Employment Law Essay

3055 Words13 Pages
Golden Gate University 14 Employment Law Mid Term – MGT 358 Case Study 1 & 2 Golden Gate University 14 Employment Law Mid Term – MGT 358 Case Study 1 & 2 Case Study 1 - Part A As the judge I cannot make definite conclusions without knowing the full information. However, with the given information here are my thoughts. Plaintiff Medlink will prevail on 1.Defendent Woolfolk not being able to reveal information he learnt at MedlinK to Registry 2. Solicit Medlink employees or customers However, non-compete agreements are automatically void as a matter of law in California which means Medlink will not be able to stop Defendant Woolfolk from working for Registry. Employers need to carefully craft policies and procedures to deter trade-secret misappropriation and, in the event litigation is unavoidable, position themselves to prevail. Medlink has achieved this by having Woolfolk sign 1. Proprietary & confidential Information, Non-Disclosure, Non-Circumvention Agreement – The agreement stated in detail proprietary information that Woolfolk was prohibited from disclosing, listing numerous items as protectable trade secrets. 2. It contained a section stating that in order to forestall disclosure of proprietary information, upon Woolfolk’s termination, he was prohibited for three years thereafter from soliciting Medlink employees or customers; attempting to divert business from Medlink; and engaging in any business competition with Medlink business. As a Judge this would be seen as a good procedure in place to protect Plaintiff’s trade secrets. Defendant Woolfolk became a Medlink nurse-recruiting agent in January 2011 and was fired in September 2012 for poor performance. He had 1 year and 8 months to prove himself as a good employee. He was fired for poor performance. It is acceptable for Woolfolk to have copied hundred’s of Medlink documents onto his

More about Employment Law Essay

Open Document