Greene Jewelry Wholesale Is Under A Complaint

After reading Nickel and Dimed and reviewing the NASW Code of Ethics I found a few parts of the code of ethics Ehrenreich did not follow. I believe she was in breach of privacy and confidentiality, dishonesty, fraud, and deception, and integrity.

-The facts: General employment contacted precision regarding a job opening and sent a potential employee, Tavery Tan, for an interview. Precision hired her but refused to pay GE for procuring the employee. Precision filed a complaint that there was no contract and the court rendered judgment to GE on a counterclaim. Precision appealed.

This paper was conducted as a Discussion Board Post assigned by Professor J. Reinke of: Liberty University, Graduate School of Business, Lynchburg, Virginia 24515.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.

Howell Jewelry World entered into an at will employment contract with Jennifer Lawson (“defendant”). The company provided a legal and enforceable employment contract. The defendant read, accepted and signed the employment contract offered under no duress or coercion. A covenant not to compete nor disclose company patent secrets to Howell’s competitors the defendant initialed and signed. Jennifer Lawson was terminated from employment due to excessive tardiness. Upon termination, it was revealed to Howell Jewelry World, the defendant is an employee of Triumph Jewels, another company in competition with Howell. The defendant is liable for breach of covenant not to compete. Howell Jewelry World is pursuing legal actions against Triumph Jewels for Jennifer Howell’s breach of covenant not to compete.

M international (M) and W Inc (W) decided to enter a long term litigation, due to a patent rights violation. M being the demandant and W the respondent. Not enough information was provided in relation to the charges or the patent.

In paper, Greene’s Jewelry has a strong case against Jennifer Lawson because Jennifer breached the confidentiality agreements that she signed with Greene’s Jewelry. In the agreement, it specifically indicated that Jennifer could never disclose any information regarding “Ever-Gold” creating process, which is patented and owned by Greene’s Jewelry. Jennifer not only stole a draft letter that contains the details of creating Ever-Gold but also took it to Greene’s competitor Howell Jewelry World in order to obtain a job offer from the company. The employment contract that Jennifer signed with Howell is a certain evidence of her unjust enrichment. Regarding Jennifer Lawson’s claim that she encountered wrongful termination at Greene’s, it is simply a misinterpretation of Greene’s legitimate reduction in force. The company no longer had a need for any junior executive secretaries. The downsizing was unfortunately but legal.

1. If you were representing the Company in this case, what argument (facts and reasons) could you make that the confidentiality agreement had a legitimate business purpose and was applied appropriately to Martinez?

This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related to the case. First, it will describe the legality of the case by reviewing the

Facts: The plaintiff Taser International, Inc is a company that produced electronic devices such as stun guns, and even accessories that are needed with control devices. In addition, the company also manufactured TASER CAM which is an audio and video recording device that is mostly sold for military, security and public purposes. The defendant Steve Ward was a vice president of marketing in the Taser International Inc., who worked full time from January 1, 2004 to July 24, 2007 until the day he resigned. However, even though he was a full time employee, he was not part of any employment contract. The defendant Ward was aware of many confidential information and even trade secrets since he was the vice president of the company which is a very important aspect of the company. In 2006 Ward thought of getting legal advice on whether he could create an eyeglass-mounted camera by searching to see if this type of idea was patented already or not. The patent counsel found an eyeglass-mounted camera already to be patented and then the defendant Ward, thought about modifying his camera to a clip-on camera. On August 23, 2007 Ward formed his company known as Vievu LLC in order to get his product of a clip-on camera on to the market. But before his resignation he investigated more about developing a business plan, and about camera devices. As a result, Taser Company sued Ward for violating

“We have completed this assignment on our own and have not discussed it with any other individual or used any other unauthorized aids. We acknowledge compliance with the academic requirements (e.g. citation of sources) of the University of Toronto.”

Plaintiff, Kaycee Land and Livestock, opened a case to hold Defendant, Roger Flahive, personally liable for (contamination) damages after an agreement made by Flahive’s LLC, Flahive Oil & Gas. The District Court of Johnson County presented the case to the Supreme Court of Wyoming to determine if Flahive could be held personally liable. Kaycee Land and Livestock contracted with Flahive Oil & Gas in order to use the surface of the land to raise the Plaintiff’s livestock. Kaycee Land and Livestock claims that Flahive Oil & Gas contaminated the surface area, leaving it useless for Kaycee Land and Livestock’s needs. Flahive Oil & Gas does not have any assets. Therefore, Kaycee Land and Livestock wants to use general corporate veil-piercing principles

Both parties consulted their attorneys whose guidance instructed them that they did not have to disclose the information. The motivating factor in both decisions was to protect the livelihood of their companies. The facts of the information that had been revealed to each company had not been proven.

The Rump Organization, a SEC registrant, is planning a corporate restructuring plan. On December 27, 2005 Ronald Rump, the CEO of the organization, along with the Board of Directors approved a plan to involuntarily terminate 100 of the organization’s employees. There is an option for each of the employees to sign a litigation waiver, which forfeits any right they have for legal action against Rump. In exchange for their voluntary signing of the waiver, Rump will offer each employee a lump-sum cash payment

Issue 3: Has Patricia improperly used company information to gain advantage for herself and/or her sister?