Business Law Assignment: Medilynk, Olson, and Miami Dolphins Case

This assignment presents a detailed analysis of two business law cases. The first case, Medilynk v. Olson, involves a breach of contract and trade secrets dispute, where the student, acting as a judge, determines whether Medilynk should prevail against its former employee, Olson. The student also provides HR advice on whether Medilynk should classify nurses as employees or independent contractors. The second case, Martin v. Miami Dolphins, involves claims of racial and sexual harassment under Title VII. The student, again acting as a judge, renders an opinion on each claim, applying legal principles and providing a dissent arguing the opposing party's position. The analysis includes an examination of the facts, the relevant legal structures, and the application of those structures to the specific circumstances of each case, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues at hand.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name:
Institution:
Date:
.

BUSINESS LAW
A – You are the judge in this case. Should Medilynk prevail on its requests that its
former employee, Olson, not be allowed to work for Registry, or reveal information she
learned at Medilynk to Registry, or solicit Medilynk employees or customers? Why or
why not?
Medylink had a signed contract with Olson and other employees on the do’s and
don’ts of an employee before and after employment. One of the requirements that have been
entered is Section 4 of the employment agreement. In this section under carlifornia law, an
employee enters into an agreement with the employer not to directly or indirectly provide
information to other companies. It further says that after employment with either Medilynk,
agent, client, consultant, contractors or independent contractors for three years after
termination of the contract.
The agreement also stipulates that an employee should not accept employment with a client
facility to which they have worked for under Medylink assignment without a prior written
consent or approval of Medylink. This is in a period of three years after effectively
terminating the employment.
I think that Medylink should prevail in its request for Olson not to work with a competitor
Registry Network due to breach of contract by the former employee and the violation of the
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) and unfair competition. The fact that Olson worked with
Medylink and after termination of her employment went to work with registry is going
against the contractual agreement they had signed. She is under breach of the contractual
agreement that she should not work with either Medilynk, agent, client, consultant,
contractors or independent contractors for three years after termination of the contract. The
fact that there is video evidence of Olson copying data late at night from Medylink offices is
a breach of agent’s agreement. Olson had signed an agent’s agreement and a non-

BUSINESS LAW
circumvention, non-disclosure, proprietary and confidential information agreement. This
agreement stated the proprietary and non-disclosure information that Olson was not supposed
to get from Medylink or its employees in an attempt to divert business from Medylink. Olson
went ahead and acquired the information illegally through stealing of confidential
information and engaging with a competitor three years before the greed timeline of
engagement of employment with a competitor. In fact, she entered into employment with
Registry Network two weeks after termination of employment due to poor performance.
Medylink should prevail on Olson and get damages for sabotage of their business. Medylink
has invested massive amount of resources to upgrade their database while it would be unfair
for someone to take the data and give it to its competitors. This is sabotage of business, unfair
competition, tortious interference of data with an aim of getting economic advantage and
intentional interference with economic relations. Olson has also breached employment
contract stipulated after signing the agreement to work with Medylink.
The two parties should be held criminally culpable of
1. Olson should be liable of theft, sabotage of business and breach of employment
agreement
2. Registry Network should be culpable of gaining data from competitors to unduly gain
economic advantage
3. Olson has also breached employment contract stipulated after signing the agreement
to work with Medylink. This is sabotage of business, unfair competition, tortious
interference of data with an aim of getting economic advantage and intentional
interference with economic relations.

BUSINESS LAW
You are now the HR VP of Medilynk (Congratulations! You were well-trained). Would
you advise Medilynk to treat the nurses it provides to its customers as its employees, or
the customers’ employees, or independent contractors? Why or why not?
Yes. This is because they are trained by Medilynk and it is part of their income generating
activities or streams. MediLynk as a healthcare service provider is in the business of
providing qualified nurses to healthcare facilities and professionals. Medylink has invested a
great deal of resources in both time and money to develop database and store information
about the healthcare service providers and the nurses. Its core business is recruiting,
interviewing and training nurses to relevant skills required by the healthcare service
providers. They then engage the nurses under a contract and subsequently assigns them to
healthcare providers who want nurses. Under the three months contract, I would make sure
that they are treated as our employees but after the lapse of the three months they are no
longer qualified to be associated with us as employees.
This is because, we recruit, interview and train the nurses. Any shortcomings with the
qualities of services provided by the nurses will be blamed on us in the first three months.
After the lapse of the three months, the healthcare providers are entitled to take full
ownership of the employment contract with the nurses and or terminate the services of the
nurse if he or she did not meet the qualifications. The nurses are also recruited by remote
recruiters and Medilynks agents and are put under contract by Medylink for a period of three
months. After recruitment, the healthcare service provider is responsible for training of
proficient candidates before taking them to other healthcare facilities. It is also responsible
for compensation terms of nurses agreed under the contracts and provision of malpractice
coverage. Essentially, Medylink is the employer to the nurses since it is even paying them
under our contract. The only thing that Medylink customers provides the nurses are the
necessary instruments and uniforms.

BUSINESS LAW
As our main service and undertaking, the nurses are trained and recruited by Medylink.
Therefore, full ownership of the employee is left with Medylink under the contractual period
of three months. There would be no revenues on our part if the healthcare providers stopped
paying us for the services provided by the nurses. We pay the nurses and remain with a
percentage or a retainer for the services that we have rendered. In anycase, if the Medylink
customer finds that a nurse is not proficient enough or not competent enough in skills, we are
responsible for the damages the healthcare provider has incurred on behalf of our nurse.
Therefore, the nurses should be our employees under contract in the three months of service
and then he or she is absorbed by the healthcare institution if found to be skillful and
competent in the job. Medylink has invested a great deal of resources in both time and money
to develop database and store information about the healthcare service providers and the
nurses. Its core business is recruiting, interviewing and training nurses to relevant skills
required by the healthcare service providers. Any shortcomings with the qualities of services
provided by the nurses will be blamed on us in the first three months.
Assume that Martin has received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC and has filed a
lawsuit against the Dolphins franchise. The facts are as stated in the report. He
charges discrimination under Title 7, claiming both racial and sexual harassment.
Please take the role of Judge, and write an Opinion indicating which party should win
on each claim and stating your reasons for your conclusion. Be sure to use the
analytical structures (p/f case, defenses, etc.) we have covered, to organize and present
your conclusions.

BUSINESS LAW
Case: Martin Vs Miami Dolphins
Executive Summary
In the case of Martin Vs Miami Dolphins, it is an instance of workplace interactions which is
not regulated. The Miami Dolphins had not put relevant measures to ensure ethical
interactions within the Locke room of generally within the NFL organization. This led to
bullying by some players such as Incognito and Jerry on Martin, a junior player A and a
junior trainer. It was noted that Marin was racially abused with languages depicting sexual
indecency, racial slur and with a lot of homophobic references. The behavior of Incognito and
others as the report suggest exceed bounds of common decency.
Case: Martin Vs Miami Dolphins
As a judge, Martin should win the lawsuits against the Dolphins franchise. Both the sexual
and racial charges are substantiated as true due to the amount of evidence that have been
produced. Texts showing incognito especially racially and sexually abusing martin are seen
by the NFL investigating team. The Miami Dolphins franchise also has a role to play. The
report by the investigators show that they understand that in a competitive environment
especially an NFL franchise that is the highest standard of playing, players are often
aggressive and vulgar. They acknowledge that profanity and profane language is an accepted
fact in competitive sport which professional athletes often engage in. it is also in this respect
that good spirited goading somehow leads to team bonding. However, the report shows that
some of the behavior and languages seen are by any measure unbecoming of a professional
athlete. Based on what is seen the texts are certainly very offensive to Martin and others who
feel they were abused emotionally and racially. Martin has also suffered emotional torture.
Although he has a history of mental health due to depression caused by bullying in his
teenage years, the emotional torture has continued due to the indecency by incognito and

BUSINESS LAW
others. Martin has discontinued with the professional footballing career at the Miami
Dolphins as a lines man. This is the highest level of football in the country and due to this
emotional abuse caused by racial slurs and sexual innuendos, Martin has yet to continue his
footballing career. Incognito is guilty as per the report due to his interference with the
investigation upon learning that he will be suspended. This shows that Incognito is culpable
of harassment through texts and abusive words hurled specifically at martin and the other
two. The Dolphins are also guilty as they had not put any code of conduct in the dressing
room or the locker room. Although common decency dictates that one should act in an
upright manner albeit being in a competitive environment, it is also important to note that the
Dolphins do not have a code of conducts in case this happens. This is an organization of
repute just like any other and should have codes of conducts and standards of ethical
behavior.
Held: the Miami Dolphins and the NFL should be held liable of their inability to protect a
player. The Dolphins should compensate Martin for the cost of service and the amount of
time they could have had with Martin. They should clear out the contract he has with them
and any related costs associated with this lawsuit such as legal and medical fee. They should
also suspend Incognito and the others as a sign that they have fund then guilty and set ethical
code of conduct.
A. Then, write a dissent giving the best argument you can for the other party’s
position (10).
Miami Dolphins

BUSINESS LAW
As an organization, we believe that as one of the biggest franchises in pro-sports we deal with
professionals in all levels. The organization is not culpable of individual player’s action and
their relations. As professional athletes, relationships in the lockeroom are based on a
player’s interaction with other players and their socialization skills. As an organization that
was established years ago, the Dolphins have had a professional relationship with all the
players who have worked with us. In this case, Martin and Player A and the young trainer
were abused racially and it is beyond our control. Had they come and reported to us directly
we would have had to settle the issues in-house. We have suspended Incognito as a sign that
we are willing to maintain the highest standard of professionalism and ethical environments
where athletes and staff feel safe. We are also willing to set a code of conduct where we set
the rules of interactions in the organization without any abuse. Any players found to not abide
with social interactions guidelines will be suspended or termination of contract. This shows
that Incognito is culpable of harassment through texts and abusive words hurled specifically
at martin and the other two. The Dolphins are also guilty as they had not put any code of
conduct in the dressing room or the locker room. Although common decency dictates that one
should act in an upright manner albeit being in a competitive environment, it is also important
to note that the Dolphins do not have a code of conducts in case this happens.
Incognito and others
As professional athletes in a highly competitive environment, profanity is part of the
language. Martin has been engaging in this also although he says was to fit in. to us, it was
only part of the interactions with a team mate and although we may have stretched it a little
further, it was part of our interactions. Martin has a history of mental instability and maybe
was incapable of handling it. There was also no rules of engagement given by the Dolphins
organization to show where we can or can’t close the line. We have been supportive of
Martin in all the professional lives and our relationship has been bipolar not in a clinical

BUSINESS LAW
sense but an on and off relationship. Although common decency dictates that one should act
in an upright manner albeit being in a competitive environment, it is also important to note
that the Dolphins do not have a code of conducts in case this happens.

BUSINESS LAW
References
Gomes-Casseres, B. (2015). Remix strategy: The three Laws of business combinations.
Harvard Business Press.
Miller, R. L., & Jentz, G. A. (2017). Business law today: The essentials. Cengage learning.