Case Study Of Jennifer Lawson's Employment Vs. Howell Jewelry World

Jennifer Lawson’s employment was terminated from Howell Jewelry World, the following information has been collected. The employment agreement Ms. Lawson signed from Howell Jewelry World is brought in to question by Ms. Lawson claiming she was unlawfully terminated. She states that Howell wanted to gain access to the patented procedure for creating “Ever-Gold” that was the main product of her former employer Greene’s Jewelry.

The contract terms were very clear and concise when Ms. Lawson was hired at Howell’s. She was to divulge the information she had regarding the Ever-Gold, per the specific guidelines included in the contract. The second element to the contract was that she was not to join a competitor for two years after she left Howell.

The employment was very clear on the obligations of both parties; Ms. Lawson was to get the position as long as she passed on the information on “Ever-Gold” and if she accepted the provision to not be employed by a competitor for two years after termination or if she quit. The company was obligated to provide Ms. Lawson with the position and pay for benefits that came with it as long as she followed the contract and company policies. Ms. Lawson breached the contract by engaging in poor work ethic and being chronically tardy which caused her to be terminated after one week. She also breached the contract by getting employed by Triumph Jewels, a direct competitor of Howell’s, immediately after being fired despite having signed a covenant not to compete. She thus breached the contract and it can be considered legally nullified (Wood,

Precedent

The first precedent on this case is the Drysdale V. HRD (1st Appellate Court, 1978), where the claimant was dismissed from her position due to repeated cases of tardiness. The court issued a judgment that since the case was recurring then the conduct of the claimant was intentional and she was disinterested in her employer’s interests (Fox, 2014). The same case applies to Ms. Lawson where her past behavior during the week and previous professional references indicate that she is usually tardy, which in Howell’s case was seen as lack of interest in her role at the organization which warranted her dismissal.

For contract disputes this case will draw precedence to the Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad Co., 81 Tenn, 507, 1884 WL 469 (Sep. term 1884). The court held that the rail company could dismiss employees at will, be they many or few for a good cause. Ms. Lawson’s cause is her general tardiness which renders the employment contract null and void (Fox,