Milestone 3

Application of the Law to the Facts

There are various arguments that will be used by the company, Greene’s Jewelry, against the defendant. The first one is violation of the Non-Disclosure Agreement that lies in both state and federal laws. There is also the countersuit that is there for wrongful termination. Greene’s Jewelry is in possession of the original NDA which was signed by the defendant. The NDA will show without any doubt that the defendant violated a legally binding agreement. The agreement came into force when she went into employment with Greene’s Jewelry. The NDA was violated the second the defendant sought employment with the competition. The defendant had the intention of making use of the confidential documents and this is why she kept them as a contingency plan in case she lost her job. The violation of the NDA is evident but the defendant also went ahead to violate the state and federal version of the New Hampshire Trade Secret Law. The Law was put in place to protect public and private entities from misappropriation of their trade secrets (Stim, 2016). The law in New Hampshire was adopted from the Federal Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The defendant was also in violation of the Federal Law of Economic Espionage Act of 1996. The Act prohibits any form of theft of trade secrets whether a defendant is knowledgeable or ignorant of the fact that an action will injure the owner of the trade secrets. There is a strong argument by Greene Jewelry and the judgment is likely to favor the company when it comes to violation of their trade secrets and the defendant breaking the terms of the NDA. An example of such a case is Kewanee Oil Co. V. Bicron Corp. Et Al. The supreme court in this instance ruled in favor of Kewanee on the items of misappropriation of their trade secrets and violation of the Non-Disclosure Agreement (Kewanee Oil Co. V. Bicron Corp. Et Al., 1974).

The second legal issue that will be dealt with is the countersuit by the defendant against Greene’s Jewelry citing wrongful termination. It is up to the company to prove that they followed the set law when firing the defendant. The company must establish that the termination was a result of the reduction in the total workforce of the company. The termination must be found to be unrelated to the pregnancy. O’Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company and Williams v. General Motors Corporation are two cases which provide precedence showing that the action taken by Greene’s Jewelry was lawful. The company had come to the decision to terminate her employment as opposed to moving her to another area. The defendant had been arriving late at work and was eventually fired because of this in addition to the reduction in the workforce. She was always arriving late and this behavior made her a candidate for the termination and not her pregnancy. In addition to these two defenses, the company can also fire her at any time without reason as New Hampshire is an at-will state (Nolo, 2016).

Impact Assessment

Public perception is something that all companies must look at when making critical decisions. Public perception can be described as the difference between the virtual truth which is generated by reputation and opinion through media and the absolute truth which is based on facts (Beat, 2012). The public perception of an organization can appears to be a nuisance or promising depending on the contents. There are various steps that a company can take so as to appear good and responsible but if the public do not believe this, they can witness a decline in sales and brand value. Partners can also end up pulling away from the business.

The public perception has a critical role to play when it comes to survival and profitability of a company. One thing to note is that the perception of people is rarely accurate but can be swayed by opinions and reports in the media.

In this case, Greene has not done anything inappropriate but the defendant’s claims can make the public believe that the company is unethical in its operations. The public opinion can lead to the loss in public support that the company has enjoyed. The public perception can also contribute to an unfavorable judgment in the courts. The unfavorable judgment can come in from the fact the civil cases involve a jury. The perception and general opinion about how the defendant were treated by the company can create sympathy in court among the jury. The company could lose out on the support of the public if the narrative is phrased this way because the defendant is a single mom who claims to have been fired because of her pregnancy. The revenue and reputation of Greene’s could suffer permanent damage because of the countersuit which has been brought forth by the defendant. On this matter, I believe that it would be best if the company settled the matter out of court. It is extremely harmful for the company if it is rumored to have fired a worker because she was pregnant despite there being a reduction in the overall workforce. There is little that can be done to change the opinion of the public once it has been formed. The company would be out of favor with the public. The public perception is generally created by the media and press (Innovate Us, 2016).

Business Practices Moving Forward

The best outcome for the company is settling the matter out of court. Greene’s can do their best to keep the matter private but there are few things that can remain secrets for long.

The company needs to make several adjustments to the policies to so as to reassure the customers that the company cares and is working to better itself. The communications department needs to push the point that the defendant had never been a good employee. She must be portrayed as someone with perennial lateness in addition to being untrustworthy. The facts can be proven for her providing confidential documents in exchange for employment. It is also critical to come up with a suit against Howell to reduce the negative perception about the company at this time.

To avoid these incidences in future, the company needs to review their termination policies so that all employees understand them clearly. The company also needs to make sure that there is a medical leave provision which can be used in place of firing someone if they are either sick or pregnant. It is also critical to have clear documentation of the performance of employees to avoid cases of appearing like they have no evidence when firing someone. The firing should be seen clearly as a result of evidenced poor performance but not discrimination.

References InnovateUs. (2016, March 29). What Factors Influence Public Perception? Retrieved from InnovateUs: http://www.innovateus.net/innopedia/what-factors-influence-public-perception 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 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 Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. Et Al., No. 73-187 (Supreme Court of United States 1974). .