Case Analysis

Case 1: Palmateer v. International Harvester Company,85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981)

Parties: In the case of Palmateer v. International Harvester Company, the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company.

Facts: The facts of the case revolved around the plaintiff's claim that he had been wrongfully terminated from his position for helping law enforcement by being essentially a whistleblower on the company.

Issue: The issue at stake was whether or not the defendant company had acted within the bounds of the law, with respect to at-will termination.

Applicable Laws: The case involves the tort of retaliatory discharge in Illinois, i.e., termination is not justified when termination undermines public policy, i.e., the common good.

Holding: The holding of the court was that the plaintiff had indeed been wrongfully terminated, and awarded him damages accordingly.

Reasoning: The reasoning was that the defendant had undermined public policy by engaging in retaliatory discharge.

Conclusion: As is pointed out, the foundation of the tort of retaliatory discharge lies in the protection of public policy, and there is a clear public policy favoring investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses (p. 99). My recommendations are same as the courts: The defendant was protected under public policy from being terminated from providing law enforcement with useful information that would ultimately be used to protect and maintain the common good of the community by bringing justice to criminal actors within the company that terminated the defendant.

Case 2: Osborne Assocs. v. Cangemi, 2017 WL (M.D. Fla. 2017)

Parties: The parties are Generations Salon proprietors (plaintiff) and Silver Salon proprietors (defendants). The defendants were formerly employees of the plaintiff, Cangemi et al.

Facts: Generations Salon accuses Cangemi and Calianno of breaching the terms of their non-compete agreements, breaching their fiduciary duties, violating the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. 1836, as well as violating Floridas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, FLA. STAT. 688.001.

Issue: Protection of trade secrets are apparently at issue, justifying the non-compete clause; also the issue of soliciting and diverting clients to defendants Silver Salon. Cangemi et al. claim they did not learn anything from Generations that they did not already know.

Applicable Law: Applicable laws are the FDTSA and the states UTSA, as noted above.

Holding: Injunction was granted to the plaintiffs, barring defendants from soliciting customers from Generations Salon or marketing so as to compete against Generations.

Reasoning: The judge reasoned that it was in the interest of the public that an injunction should be awarded...…Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986)

Parties: The plaintiff, Local 28, represents sheet metal workers employed by contractors in the New York City metropolitan area. The defendant The defendant was the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Facts: The Local 28 had not had any members who were African American or Latinx for years, and the EEOC had filed a complaint alleging discrimination. The Local 28 agreed to an affirmative action plan offering benefits to non-members.

Issue: Affirmative action and discrimination against ethnic and racial minorities was the main issue in this case.

Applicable Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was the applicable law, cited by the EEOC.

Holding: The Supreme Court held that the remedies in the case were appropriate under the circumstances and that the Local 28 was now operating in good faith in accordance with the public policy overseen by the EEOC so long as it implemented the affirmative action plan.

Reasoning: The justification for the decision was that the Local 28 had received several complaints on this matter in the past and had not taken any steps to remedy the situation. The affirmative action plan was seen, finally, as a remedy.

Conclusion: The Court affirmed the Local 28s steps to remedy the situation through…