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: Plaintiff claims he had been wrongfully terminated from his position for helping law enforcement by being essentially a whistleblower on the company, which he was doing when he reported the crime to law enforcement.

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, as plaintiff had been helping police and therefore was protected.

Case Questions: Is there a difference between the courts protection of an employee who reports a rape by a coworker or the theft of a car and an employee who is constantly reporting the theft of the companys paper clips and pens?

It is well established that an employee who reports criminal activity by a coworker is protected from retaliation by their employer. This protection stems from the public policy interest in encouraging reporting of illegal activity. However, it is less clear whether an employee who makes frequent complaints about relatively minor incidents of workplace misconduct is similarly protected. Some courts have held that such employees are not entitled to the same level of protection, on the grounds that their complaints are not in furtherance of a public policy interest. Other courts have taken a more expansive view, holding that any complaint made in good faith is entitled to protection.

Should the latter employee in the above question be protected? Consider that the court in Palmateer remarked that the magnitude of the crime is not the issue here. It was the General Assembly who decided that the theft of a $2 screwdriver was a problem that should be resolved by resort to the criminal justice system.

Yes, the above employee should be protected.

What are other areas of public policy that might offer protection to terminated workers?

Discrimination clauses in Title VII under the Civil Rights Act could offer protection.

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. Defendants claim they learned nothing new from employer. Nonetheless, defendants did violate non-compete agreements after leaving Osborne by opening their own salon and marketing to Osborne customers.

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 to the plaintiff based on case precedent (N. Am. Prods. Corp. v. Moore). The defendants had violated their non-compete agreement and that put them in violation of the law.

Case Questions: What alternative fact pattern might change the courts decision on whether Cangemi and Calianno breached their non-compete agreements?

If Cangemi and Calianno had been employed in different cities, it is possible that the court would have found that their non-compete agreements were not breached. The reason for this is that the geographic scope of the agreements would have been much smaller, making it less likely that the parties would have come into competition with each other. As a result, this alternative fact pattern could have resulted in a different outcome in the case.

If Generation Salon did not have its proprietary Stanglware database, would this case be resolved differently?

It very likely may have been resolved differently, as part of the suit focused on the loss of IP.

Is it fair to restrict Cangemi and Calianno from using their knowledge to begin their own business in this industry?

No, that would not be fair, butthat is not the focal point of the case.

Conclusion: The defendants had all worked at Generations Salon, and they each signed a non-compete agreement which prohibited them from working for a competing salon within a certain distance of Generations Salon. The court saw it as enforceable among other torts. I recommend...…remedy the situation. The affirmative action plan was seen, finally, as a remedy, coming upon years of neglect and attempts to ignore the issue.

Case Questions: Is it clear to you why a court would be able to include in its remedies those who are not directly discriminated against by an employer? Explain.

In order to understand why courts may award damages to those who are not directly discriminated against by an employer, it is first necessary to understand the concept of "collateral estoppel." Collateral estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has already been decided by a court. This doctrine applies even if the party was not a party to the original litigation. In the context of employment discrimination, collateral estoppel may apply when an employee sues his or her employer for discrimination, and the court rules in favor of the employer. The employee would then be prevented from bringing another lawsuit against the employer for the same issue. However, if the court rules in favor of the employee, the employer would be collaterally estopped from denying that discrimination occurred. This would allow the employee to bring a second lawsuit against the employer on behalf of other employees who were also discriminated against.

If you were the court and were still trying to get the union to comply with your order 18 years after the fact, what would you have done?

If I were the court, I would have held the union in contempt and fined them for every day that they failed to comply with the order. In addition, I would have required the union to submit a plan for how they intend to finally comply with the order. If the union continued to defy the court's order, I would ultimately hold its leaders in jail until they agree to take action. This aggressive approach would likely be necessary to get the union to finally comply with the court's order after 18 years of inaction.

As a union official, how could you have avoided such a result?

As a union official, there are a few ways you can avoid a contempt of court ruling for not complying with a court order. First, you can try to negotiate with the court to have the order modified or lifted. Second, you can fully comply with the order and cooperate with any investigations. Third, you can take steps to ensure that your employees and members understand and comply with the order. Finally, if you believe that the order is unlawful or violates your rights, you can challenge it in court. By taking one or more of these actions, you can help avoid a contempt of court ruling.

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