment in lawsuit and application of facts in law cases, elaborating the concepts of value-based facts- reasoning, complete and incomplete reasons in law facts application and concepts towards a robust law facts application in cases (Gur, 2019). Similarly, in the memorandum, provision of facts application for the Greene Jewelry company, identifying a case, regulation, and substantive laws for Greene court arguments, impacts evaluation, and recommendation for the Company are underscoring. Therefore, the memorandum provides a robust application of laws, facts, impact assessments, and recommendations for the Greene Company and court arguments.

Application of the Law to the Facts

Strengths

In the case presentation, Jenifer Lawson signed a confidentiality agreement for at the Greene Jewelry company indulging her in non-disclosures of the Greene's secretive information on procedures and guidelines of manufacturing everlasting gold products. Notably, the Companies require employees' confidentiality to maintain corporate secrets and protect intellectual properties for a competitive marketplace and competitive advantage achievement within the Company (Moberly, 2018). Significantly, the statute that prevents disclosure of trade secrets indulges employees into confidentiality agreements prohibiting employer form working with a competitor for individual and competitor advantages. Similarly, in the Greene Company court argument, the Company presents legal and substantive laws prohibiting an employee from working with a competitor and engaging in disclosures to provide secretive 9interlectual information on the procedures and process of manufacturing gold-related procedures. For instance, the Greene case's main issues on suing Jennifer Lawson, the factual and physical shreds of evidence, indicate that Lawson collision with Howell leveraging company infringes patent ownership rights in the manufacturing industry. The regulation on the purpose of protected disclosures articulates on protection and procedures that ensure a collaborative and legal connection between employee and employer (Rabede, 2011). According to the case presented, the protection and procedures ensure an employee's robust procedures and mandate to report malpractices in the organization.

Further, protection offers protection against employee once disclosures occur according to the legal articulation of the acts. Notably, the Greene Jewelry Company presents a confidentiality agreement signed by the employee that bound the accord to performance according to the confidentiality agreement. Remarkably, the Greene posits significant strength in articulating employee and employer confidentiality agreement on non-disclosures of the organization patent to an employee's competition. In particular, Lawson's concrete action, such as working with Howell, a competitor company, and disclosing the secret information from Greene manufacture procedures and process post a robust argument in the court for the Greene's Jewelry Wholesale, LLC. Therefore, the regulations and substantive laws on employee and employer confidentiality agreements provide a notable strength for the Greene's Jewelry Wholesale, LLC court argument.

Consequently, the legal framework for confidentiality, patent information, and secretive trade information support the court's Greene case and argument. According to the law, trademarks presents distinguishable characteristics of producers’ goods and services from another firm. Notably, a trademark's definition provides robust support for the Greene argument and presentation in the court case. According to the physical evidence, the Howell produces jewelry products similar to the Greene's Jewelry Wholesale, LLC, after the claimed breach of the confidentiality agreement and disclosures of patent and secretive information on the manufacturing of jewelry products. According to the application of law facts, the definition of trademark and patent rights provide full submissions for the v Greene's Jewelry Wholesale, LLC, applicable in case determination and management of causes cost. For instance, (Trademark Office v. Booking Com, 2019) agreement on the generic term for goods and services relates to consumer perception and articulations. The same is applicable in the Greene case to validate Jennifer's disclosure of information form evident similarity in goods and customers' perception of the products, disadvantaging the Greene posits in a competitive marketplace. According to the authors (Pam and Mantu, 2019), confidentiality agreements provide a platform for patent and trade secrets, protecting organizations. Therefore, patent and trade secrets and the trademark definition provide robust support for Greene's Jewelry Wholesale, LLC case, and court argument.

Weakness

Despite the Greene case argument and law facts application's strengths, a notable weakness requires articulation for a comprehensive evaluation. Jennifer's failure to sign a covenant not compete presents notable setbacks for the case presentation and evaluation. Similarly, according to WARN requires, the Greene subjection to the WARN Act is compelling. The employer requires a significant 60days notification for dismal and downsizing of employees (Lewis, 2019). According to the case, the Greene Jewelry Company failed to fulfill WARN obligations' mandates and obligations. Additionally, the government emphasizes support for the whistleblowing that curtails the excising of confidentiality agreement laws and applications (Moberly, 2018). Therefore, in applying laws and facts, the Greene Company posits setbacks in employment termination, failure sign covenant not- compete for forms, and legal articulation on whistleblowing that deters possible win for the Company.

Impact assessment

Admittedly, public disclosures of the Company information and employment determination posit s notable perceptions on the public image. Notably, disclosure of procedures and guidelines on the manufacturing of gold-related jewelry place the Company in a disadvantaged situation in a competitive marketplace. For instance, in the case the Howell produces similar goods as Greene, leading to customer migration and loss, affecting the Company's performance and productivity. Similarly, terminating Jennifer Lawson form Greene Company prompts questions relating to business ethics and legal consideration affecting the acquisition and rejection of talents for the Company. For instance, failure to accommodate WARN Acts in employment downsizing of 60days notification affects the legal and ethical presentation of the Company (Lewis, 2019). Accordingly, alleviating form such damages requires a pragmatic approach for effective case management. Approaches such as ethical leadership and informed decision making, legal consideration in employee downsizing, and signing of both covenant not to compete and confidentiality agreement form accommodate all the parties and promote a positive public image of the Company.

Recommendations

Greene jewelry Company requires a pragmatic reorganization of organization culture, structure, and management to accommodate ethical, legal, and corporate values for robust strategies to protect public image and reputations. Significantly developmental, transitional, and transformational practices provide evidence-based improvement towards organizational reputations. Significantly the Greene Company should accommodate Change drives including political, technological, cultural, demographic, economic, and legal and market evaluation to offer a robust employee and employee involvement in decision-making, preventing future conflicts and disclosures. Fundamentally, the provision of policies, standards, and regulation for robust organization structures and employment terms and conditions, accommodating ethical leadership and ethical decision- making prevents the occurrences of such lawsuits in the future, maintaining the organization's reputations. Organizational reputation accommodates three fundamental aspects, including familiarity with the organization, beliefs conceding the Company, and impression on the organization (Lange and Lee, 2011). Therefore, realignment of Greene's Jewelry Wholesale, LLC legal, ethical, and economic cultures offer a robust modification to business practices preventing similar occurrence in the future.

References

Gur, N. (2019). Legal Facts and Reasons for Action: Between Deflationary and Robust Conceptions of Law's reason-giving Capacity. Springer, Series: Law and Philosophy Library, 151–170. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3482504

Lange, D., and Lee, P. (2011). Organizational Reputation: A Review. Journal of Management Vol. 37 No. 1. Pp.153-181

Lewis, J. (2019). Employment law overview USA 2019-2020. https://knowledge.leglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/LEGlobal-Employment-Law-Overview_USA_2019-2020_21.01.2020.pdf

Moberly, R. (2018). Confidentiality and Whistleblowing. 96 N.C. L. Rev. 751. http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol96/iss3/5

Pam, A., and Mantu, J. (2019). An Appraisal of the Legal Framework on Confidential Information and Trade Secrets in Nigeria. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3422302

Rabede, J.T. (2011). Practical Guineans For Employees In Terms Of Section 10(4){A) Of The Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 (Act No. 26 Of 2000). https://www.lyonsbriviklaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/protected-disclosures-act.pdf

Trademark Office v. Booking Com. (2019). United States Patent and Trademark Office Et Al. V. Booking.Com B. V.: Certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf