TO: Jennifer Lawson
FROM: Howell Jewelry
DATE: June 1, 2016
Need assignment help for this question?
If you need assistance with writing your essay, we are ready to help you!
Why Choose Us: Cost-efficiency, Plagiarism free, Money Back Guarantee, On-time Delivery, Total Сonfidentiality, 24/7 Support, 100% originality
RE: Howell Jewelry vs. Jennifer Lawson
As the legal assistant to my client, Howell Jewelry, I like to state the facts of the employment termination which Jennifer Lawson while working for my clients business. Jennifer is claiming that she was wrongfully terminated by Howell Jewelry that she was tricked into signing the employment contract and Howell was never interested in hiring, only for acquiring the confidential information to create Ever-Gold.
In Howell’s contract, the terms were very clear and explained to Jennifer Lawson. In prior to taking the offer from Howell, she was given an execution of employment contract. The contract contained two specific provisions. The first provision stated that Jennifer will disclose the information she had regarding the Ever-Gold process prior to commencing work with Howell. The second provision was a covenant to not work for any competitor of Howell for two years after she leaves the employ of Howell, irrespective of the reason for leaving and whether she quits or is fired. Jennifer Lawson had to read, initial and sign the contract as a whole. My client retained their end of the deal in the contract which provided an opportunity to work for them in lieu that Jennifer Lawson superseded in Howells policy and rules in its organization. Jennifer Lawson’s termination after one week was not for unlawful termination but her chronic tardiness. Even while Jennifer worked for her previous employer, Greene, she routinely showed up 15 to 30 minutes late for work. The Howell human resource department viewed that Jennifer Lawson frequent tardiness is unacceptable and for this she was fired after the week.
Jennifer Lawson also violated her contract with Howell by seeking and being employed as a sales associate with one of Howells competitors, Triumph. She broke the second provision which was not to work for any of Howells competitors for two years after either leaving or being fired from Howell.
FACTS AND LAWS
Jennifer Lawson entered the contract with Howell knowing that she can be terminated whether being fired or quits. This explains to her that she can be fired at any time and for any reason as long as the employer has a legal reason to fire her. Jennifer Lawson’s chronic tardiness for that week gave my client the legal action to fire her. Jennifer has shown that her tardiness was just not done in my clients business, but also with her previous employer. New Hampshire is an employment at will state, my employer or the employee can terminate their employment relationship at any time for any justifiable reason. There was no wrongful termination since Jennifer’s termination was based on her tardiness and lack of discipline according to Howells human resource policy.
In according to my client’s contract policy, the contract has an easily recognizable consent between both the employer and employee. She was told she would be hired, but there were two provisions in which she had to oblige. My clients’ company hired Jennifer after she agreed to pass the valuable information to produce Ever-Gold, and she would not work for another competitor for two years after she had worked for my clients’ company. Jennifer breached the contract when she decided to be employed by Triumph and conducted chronic tardiness which is unacceptable by Howells human resource policy. Jennifer had breached the contract of good faith and fair dealing by Clients Company (McAdams, Neslund, Zucker, &Neslund, 2015).
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT LAWS
Some of the laws that apply to my client’s case are that the contract is valid which met the five legal features a contract should have: Agreement, Consideration, Capacity, Genuineness of assent and Legality of purpose (McAdams, Neslund, Zucker, &Neslund, 2015). My client acknowledged the provisions that were given to Jennifer before her employment and offered employment to Jennifer as long as she followed the policies and rules stated to her.
The first precedent is the Mason V. Load King Manufacturing Company, where the claimant was dismissed from his position due to excessive absenteeism that would hamper the operation of a business and would cause loss to its employer. The same case applies to Jennifer where her behavior in chronic tardiness in the week she worked for my clients business would cause loss of proactivity in the business.
Another precedent is the Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., No. A09-949, where the employee was discharged for excessive tardiness even though the company did not follow its discipline policy. The court’s decision clarified that the focus is on the employees conduct and not the employer’s HR discipline policy. The same case applies to Jennifer where Howell can dismiss their employees at will. Jennifer’s termination was caused by her frequent tardiness which Howell can at will terminate her.
FACTS TO BE DETERMINED
Howell agreed to give Jennifer work in their establishment according to the contract she had signed. Jennifer had to abide by the two provisions that she had read, initialed and signed. She had to provide the Ever-Gold process document and not to work for any of Howells competitors after either quitting or fired for two years. She breached these provisions leading to her dismissal from her position. Jennifer breached her contract by constantly arriving tardy to work and then being employed by a competitor jewelry store before her two years. This gives my clients business to sue Triumph by disregarding the contract they knew Jennifer was held liable for.