Greene 's Jewelry Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964

This exception allows employees to file lawsuits if they sensed they were terminated unfairly (Doyle A. 2016).

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.

The company has the right to terminate an employee as long as the termination does not discriminate or

Wrongful Termination (a.k.a. Wrongful Dismissal) is a legal phrase that refers to any situation in which a worker’s employment is ended by the employer (terminated) in breach of contractual terms of employment, or due to any of the following: discrimination, retaliation, an employee’s refusal to be involved in illegal activity, or an employer’s

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?

1) Patty owned Patty’s Cakes in Jacksonville, Florida. She sold her business to Fruity’s, Inc. a national pastry company. There was a non-compete agreement in the contract for the sale of her business. In the non-compete, Patty agreed not to work in any capacity in the food industry for 10 years on the entire east coast. A court would likely determine that the non-compete agreement

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

The Defendant worked in the research and development department at Greene’s Jewelry as a junior executive secretary for 3 years. The Defendant recently found out she was pregnant and was released from the company by Lisa Peele, head of Human Resources per Greene’s Jewelry was downsizing and The Defendants position was no longer needed. Upon leaving Greene’s Jewelry the Defendant took documents disclosing patent information that outlined the secret process of manufacturing Ever-Gold. Ever-Gold is a synthetic gold-colored material that’s impervious to scratches, discoloration, oxidization, and is marked as “everlasting gold” (2016), which is used on Greene’s Jewelry necklaces, rings, earrings, and bracelets. This is Greene’s Jewelry most asset. Upon accepting employment with Greene’s Jewelry, The Defendant signed a nondisclosure agreement that legally binds those who agree to keep specified information a secret or secured. The Defendant never signed a covenant agreement with Greene’s Jewelry. The Defendant becomes employed with one of Greene’s Jewelry competitors Howell Jewelry World. Howell Jewelry World knows The

We the legal team of Greene’s Jewelry has the opportunity to evaluate all the necessary details of the case and overlooked what the strengths and weaknesses of our argument would be presented in the Court. To assist our argument we have decided to utilize the regulations, substantive laws and case laws. The case precedents will provide multiple directions for the arguments to be assessed in the Court. Greene’s Jewelry is more likely to receive a favorable judgment by applying these laws, in the claim against Ms. Lawson. After numerous evaluations and examinations, we the legal team has assessed the elements of the case and concluded that the primary reason of the lawsuit against Ms. Lawson is due to her breach of the non-disclosure agreement. The manner in which Ms. Lawson violated her contract depicts her true intention in her activities. Ms. Lawson’s behavior led to an interruption in Greene’s Jewelry daily business operation process. Howell acquired confidential information from Ms. Lawson on Greene’s secret trade process of Ever-Gold makes it a criminal offense. The State of New Hampshire has established laws to “protect private and public bodies from misappropriation of secret trades; these are laws that copy the Federal Uniform

I believe that our company stands to lose a lot as a result of a successful suit against us by Ms. Pollard. We have reason to believe that if these actions are taken to court, we will find it difficult to deny the allegations and defend ourselves in

We the legal team of Greene’s Jewelry have the opportunity to evaluate all the necessary details of the case and overlooked what the strengths and weaknesses of our argument would be presented to the Court. To assist our argument we have decided to utilize the regulations, substantive laws and case laws. The case precedents will provide multiple directions for the arguments to be assessed in the Court. Greene’s Jewelry is more likely to receive a favorable judgment by applying these resources in the claim against Ms. Lawson. After numerous evaluations and examinations, we the legal team has assess the elements of the case and concluded that the primary reason of the lawsuit against Ms. Lawson is due to her breach of the non-disclosure agreement. The demeanor in which Ms. Lawson violated her contract depicts her true intention in her activities. Ms. Lawson’s behavior led to an interruption in Greene’s Jewelry daily business operation process. With Greene’s biggest competitor, Howell acquiring confidential information from Ms. Lawson on their secret trade process of Ever-Gold makes it a criminal offense. The State of New Hampshire has established laws to “protect private and public bodies from misappropriation of secret trades; these are laws that copy the Federal Uniform Trade Secrets Act” (Stim, 2016).

In this case, I would favor in light of Ms. Singleton. Likewise, Ms. Singleton had undergone much repeated inappropriate conduct, including many sexually suggestive comments and propositions. Therefore, Ms. Singleton brought an action against her employer. Ms. Singleton claimed the sexual harassment almost immediately took place shortly after beginning her job. Essentially, she was not given prompt and reasonable care in regards to her complaint of alleged sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, the misconduct complained about took place approximately four times a week. Moreover, her complaint did not allege that her employer took any tangible employment action

GDT, LLC. Company, Gail Lindgren is a businesswoman who organized a small company named Moonbeams out of the state of Iowa. Gail Lindgren designs and sale jewelry that connects to the belt loops in jeans and hang. Gail Lindgren obtained the exclusive rights and license for the creation of her products and named the products, JeanJangles, creating a website to sale her merchandise. Ms. Lindgren filed a lawsuit against a company in California by the name of GDT that sales jeans and they name their brand Jean Jewel. Jean Jewel was featured in People magazine for the sale of their products which led to awareness to Gail and her company because friends called to congratulate her on her success not knowing it was a different business. The lawsuit was filed in the state of Iowa for infringement but the GDT company stated due to lack of personal authority they filed a motion to dismiss the case. The courts viewed the evidence and circumstances of both parties and decided that Gail Lindgren was unsuccessful in providing a significant amount of proof for a case of personal jurisdiction or authority over the company GDT. In fact, the GDT jean company has very little contact and business practices in the state of Iowa that would affect the sales of Ms. Lindgren’s JeanJangles business in the state of Iowa also. However, the courts do not have authority it decided to allowed Ms. Lindgren to file her claim and continue court proceedings in the Central District of California, Western Division. In my opinion, I agree with the courts that Ms. Lindgren’s should have the opportunity to present her case to a lower court in the other state involved. In this case long- arm jurisdiction seem to be limited due to the lack of proof and evidence on the behalf of the plaintiff. GDT jean company has not earned enough revenue in business in the state of Iowa therefore the Iowa courts does not have jurisdiction in this

The site’s historical significance was and still is today to bring light to all peoples’ human rights. The center’s purpose is to manifest and empower human beings to be morally humane to one another and understand the hardships that our country had to go through in order to sustain equality among ourselves and social justice (center for civil and human rights). The goal of this heartfelt museum is to grasp the tourist/visitors “to gain a deeper understanding of the roles they play in helping to protect the rights of the people” in the present and future (center for civil and human rights). American and more so African-American Civil rights movement played a big part in the heart of Atlanta. It presented such events such as, the Jim Crow

If I were in the position of the pregnant employee, I wouldn´t agree if the company fire me. As pregnant employees are overprotected, I would fight against the company until they lose the case.