Employment Law Case Study

II. Client’s Case

D. Application of the Law to the Facts

Was Jennifer in breach of the confidentiality agreement that she signed committing never to disclose confidential/proprietary information she encounters in the course of her employ at Greene’s’s?

Case in Brief: In Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Janet L. Murley (2013), the defendant (Murley) parted ways with the plaintiff (Hallmark Cards) and was paid a total of $735,000 as the severance package. As Hallmark’s marketing vice-president, Murley had come across and was indeed in possession of some confidential information regarding the operations of the company. The said information was inclusive of, but was not limited to, market research and business plans. Upon the payment of the severance highlighted above, Murley amongst other things agreed to dispose-off any confidential documents and ensure that the company’s confidential information was not disclosed to any third party. Years later, the defendant got hired by a company by the name RPG as a consultant. For the said consulting work, she was offered a total of $125,000. Following her employ, she passed-on key Hallmark documents (and information) to RPG. Hallmark initiated a lawsuit upon its learning of the said developments. According to Peacock (2013), “the jury returned a verdict in Hallmark's favor for $860,000 - equal to her severance pay plus her consulting fee with RPG.”

On the strength of the jury verdict above, Greene’s appears to be in a strong position to pursue a breach of contract claim against Jennifer. All of Greene’s executives, including Jennifer, signed a confidentiality agreement. In the said agreement, Jennifer made a commitment to ensure that all confidential information or data she had acquired in the course of her employ at Greene’s was never disclosed to a third party. The process that Greene’s used in the creation of Ever-Gold was confidential. There is sufficient evidence that Jennifer retained a letter with information detailing Ever-Gold’s creation secret process. In addition to retaining the said information, she went ahead and disclosed the same to a competitor. There is no doubt whatsoever that Jennifer’s actions were in violation of the confidentiality agreement she had signed while in the employ of Greene’s. Indeed, in Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Janet L. Murley, the Eighth Circuit was categorical that “under her agreement with Hallmark, Janet Murley was required to maintain the confidentiality of certain company information and was prohibited from using or disclosing Hallmark’s documents and other records after leaving the company, but failed to meet her obligations” (Frey, 2015, p. 118).

Greene’s would. therefore, be seeking in damages an amount that is equivalent to the business loss and damage it would suffer as a consequence of Jennifer’s disclosure of the proprietary process it uses to make Ever-Gold. Towards this end we would base our entitlement to the fact that Jennifer’s engagement to Howell was primarily anchored on her disclosure of the confidential information relating to Ever-Gold’s production process. There is evidence indicating that the contract she signed with our competitor had a specific provision addressing the handover of the said proprietary information. Indeed, as Frey (2015) points out, in Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Janet L. Murley, “Hallmark based its entitlement to…

Some parts of this document are missing

Click here to view full document

…positions affected and that the decision to layoff Jennifer was not an isolated incident – hence not discriminatory in nature. However to be able to do this, the company would have to produce evidence of the said plan in the form of organizational minutes or other documentation.

E: Impact Assessment

i. The situation described herein would most likely have an impact on public perception about Greene’s. This is more so the case given that the layoff in this case was not conducted in a professional and appropriate manner. The fact that the communication to Jennifer was made at the very moment she announced her pregnancy appears discriminative. For instance, given that most customers of Greene’s would ideally be women, this could alienate a significant portion of its clientele – the possible legal outcomes notwithstanding.

ii. There are several courses of action that Greene’s could take going forward in an attempt to alleviate any damages to its public image. One such move would be the formulation of a company termination policy that provides for not only a termination notice, but also a severance. This the company would be doing as a demonstration of compassion and to minimize the probability of lawsuits in the future. However, at present, the company ought to defend itself against a clear breach of a confidentiality agreement.

iii. To avoid similar situations in the future, the company could amongst other things plan layoffs more effectively, notify employees in advance of impending layoffs and the reasons for the said layoffs, implement the layoffs in a more professional manner (Jennifer’s dismissal was largely…