Jewelry Has A Strong Case Against Jennifer Lawson

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.

Isaacson then said that is Eisenberg filed a sexual harassment complaint then she wouldn’t receive her job back

Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was an amendment to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it is illegal for an employer of 15 or more workers, to discriminate against a person because of pregnancy, childbirth, or pregnancy-related conditions. This means

On March 25th, 2015 the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former United Parcel Service employee was denied accommodations after she became pregnant. UPS failed to give, Peggy Young, less strenuous work after her medical professional advised she not lift anything heavy during her pregnancy. The justices, voting 6-3, sent the case back to the lower courts to reevaluate UPS’s defense for not to accommodating Young’s needs.

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.

Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC owners, Ms. Mary Jane and Mr. Allen Greene employed Ms. Jennifer Lawson as a junior executive secretary for three years. During her time of employment, she encountered proprietary information which was covered under a confidentiality agreement she signed. Upon termination Ms. Lawson provided said information to a direct competitor of Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC violating this agreement. The plaintiffs, Ms. Mary Jane and Mr. Allen Greene are suing the defendant Ms. Jennifer Lawson for potential profit loss to their business and violation of the confidentiality agreement. The defendant is counter suing for wrongful termination from Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC. stating her termination was issued due to her

Title VII Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin (EEOC, 1997). This law applies to federal, state and local employers. The above conditions may not be used to refuse to hire or for terminating an individual or in other words discriminate against any individual (EEOC, 1997). In order to release an employee in any of the above categories the employer must have documentation based on quantity or quality of production and the employer can also make this decision based on results of a professionally developed ability test, which cannot be used to discriminate (EEOC, 1997). If an employee feels they have been let go for an unjust reason they can file a formal

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

In a precedent-setting decision in 2000, the state Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a superior court ruling in Carmichael Vs. Wynn & Wynn noting in the text that "discriminatory animus was a factor in the decision not to hire a pregnant woman."

According to the Legal Dictionary (2014), “The Wards Cove decision was severely criticized by Civil Rights leaders, who believed the Supreme Court had made disparate impact cases almost impossible to win” (p.1). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was in effect. This act proposed that employees must have proof in showing that the employer committed a disparate impact crime. No longer would it allow the victims to argue against the company based on their own views. At the same time the owner must show evidence that there is a crime committed based on these findings. Title VII along with the Civil Rights Act would dismiss any further rulings on this matter. The Supreme Court has adjusted some of the compensation methods for the disparate impact theory. It is against the law for an employer to allow different standards, conditions, or terms of the job to their workers. This

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire, discharge or discriminate against an individual because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Under Title VII sex discrimination is not unlawful if BFOQ can be proven as necessary for that position.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The PDA was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 31, 1978 to prohibit workplace discrimination on the basic of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was established to prohibited employers from being discriminated on by basic of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin but not pregnancy. Therefore, in 1978, the PDA was amended to prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and related issues.

Within the Civil Right act was a section entitled Title VII which was created specifically to deal with matters of employment. Title VII’s objective is to prevent discrimination based upon a person’s color, national origin, gender, and religion in regards to all aspects of employment. This protection begins with the initial stages of hiring and training employees and extends up to promotions and dismissals of an employees. If a person belonged to one of the groups outlined by Title VII they became classified as a member of a protected class. (Bohlander and Snell, 101) With the establishment of sex as a protected class the foundation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act had been laid but it would take fourteen years before pregnancy itself would become protected.

Another law the plant may be violating is the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This law “forbids discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Noe, Hollenback, Gerhart & Wright, 2011). According to the case, the plant employs approximately 1,500 workers and one third of the workforce is Hispanic (Fransson, Gareett & Noll, 2005). The plant mostly hires Hispanic to