CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT 'MISSING', SAYS LOWE NANNY'S LAWYERS, a news article published by The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) appears to be controversial where as found, actor ROB LOWE has reportedly lost the confidentiality agreement that he is using as a qualifying piece of evidence in the lawsuit he has filed against a former nanny.
According to the article, Lowe’s former nanny Jessica Gibson filed a lawsuit in California in April of this year alleging sexual advances made by the actor to her, which happens several times (between September 2005 to January of 2008). On his part, Lowe counters that Gibson was violating a confidentiality agreement along with charges of defamation and infliction of emotional distress.
Here is the catch, in the court paper filed on the 5th of June, Thursday at Santa Barbara Superior Court, California, the lawyer of Gibson filed a dismissal motion asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit after Lowe legal team revealed the document was missing. The motion was based on the main that Gibson was in effect sued for a nonexistent contract. Besides, Gibson denied that she was ever made to sign a confidentiality agreement before or during her employment with the Lowes as a nanny.
However, the Lowe’s side tells that all who works for Lowe knows that confidentiality agreements must be signed and that there are number of people who can attest that Jessica signed one. The only complication was that the confidentiality agreement supposedly signed and entered between Lowe and Gibson, went missing.
The import of this event to the employment world was that a confidentiality agreement once entered between the employer and the prospective employee must be kept safe and kept intact. This has relevance especially when complications in employment will butt in, ending with lawsuit such as this one.
With the permissible character on confidentiality covenant in the California settings, the party must take responsibility in complying with their respective obligations arising from the agreement. Along with the earnest compliance, the parties must also treat the contract with high regard, especially in safekeeping the same.
Well, as for now, let us just wait on what the court will say on the matter after the hearing set on 19 June 2008.
According to the article, Lowe’s former nanny Jessica Gibson filed a lawsuit in California in April of this year alleging sexual advances made by the actor to her, which happens several times (between September 2005 to January of 2008). On his part, Lowe counters that Gibson was violating a confidentiality agreement along with charges of defamation and infliction of emotional distress.
Here is the catch, in the court paper filed on the 5th of June, Thursday at Santa Barbara Superior Court, California, the lawyer of Gibson filed a dismissal motion asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit after Lowe legal team revealed the document was missing. The motion was based on the main that Gibson was in effect sued for a nonexistent contract. Besides, Gibson denied that she was ever made to sign a confidentiality agreement before or during her employment with the Lowes as a nanny.
However, the Lowe’s side tells that all who works for Lowe knows that confidentiality agreements must be signed and that there are number of people who can attest that Jessica signed one. The only complication was that the confidentiality agreement supposedly signed and entered between Lowe and Gibson, went missing.
The import of this event to the employment world was that a confidentiality agreement once entered between the employer and the prospective employee must be kept safe and kept intact. This has relevance especially when complications in employment will butt in, ending with lawsuit such as this one.
With the permissible character on confidentiality covenant in the California settings, the party must take responsibility in complying with their respective obligations arising from the agreement. Along with the earnest compliance, the parties must also treat the contract with high regard, especially in safekeeping the same.
Well, as for now, let us just wait on what the court will say on the matter after the hearing set on 19 June 2008.
