Introduction, Facts and Laws, Precedent, and Facts to be Determined


Greene’s Jewelry Company is under a legal mandate to sue Lawson for violation of the confidentiality agreement. At the time of employment, Greene company only required Lawson to sign a contract where she would not disclose information regarding Ever Gold’s secret production process, whether hired or not. The company deserves the legal right to protect its production techniques and bind its employees to honor the agreement. For five decades, the company has excelled and competed favorably courtesy of the prevalence of its secret ingredient in making jewelry. The company hires over 500 employees with different expertise levels and has done so for a long time. Greene Jewelry owes its success to the close and ethical relationship it maintains with its employees in safeguarding the techniques it employs in making Ever Gold. The skills in making Ever Gold make the company undisputed in a healthy competition with rivals. In high esteem, Greene deserves the right to protect its methods and have the public adhere to the contract regulations.  

For the company to operate for so long, with no cases of breach of confidentiality suggests that it highly respects workers and offers a just internal procedure for filing petition in case of unlawful acts. Lawson did not make any effort to file her complaint to the management when fired by one of the firm’s representatives. Greene Jewelry Company has maintained a thrilling performance record with Lawson after honest and accurate annual evaluations of her work. The positive feedback eliminates possible accusations of prejudice or misuse of firing authority. The company has also documented Lawson late reporting to duty and warned her accordingly.


Greene Jewelry Company did not decide to fire Lawson due to her pregnancy. The decision was based on an organizational issue. Therefore Lawson’s pregnancy is not the contributing factor in the decision to discharge her from her duties. When giving Lawson the instructions, the head of human resources indicated the company no longer required junior executive secretaries’ services. Although inadequate reasons were supplied to Lawson, she was not relieved from her duties on a discriminative agenda (Pearson, 2010). Lawson did not challenge the company decision or use arbitrators as per Greene Jewelry Company rules and regulations. The laying facts prove that Lawson was contented with the decision or did not desire to work for the company. The law does not protect employees that willingly decide to terminate their roles. Lawson’s claim to violation of her employment rights to the court is unjustified due to the expiry of lodging the allegations. The court allows cases presented in the range of seven to 21 days after a misunderstanding occurrence. Similarly, Lawson’s failure to approach the judicial system for unlawful termination at the instance proofs she was satisfied with the companies decision. If Lawson would present her case to the management board and petition her claim to wrongful termination and be denied the rights, the company would be held responsible.

Greene Jewelry Company made a contract with Lawson when she was hired that required her to maintain the secrets of firm production. Lawson was in a legal capacity to make the binding agreement. She was of age and mental soundness at the time of the contract. Greene Jewelry Company and Lawson both accepted the terms and conditions of the deal. The violation of the agreement by either side would be held responsible as dictated by the contract. Lawson breached the contract by revealing the secrets of Ever-gold’s production regardless of her reason. The company has the legal right to protect its methods and sue Lawson because the contract indicates so in violation. As per the agreement, any employee should not share the company’s secret information, whether they are working for the company or terminated. The company incurs losses on account of the Lawson breach since other competitors are using the same process employed by Greene Company. The law applicable restricts Lawson from disclosing the company’s confidential affairs even though she was fired. Lawson also took a material belonging to Greene Company without the company consent; this is theft. The law will treat Lawson’s action unlawfully since taking the company materials is a criminal offense.


The court dismisses cases where evidence of the termination of employees on a non-discriminatory background is established. The Supreme Court withdrew the allegations of an employee who sued the employer, claiming unlawful discharge from her duties. The organization had decided they no longer needed her due to financial reasons. The employee made a petition to the firm decision, but she presented her case after the deadline expiry and got dismissed. The court dismissed the complaints appeal after establishing the company decision was not prejudiced (Kawecki & Szlęzak, 2017). Likewise, in our case, the company judgment to fire Lawson was not associated with her pregnancy. The company did not require the services of a secretary and had open records of Lawson’s performance. In Missouri’s case, the court pardons employer when proof indicates aspects of discrimination are not the contributing factor in the termination of duties (Pearson, 2010).

We could relate our contract case with an insurance company that fails to honor their part when the risk happened. The court justified the complainant appeal since the contract bounds the firm to the agreement rules whether or not events occur. Similarly, Lawson should have kept the company’s matters confidential as per the contract regardless of being demoted. Since she willingly committed herself in writing never to disclose the information whatever the circumstance may be, being fired does not justify her reason to breach the covenant. The case also relates to firms that enter into contracts requiring the employees not to utilize the skills they acquire in other businesses to avoid unhealthy competition. Even if one retires from the work, he/she is bound to obey the contract regulations. The court justified the firm position when one of their employees built up a company employing the skills learned in his former job (Pahwa, 2019). My case also involves a company that seeks to safeguard its legitimate interest from the competitor.


To create a more powerful legal position of Greene Jewelry Company, I will need a detailed explanation that justifies firing Lawson. I will require a report demonstrating the warnings given to Lawson. I will analyze the severity of the complaints lateness on the company’s production. Were attempts made to rectify her mistakes? How often did she report to work late, and how did she manage to stay in the company for three years? I would also inquire about which authority Lisa Peele (the head of human resources) acted. Was it a worker to worker disagreement or prejudice? I will also interview Lisa to get her perspective on the events that occurred when she broke the news. I will also learn how the company has managed to retain its secret in the process for fifty decades without breach of contract. I will then analyze why it happened with Lawson. I will also inspect the company’s legal procedures for offenses that occur and follow up with grievances. Did the company offer adequate explanations and interview her before firing? Does the company have an open forum for advocating complaints? If so, did Lawson utilize any of the company’s elements of airing issues? I will also need a report that shows how the company suffers at the expense of the contract breach.

        If the company has ample evidence showing that Lawson was offered a valid reason for being discharged, the company can overcome violation claims. The company also needs to ascertain that the decision was not prejudiced to make the decisions legal. Proving that the company attempted to correct the defendant could also show the genuine motive of the company. If Lisa Peele acted on behalf of the company, the company could take responsibility for the decision. If the human resource manager worked independently, the firm could detach itself from the burden and question Lawson’s lack of addressing it. The court is likely to judge in favor if it sees the transparency in the company procedure of addressing grievances. The jury will also justify the company’s appeal if it can establish the extent of damage incurred due to Lawson breaching the confidentiality agreement. The company must suffer on account of unfavorable competition.


Kawecki, S., & Szlęzak. (2017, February 8). Supreme Court issues landmark ruling regarding claims for termination on discriminatory grounds. Lexology.

Pahwa, Y. (2019, October 24). Breach of contract cases [With examples]. Cronus Law, PLLC.

Pearson, L. (2010). The eight steps to an effective employee termination policy. PubMed Central (PMC).

Get a Custom paper from Smart2write

Place your order with us and get a high quality, unique and plagiarism free paper that will guarantee you amazing results!!