The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a whistleblower case against a make-up company because the claims were more than just “skin deep.”
Steven Trzaska, a patent attorney for L’Oreal, filed a lawsuit after being terminated for protesting a strict policy that he believed violated his professional duties as a patent attorney. The policy, allegedly, would have forced him, and others on his team, to file patent applications without a good faith belief that the applications were meritorious.
Essentially, L’Oreal instituted two new policies that created a sort of in-house patent lawyer conundrum. On the one hand, it issued a patent application quota, in essence requiring attorneys to meet a certain numerical goal for number of patent applications filed. While on the other hand, it created a policy that drastically reduced the number of inventions and potential patentable items for the attorneys to draw up applications that could be filed.
Trzaska raised this concern to his employer, explaining that he was essentially being required to violate his professional duties because the lack of new patentable projects and the new quota requirement meant he would need to submit applications for projects he did not believe were patentable in order to meet the quota.
Related Resources:
- United States Third Circuit Opinion Summaries (FindLaw’s Cases & Codes)
- Court Agrees With Ball Park in Hot Dog Fight (FindLaw’s U.S. Third Circuit Blog)
- Third Circuit: First Amendment Protects Right to Record Police in Public (FindLaw’s U.S. Third Circuit Blog)
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
