Employment Law - assignment week 8

User Generated

Anarggr

Business Finance

Description

Week 8 Case Questions

Select TWO court cases (from different chapters) from the list below, and respond in writing to the case questions.

  1. Dillon v. Champion Jogbra (Ch 18, p 672)
  2. Dorshkind v. Oak Park Place of Dubuque II (Ch 18, p 681)
  3. Lockheed Martin v. Administrative Review Board (Ch 18, p 689)
  4. Lane v. Franks (Ch 18, p 707)
  5. Weekes-Walker v. Macon County Greyhound Park (Ch 19, p 730)
  6. Barnett v. PA Consulting Group (Ch 19, p 736)
  7. Nanomech v. Suresh (Ch 19, p 751)

The requirements below must be met for your paper to be accepted and graded:

  • Write between 750 – 1,250 words (approximately 3 – 5 pages) using Microsoft Word in APA style, see example below.
  • Use font size 12 and 1” margins.
  • Include cover page and reference page.
  • At least 80% of your paper must be original content/writing.
  • No more than 20% of your content/information may come from references.
  • Use at least three references from outside the course material, one reference must be from EBSCOhost. Text book, lectures, and other materials in the course may be used, but are not counted toward the three reference requirement.
  • Cite all reference material (data, dates, graphs, quotes, paraphrased words, values, etc.) in the paper and list on a reference page in APA style.

References must come from sources such as, scholarly journals found in EBSCOhost, CNN, online newspapers such as, The Wall Street Journal, government websites, etc. Sources such as, Wikis, Yahoo Answers, eHow, blogs, etc. are not acceptable for academic writing.

60% of your grade will be content. To get full credit on the case brief, you must use the case questions themselves as headings. In addition, you must fully answer these questions. It is not enough to state the law. You must also provide the facts that the court relied upon when reaching a decision where appropriate.

Below is an example of how this can be done:

  1. Wal-Mart Stores v. Cassias (Ch 1, p 17)
    1. What was the legal issue of the case?
      1. The legal issue of this case was ....
    2. What did the court decide?
      1. The court decided to X

Failure to do this will result in 10 points being deducted from your grade.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Date of Notice: 04/05 Policy Type COMMERCI Producer Name ANNETTE AGENCY INC Producer Telephone # 305-625- Producer Code: 70927 WITHDRAW RETAIN THIS NOTICE FOR YOUR REO Term Notice Date 17/2018 04/05/2018 Producer Name and Phone Number WILLIS INSURANCE AGENCY INC 27TH AVENUE ENS FL 33056 2 URANCE mpany of Florida TER, MA 01570 MAPER urar APR 09 2018 "NCY INC Sureweabeer 754 Part 6: Terminating Employment in the future is too remote to justify injunctive relief. If NanoMech is able to bring a valid claim for breach of contract against Suresh in the future, injunctive relief may then be warranted. Until then, however, the Court will deny without prejudice NanoMech's request for permanent injunction for failure to state a claim. *** Information” provision of the Employment Agreement, the legal requirements for the issuance of a permanent injunction are: (1) a threat of irreparable harm, (2) that the harm outweighs any injury which granting the in- junction would inflict on other parties, (3) a likelihood of success on the merits, and (4) that the public interest favors the injunction. First, the Court does not find that Nano Mech has made a showing of irreparable harm. Suresh is no longer employed by BASF and has, in fact, filed a counterclaim against NanoMech in these proceed- ings, in which she maintains she was fired from BASF because of NanoMech's acts taken during the course of this lawsuit. Second, NanoMech alleges no facts that state that Suresh has actually disseminated or misappropriated NanoMech's confidential or propri- etary information. . The Court finds that, to the extent NanoMech re- quests a permanent injunction barring Suresh's future dissemination of proprietary information to a potential employer, the threat of irreparable harm occasioned by a future breach of contract does not justify injunctive relief. *** The Court is not convinced that or threatened disclosure of confidential information occurred, and therefore, the possibility of its occurrence * * * CASE QUESTIONS 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide? 2. What did the Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) call for? Why did the former employer claim that the agreement was breached by the former employee? Why does the court disagree? 3. What did the Noncompetition Agreement call for? Why does the court conclude that this agreement is unenforceable? 4. This decision mentions in passing that the former employee was terminated by her new employer and is suing Nanomech for this. What do you think happened here? How does the existence of restric- tive covenants complicate post-employment life for both the former employee and prospective new employers? 5. What should Nanomech have done differently? any actual Courts consider a number of factors when deciding whether to enforce noncompeti- tion agreements (by issuing injunctions against former employees or awarding damages for breach of contract), and their willingness to do so varies considerably across states. California's courts have been especially prone to invalidating noncompetition agree- ments.76 As with any other contracts, restrictive covenants must be supported by consid- eration. For newly hired employees, being allowed to commence employment appears to be sufficient. But to impose noncompetition agreements on existing employees, some ad- ditional benefit beyond continuation of employment is likely needed. "1 Courts regularly state that noncompetition agreements are disfavored as restraints on trade, and they will be enforced only if former employers can bear the burden of show is no greater than necessary to protect login for the agreemi LIST Chapter 19: Downsizing and Post Termination Issues 753 pany: thus are Marshalltown defines "competitor" as "any company in the trowel industry that is in competition with Marshalltown for sales in the United States, regard- less of where that company is located" Marshalltown suggests that the use of the word "competitor" in its agreement with Bendinger supplies a sufficient geo- graphic restriction which this court should uphold, but that term as Marshalltown wishes to define it is not contained in the covenant, and we are unable to rewrite the restrictive covenant to supply it.*** imposed. of two years following her separation from the com- covenant not to compete with Nano Mech for a period : In general, covenants not to compete in employ- ment contracts are disfavored under Arkansas law and nected with a sale of business. In order for a non-com- subject to stricter scrutiny than those con- be met: (1) the covenantee must have a valid interest pete agreement to be valid, three requirements must to protect, (2) the geographical restriction must not be overly broad, and (3) a reasonable time limit must be pete that is embedded in the Employment Agreement fails to include a geographic restriction and instead NanoMech concedes that the covenant not to com- prohibits Suresh from working anywhere for a s that competes with Nano Mech. Nevertheless, NanoMech maintains that under Arkansas law, non- compete agreements that lack geographic restrictions are still enforceable. In support of this contention, NanoMech cites to Girard v. Rebsamen Insurance Com- pany, a case in which the Arkansas Court of Appeals insurance salesman from soliciting or accepting busi- any busi- ness held that a non-compete agreement that prohibited an from customers whose accounts he serviced at the time of his termination was reasonable under the circumstances, even though the covenant contained no Using the same reasoning ..., this Court finds the phrase “any business which competes” in NanoMech's Employment Agreement to be vague and undefined. NanoMech's Agreement does not supply a sufficient geographic restriction for the non-compete clause, and the Court lacks the authority to rewrite the covenant to clarify whether BASF-or any other company, for that matter-would meet NanoMech's definition of a “business which competes” against Nano Mech. Nano- Mech's covenant is so overbroad that it cannot even be interpreted to mean that it has a nationwide limitation. Indeed, Nano Mech goes so far as to suggest in its brief to the Court that the covenant not to compete could be enforced against Suresh “around the globe," and that “[a]ny geographic restriction within a non-compete agreement with the Defendant would not sufficiently protect NanoMech’s intellectual property. NanoMech's covenant not to compete is unreason- able and contrary to public policy because it prevents Suresh from working anywhere for a two-year period for an undefined set of “competitors” of NanoMech. [T]his Court finds that the phrase "any business which competes” to be unenforceable, and no cause of action exists for a breach of an unenforceable contract. This claim will be dismissed with prejudice. geographic limitation. The Girard case does not apply here, as it is an exceptional, fact-driven case in which a non-compete agreement without a geographic restriction was deemed enforceable. The Arkansas Supreme Court discussed the implications of Girard and noted that, despite the lack of geographic restrictions in Girard's non-compete agreement, it still permitted him to ac- cept business from 95% of the overall insurance mar- ket and 80% of the customers of his former employer's office. The covenant did not, therefore, unreasonably restrict Girard's ability to work and make a living in a Particular industry or across a geographic area. Instead, the covenant's restrictions were customer-specific. Nano Mech's covenant not to compete is more like the covenant in the case of Bendinger v. Marshalltown C. Permanent Injunction NanoMech requests a permanent injunction “bar- ring Suresh from employment with BASF for the re- mainder of the term of the non-compete provision within the Employment Agreement, and enjoining her from disclosing any of NanoMech's confidential infor- mation.” As discussed previously, the covenant not to compete contained in the Employment Agreement is unenforceable, so the Court will not issue an injunction to enforce the terms of the covenant. With regard to Nano Mech's request for an injunction barring Suresh's disclosure of NanoMech's confidential information, either pursuant to the NDA or the “Confidential ever , unlike Girard, the covenant in Bendinger was not Trowell Co., which the Arkansas Supreme Court found to be unenforceable. Like Girard, the covenant in | Bendinger contained no geographic restriction; how- customer-specific but instead prohibited Bendinger from working for any company that his former em- ployer considered a “competitor.” court opined: 30 SURA m 6 or IND NI 0. 752 Part 6: Terminating Employment Company Florid EBSTER W-6-5 eins * Suresh was hired by Nano Mech. * None of the pleadings submitted in this case describe exactly what information was shared with Suresh during that lim- period of time when she was engaged in pre-em- ited ployment talks with Nano Mech. Instead, the amended complaint states thtype of information Suresh was exposed to during her employment with NanoMech, including research and development of nano-parti- cle-based products, nano-integrated materials, and specific manufacturing processes. Nevertheless, for the purpose of evaluating Suresh's motion for judg- ment on the pleadings, the Court will assume that Suresh acquired confidential, proprietary, or trade se- cret information about NanoMech and its particular products during the five-day pre-employment period covered by the NDA. According to the plain language of the NDA, which in the Court's view appears to be a valid and binding contract, it expired three years after March 22, 2010, the last possible day that pre-employment disclosures could have been made to Suresh before she was hired by NanoMech. Therefore, the NDA expired on March 22, 2013 and is no longer in force. Suresh... began work for BASF, NanoMech's alleged competitor, in January of 2013 and was terminated on June 3, 2013. Therefore, the NDA was applicable to Suresh's employment with BASF from January of 2013 to March 22, 2013. Turning now to the issue of whether NanoMech has stated a valid claim for a breach of the NDA, the elements of a breach of contract claim under Arkan- sas law are (1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract, (2) an obligation on the part of the defen- dant, (3) a breach of that obligation, and (4) dam- ages resulting from the breach. In considering these elements, the Court finds that NanoMech has stated sufficient facts to satisfy the first two. As for the third element, which requires a showing that a breach of a legal obligation occurred, NanoMech alleges that Suresh (1) made “hundreds of copies” of unspecified Nano Mech documents, presumably with a photo- copying machine, and (2) emailed certain confiden- tial, proprietary documents concerning formulations and testing results Because NanoMech does not plead facts to show that Suresh actually misused, di- vulged, or otherwise misappropriated confidential information covered under the NDA, Nano Mech is reduced to arguing that Suresh “will inevitably dis- close (to BASF) Nano Mech's confidential, proprietary or trade secret information based on the nature of her work in the field of chemistry?' "In general, damages recoverable for breach of con- tract are those damages which would place the injured party in the same position as if the contract had not been breached.” “Although recovery will not be denied merely because the amount of damages is hard to de- termine, damages must not be left to speculation and conjecture.” Here, NanoMech does not contend that it has suffered any losses attributable to Suresh's al- leged breach of the NDA. *** * However, Nano Mech attempts to salvage its claim by arguing that pursuant to the “inevitable-disclosure doctrine" this Court should find it sufficient for pleading purposes that Suresh's job as a chemist for NanoMech's competitor made it “inevitable” that she would disclose Nano- Mech's confidential information in the course of her new employment. As a preliminary matter, the Eighth Circuit has nei- ther accepted nor rejected the inevitable-disclosure doctrine, and the Arkansas Supreme Court has only theoretically approved of the doctrine's use in the lim- ited context of issuing temporary, emergency relief for certain violations of the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act. The Trade Secrets Act may be violated through either an actual or threatened misappropriation. A search of the relevant case law reveals that there is no precedent for applying the inevitable-disclosure doctrine as NanoMech describes: to infer or impute po- tential losses in a breach-of-contract action. The doc- trine has only been applied in Trade Secrets Act cases, particularly where plaintiffs have alleged the "threat- ened misappropriation of trade secrets," a discrete vio- lation of the Act that is inherently speculative in nature. By contrast, NanoMech asks the Court to assume that Suresh must have misused confidential informa- tion because she emailed certain documents to her per- sonal email account and at some point went to work for NanoMech's competitor. These facts, as alleged, are in- sufficient to show that an actual loss or damage flowed from Suresh's breach. Therefore, Nano Mech's claim for breach of the NDA will be dismissed for failure to state sufficient facts to show that the breach resulted in damages. Dismissal will be without prejudice to NanoMech's right to bring a future, non-speculative claim for a breach of the NDA if facts supporting such a claim materialize prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. * * * * * B. Breach of Non-Compete Agreement NanoMech alleges that Suresh breached a clause in her Employment Agreement that contained a sizing and Post-Termination Issues 751 OPINION BY DISTRICT JUDGE Nanomech v. Suresh 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128213 (W.D.Ark.) pursue higher education for the next two to four years, (Prior to Suresh's departure, it was discovered that she had forwarded several emails from her Nano Mech email account to a personal email account" These emails allegedly contained "Nano Mech's confidential, proprietary and trade secret information, In October of 2012, a member of Nano Mechs products ("NanoMech") that its former employee, Plaintiff Aru- This lawsuit concerns the claim of Nano Mech, Inc. na Suresh, violated the terms of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NUA") and a covenant not to compete Mech is an Ar ansas-based research and development contained within her Employment Agreement. Nano- company that specializes in creating nano-technology The amended complaint alleges that Suresh entered into an NDA with NanoMech on March 18, 2010, ment relationship with Nano Mech. During these pre- employment talks, Suresh received certain proprietary and confidential information relating to NanoMech's materials, processes and their applications, and related business plans and strategies. Under the terms of the NDA, Suresh was required to hold “in trust and confi- dence” these pre-employment disclosures for a period >) of three years after the disclosures were made.. Nano Mech ultimately hired Suresh on March 22, 2010, just four days after she signed the NDA. As a condition of her employment as a Product Engineer/ Tribologist with NanoMech, Suresh executed an Em- ployment Agreement on April 5, 2010. The Employ- ment Agreement contained a covenant not to compete that stated that for a period of two years after the termination of Suresh's employment, she could not "directly or indirectly enter into, be employed by or consult in any business which competes with the Com- pany.” The Employment Agreement did not define what it meant to “compete with the Company," nor did it restrict the covenant's application to any particular geographical area. As a Product Engineer for NanoMech, Suresh was privy to NanoMech's confidential and proprietary management team learned that Suresh was not pur- suing higher education and was instead looking for a job “in a field of technology occupied by Nano Mech” Nano Mech sent Suresh a letter reminding her of her obligations pursuant to the NDA and covenant not to compete. Nano Mech later discovered after searching the internet that Suresh had accepted a job as an Ap- plication Chemist with a company called BASF North America (“BASF”), beginning in January 2013. The amended complaint describes BASF as a worldwide chemical company whose portfolio of products in- cludes, among other things, equipment and engine lu- bricants that compete directly with Nano Mech's nGlide products, which are the subjects of a pending patent application ... The claims for relief made in the amended com- plaint are premised on Nano Mech's assumption that, in the course of Suresh's employment as an Applica- tion Chemist with BASF, she “will inevitably disclose to BASF, if she has not already," the formulation and testing of the nGlide products. [T]here are three claims for relief in the amended complaint. The first two are for breach of contract due to Suresh's alleged viola- tions of the NDA and the Employment Agreement's covenant not to compete. The last claim is for a per- manent injunction barring Suresh from disclosing any of Nano Mech's confidential information and "from employment with BASF for the remainder of the term of the non-compete provision within the Employment Agreement” * * * product concepts and prototypes, as well as research- related reports prepared in order to attract funding for Nano Mech's suite of patent-pending nano-lubrication products. Suresh also had insight into the chemistries, methodologies, and formulations for NanoMech prod- integrated materials and manufacturing processes. Suresh resigned from NanoMech on May 2, 2012, after informing the company that she planned to A. Count I: Breach of NDA The NDA that Suresh signed during pre-employment discussions with Nano Mech pertains to confidential and proprietary information that was shared with Suresh “solely for the purpose of evaluating a poten- tial employment relationship," from March 18, 2010, the first possible date of disclosure, until March 22, 2010, the last possible date of disclosure and date ucts and was trained on the chemical aspects of nano- WITHDRAWAL OF CA 2 Date of Notice 04/05/2018 Policy Type COMMERCIAL AUTO Producer Name: ANNETTE WILLIS IN Producer Telephone # 305-625-2403 AGENCY INC Producer Code: 70927 RETAIN THIS NOTICE FOR YOUR PECE APR 09 2018 Term verage remains Notice Date 04/05/2018 Producer Name and Phone Number WILLIS INSURANCE AGENCY INC 7TH AVENUE -NS FL 33056 17/2018 ΟΝΙ ΔΟ. 674 Part 6: Terminating Employment With respect to the assurance that it would take four CASE QUESTIONS to six months to become comfortable with the posi- 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the tion, the statement cannot be reasonably relied upon court decide? as a promise of employment in the sales administra- 2. What was the implied contract in this case? How tor position for a set period of time. Courts have gen- did the employer breach it? erally required a promise of a specific and definite 3. Why does the disclaimer in the employee manual nature before holding an employer bound by it. An not have the effect desired by the employer? estimate of how long it would take a person to adjust 4. Why does Dillon's promissory estoppel claim fail? to a job cannot be converted into a definite prom- ise of employment for that period of time. Thus, the vague assurance given to Dillon is not sufficient to support her claim of promissory estoppel. Effect of Disclaimers Employment at will is a harsh arrangement. It is difficult to put a positive "spin" on the message that “We can fire you at any time for any reason not spe- cifically prohibited by law and without even the most elementary procedural safeguards." Most employers prefer to gain the motivational and employee relations benefits that come from communicating the desire to treat employees fairly. Most employers probably also intend to treat employees fairly. But employers do not want to be bound by promises of fair treatment and liable for breaches. In short, most employers would like to have it both ways: basking in the warm glow of assurances of fair treatment and remaining entirely free to depart from any self-imposed limitations on the right to terminate at will. Disclaimers are used to this end. Disclaimers are written statements incorporated into employee handbooks, employment applications, or other important documents that "disclaim” or deny that any statements in those documents create contractual rights bind- ing on the employer. Language disclaiming the existence of a contract is typically com- bined with notification to employees in clear terms that their employment is at will. The statement (capitalized) on the first page of the employee manual in Dillon informing em- was being made to employees about how terminations and other decisions would be han- dled is a good example of a disclaimer. As another examnle a bank included the following ployees that the manual's provisions constituted guidelines only and that no commitment in its
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

HiHere is the the first bit of the assignment progress💪
HiHereby is the final finding to your assignment in case of any query feel free to indulge me😓

1

Running head: CASE LAWS

Case laws
Name
Institution affiliation
Date

2

CASE LAWS

Case laws
Dillon v. Champion Jogbra (Ch 18, p 672)
Legal issue
What was the legal issue?
A handbook is an essential tool in the management of an organization. Manuals contain
workplace information that is employees would find help navigating through the system.
Organizations are required to develop manuals for the organization that will be used as a guide
for staff on an occasional basis. In the manuals prepared by the employer, a disclaimer section
illustrates the scope of the policies the company has proposed and the employees. An employee
handbook is detailed in sections hence enabling readability and ease of understanding.
Organization procedures and working ethics are related to the advantage of the employee and
company relation.
Linda Dillon used to work at Champion Jogbra, but her services were terminated. Linda sued
Champion Jogbra as the responsible party that went against the company policy as illustrated in
the employee handbook. Linda indicated that she had followed the outline provided in the guide
as an employer, but Champion Jogbra deemed the work as a breach of contract. Champion
Jogbra supported the contract termination for Linda Dillon as it considered the employee at will
staff. Champion supported the claim in that handbook was not a legal document that employees
could use against the organization. Champion Jogbra illustrated that guide should be used with
staff as a guideline to making decisions while at work and official duties outside the company.
Linda Dillon felt the company was discriminatory and unfair in dealings. Linda Dillon decided to

3

CASE LAWS

sue Champion Jogbra Company for a breach of contract. Linda Dillon demanded to be
compensated for the breach of contract and loss of income as she was an employee of the
company on a full-time basis having started as casual staff (Lammerts, Van Dongen, Schaafsma,
Van Mechelen & Anema, 2017).
What was the court decision?
The court stated that there is conflicting information from the manual that it would not be fair to
conclude the case presented by plaintiff Linda Dillon. It was noted that employment practices at
Champion Jogbra organization are constant with an illustrated handbook. Linda Dillon was atwill employment staff as the Champion Jogbra stated during the hearing of the case which the
courts interpreted. The court mentioned a jury should decide the evidence as to if the termination
of the contract was done according to the law.
What was the implied contract in the case?
Dillon was an at-will employee Champion Jogbra. The court mentioned that an employer offers
to provide job security to staff hence the commitment should be adhered as stated. Contract law
provides advice for determination based on Dillon arguments. Limitation barely includes
information regarding the at-will contract.
The employer breach
The employer breached the contract by failing to offer permanent employment as illustrated in
the handbook. Dillon was unable to secure a job at the company hence the breach of contract led
to the fallout in the agreement previously discussed.

4

CASE LAWS

The disclaimer in staff manual barely has effects desired by the management
A disclaimer is used by the employer to deny liabilities that emerge while employees are using
the handbook. The employer decides to keep off responsibility as mentioned in the guide hence
preventing claims that arise when staffs are not accorded with needed desires. The disclaimer
supported policy as well as procedures entailed in handbook guidelines.
Dillon promissory estoppels claim failed since it lacked proper articulation that supports
analytical validation. The assurances provided was vague hence could not offer dangerous
promissory estoppels’.

Nanomech v. Suresh (Ch 19, p 751)

What was the legal issue in the case?

NanoMech is in the business of researching and developing nanotechnology. NanoMech
Company develops nanotechnology products in the market for corporations and consumers.
Suresh was hired with NanoMech as an employee of which an agreement was signed to ensure
the interest of the company is safeguarded. Suresh signed a deal with NanoMech for employment
relations as a condition of improved relationship as stipulated with Arkansas law. Suresh was
involved in various functions as specified in the contract of employment at NanoMech. Suresh
resigned from NanoMech to continue with education program as illustrated in the submissions of
the case. Investigations indicated that a rival company known as BASF hired Suresh. Suresh was
sued by...


Anonymous
I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags