As a part of my Business Law 201 class, I was placed in a group with 4 other students and tasked with creating a mock case brief.

1. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Docket No. 11-0010
CLARA OSWALD
Plaintiff
v.
DON DRAPER
Defendant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Michigan (Before: Saruman, Voldemort, and Ayotte, Circuit Judges)
BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF
Shirlene Armstrong
Enoch Erbert
Fernando Jimenez
Devon Schofield
Adam Tezak
Armstrong & Associates LLC
316 EC 301 Fulton West
Grand Rapids,. MI 49504
1-800-JUSTICE

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description Page
1 Table of Authorities 3
2 Statement of Issues for Review 3
3 Statement of the Facts 3-4
4 Summary of the Arguments 4-5
5 The Law and the Arguments
a. Religion
b. Intellectual Property
c. Product Liability
5-13
5-9
9-11
11-13
6 Conclusion 13

3. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Belair v. MGA Entm’t, Inc.​, 831 F. Supp. 2d 687, 704 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
Bott v. Four Star Corp.,​ 675 F.Supp. 1069 (1987)
City of Hope Nat. Med. Ctr. v. Genentech, Inc.​, ​43 Cal.4th 375, 399, 181 P. 3d 142, 159 (2008)
Lewis v. New York City Transit Auth.​, 12 F. Supp. 3d 418, 458 (E.D.N.Y. 2014)
McDaniel v. Trail King Industries, Inc.​ 248 F.Supp.2d 749, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 16,501
Peterson v. Wilmur Commc’ns, Inc.​, 205 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1026 (E.D. Wis. 2002)
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Arcadian Corp​., 991 F.Supp. 390 (1997)
Roeslin v. D.C.​, 921 F. Supp. 793, 800 (D.D.C. 1995)
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison​, 432 U.S. 63, 97, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 2283, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113
(1977)
Weber v. City of New York​, 973 F. Supp. 2d 227, 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
STATEMENT OF ISSUES FOR REVIEW
1. ​To what extent is Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce liable for employment discrimination on
the basis of religion?
2. ​What level of reasonable accommodations is Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce required to
make for Clara Oswald?
3. ​Did Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce illegally use Clara Oswald’s application “Bender” due
to her patent upon the application?
a. ​Does Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce hold all responsibility in the misuse of the
application “Bender” in the case of Zoe Hart?
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Clara Oswald is an account executive at Sterling, Cooper, Draper,& Pryce. Ms. Oswald
has been the ideal model employee and has increased business development for the firm by 17%
thus increasing profits for the company as a whole. Ms. Oswald’s supervisor, Don Draper
allowed her the freedom to develop their own score code and she became the creator of the
successful dating app, “Bender”. ​Ms. Oswald has a legal patent filed with the United States

4. trademark office.​ However, the firm wants to take ownership of this successful app. ​During the
time that the patent was being filed, Ms. Oswald converted to the Church of Hipster. Ms.
Oswald’s new found faith lead her to present new opinions about the firm's consumer-oriented
clientele. Upon hearing the news of Ms. Oswald’s new belief systems practices, Don Draper
refused to make accommodations for Ms. Oswald and her newly found faith in the Church of
Hipster.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Clara Oswald was terminated from her position as an account executive at a software
development firm for expression of her religion of the Church of the Hipster. While at work, Ms.
Oswald was put in a position where her religion dictated certain behavior in regards to
non-followers and appearance based on specific dress attire. Ms. Oswald’s religious activity is
protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law forbids discrimination on the
basis of religion in the workplace. Ms. Oswald’s termination is a direct violation of Title VII
because the company failed to establish some other just cause beyond her religious practices.
Prior to her termination, Ms. Oswald was an exemplary employee who always put the best of the
company as first priority. Also, Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce refuses to make any
accommodations for Ms. Oswald even though her actions are considered religious activity. The
company is required by law to make all and any accommodations for her religion that are
reasonable. Since Ms. Oswald’s beliefs about the Church of the Hipster, her behavior and
appearance are protected under Title VII. Ultimately, Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce should
be held liable for violating Title VII when discriminating against Ms. Oswald for her religion by
wrongly terminating her without just cause.
Ms. Oswald is filing suit against the Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce for infringement
of her dating app “Bender” for multiple reasons. Ms. Oswald’s app “Bender” was being openly
used by the company in order to acquire new interns. Since Ms. Oswald has a patent registered
for the app, she has all rights to it. Also, the company never received Ms. Oswald’s permission
which is infringement of intellectual property. Although Ms. Oswald’s contract with Sterling,
Cooper, Draper, & Pryce states that “all intellectual property created on company time with

5. company equipment is the legal property of Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce”, this is not
applicable in her situation. Ms. Oswald created an app on her personal time that was meant to be
a dating website and nothing else. The company, however, exercised Ms. Oswald’s contract to
seize control over the app and utilize it for recruitment purposes. The app was not related to Ms.
Oswald line of work and the firm took advantage of her success as creator of the popular app
‘Bender’. Another reason why Ms. Oswald should still hold her rights to the app is her specific
job position. According the Bureau of Labor Statistic, an account executive is considered to be a
sales position and has nothing to do with production of software. Ultimately, Sterling, Cooper,
Draper, & Pryce did not have rights to the Bender app and infringed on Ms. Oswald’s intellectual
property rights.
Zoe Hart has also filed suit against our client, Clara Oswald. Ms. Hart was injured on the
job at Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce after the Bender app paired her for an internship. Ms.
Oswald is in no way responsible for Ms. Hart's injuries because the app was not being used for
its original intention. Also Ms. Oswald has no control over what the software development firm
did when using her app after infringing on her intellectual property rights. Ms. Oswald is not
responsible for the injuries that Ms. Hart sustained during the job because the company used the
app for purposes other than what she had intended. Also, the danger that occurred was not
foreseeable and thus unavoidable because Ms. Hart was beaten by an upset third party. There
was no software flaw that caused her to be put into the position that she is in. Bender did not fail
to perform in a manner that a consumer would reasonably expect. Ultimately, not only is Ms.
Oswald not responsible for Ms. Hart’s injuries, it is also unforeseeable that Ms. Hart would have
been injured during her internship after utilizing the Bender app.
THE LAW AND ARGUMENTS
A. Legal Argument 1: Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Religion
Religious discrimination in the workplace is a serious issue that should never be
tolerated. Our client, Clara Oswald, was wrongly terminated and discriminated against based on
her religious expression of the Church of the Hipster. Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce, the
software development firm for which Ms. Oswald worked as an accounting executive.

6. Ms. Oswald was unjustly terminated on the basis of her religion. As a contracted
executive at the software development thus, in order to establish proper termination, the
company must prove that there was a just cause for letting an employee go. The firm has failed
to establish just case when firing Ms. Oswald, thus her termination can be rightly associated with
the practice of her religion, the Church of the Hipster. Prior to her termination, she was a model
employee at Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce. Not only did Ms. Oswald manage the key
accounts for the software development firm but she was able to increase business development
and thus profits. While her behavior and appearance did slightly alter after becoming a member
of the Church of the Hipster, her performance should have remained stable. Thus, the employer
wrongly terminated Ms. Oswald on the basis of her religious beliefs which is a violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 protects employees from discrimination on the
basis of their religion in the workplace. This applies to private employers and employees, in
order to ensure that employees are able to work in an non-hostile environment or be disciplined
based on their religious beliefs. Title VII also requires employers to make reasonable
accommodations to employees with specific religious obligations. This can include attire,
practice, or expression of one’s religious beliefs.
In order for Ms. Oswald to file a Title VII claim, she must that demonstrate that she
suffered a “materially adverse change” in her employment status after her conversion to the
Church of the Hipster. As is seen in ​Weber v. City of New York​, an employee was discriminated
against because his observance of Sabbath was inconvenient. Since Mr. Weber was not
incompetent by the means of his job performance, his employer could not discriminate against
his practice of religion. Ms. Oswald also acted differently because of her religious affiliations.
However, given her development of the Binder dating app, she was a clearly competent if not
exceptional at her job.
In order for religious discrimination to be considered valid, it must be proven that Ms.
Oswald’s employment terms and conditions have been altered. Her employment status and
position requires that Ms. Oswald’s job performance is satisfactory. If her performance is

7. sufficient, then the firm should be willing to make accommodations for her religious beliefs. The
Church of Hipster is a religion and should be treated as sensitively as any other religious
practice. ​Transworld Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison​ is an example of discrimination prior to hiring.
Since hiring someone with a schedule limited by religious practices is inconvenient, employers
typically avoid finding such employees. By not offering accommodations for an employee’s
religious practices before the date of hire, it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title
VII. Within the scope of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, Ms. Oswald is in a
similar situation as the as new employees being discriminated against before hire based on
religion. While Ms. Oswald is recent convert, her employer should still make appropriate
accommodations as if she was hired in with these conditions. Don Draper shows a complete lack
of consideration by not offering any compromises on practice of Ms. Oswald’s new religion.
While her religious beliefs may come off as offense, she is not incompetent because of her
religious choices.
Under Title VII, all aspects of religious observance/practice and related expression are
protected. This includes personal or moral beliefs that are sincerely held with equal strength as if
it were religious in nature. As demonstrated in ​Peterson v. Wilmur Communications Inc.​, a
religion or religious beliefs are protected under Title VII as long as the belief is sincerely held. In
this case, Christopher Peterson was a devout member of the World Church of the Creator who
advocated for a system of beliefs called “Creativity” which preaches white supremacy. He was
demoted at his company after expressing his beliefs about his religion. The court held that
Wilmur Communications Inc. discriminated against Peterson based on religion because he held a
sincere belief in what the church advocated for. In our client’s case, Ms. Oswald became a
devout follower of the Church of the Hipster when she discovered her faith after a series of
life-changing occurrences. She had a sincerely held belief in the Church of the Hipster and
believed in the practices and doctrines associated with this specific religion. Since Ms. Oswald’s
practice and belief of the Church of the Hipster is sincere and she follows the church faithfully,
her actions are protected under Title VII.

8. Religious activity is protected in the workplace. However, one must determine whether or
not the specific actions of the employee were religious in nature and thus protected by Title VII.
To determine if it activity is protected, three prong test exists to test the validity of the belief and
actions. The first factor deals with if an activity is intimately connected to a religion.In Ms.
Oswald’s case, her actions and appearance aligned with the specific religion of the Church of the
Hipster. As previously established, Ms. Oswald holds a sincere belief in the religion. The second
factor is whether there is a clear connection between the activity’s primary function and a
religious belief. In Ms. Oswald’s case, her actions towards clients is clearly connected to her
religion of the Church of the Hipster. According to a religious doctrine, she is expected to
proselytize to non-followers by pointing out their conflictual status with the Church of the
Hipster. Since there is a clear connection between her action’s primary function and her religious
belief, her behavior is protected. The last factor is if the activity is ‘tangentially related’ to any
conceivable religious belief. Ms. Oswald’s attire was tangentially related to her religion.
According to the Church of the Hipster, she must wear non-mainstream attire and her attitude
must reflect those of fellow hipsters. This accounts for her change in appearance and behavior
which should be protected activity as well. As established in ​Lewis v. New York City Transit
Authority​, religious activity and appearance are protected under Title VII. Cecil Lewis is an
active Muslim that worked for the New York City Transit bus system. The courts found that the
company is required to allow people to wear religious garments but may have regulations about
uniforms or appearance.In Ms. Oswald’s case, she was not asked to wear different attire or act in
a different manner. Instead, the firm refused to make accommodations and terminated an
exemplary employee.
The United States was founded on the principle of liberty. Freedom of religion and its
expression is one of the major aspects that has made America such an idealized society.
Ultimately, religion is an extension of one’s person and no one should be discriminated against
of the practice of it, including in an employment setting. Our client, Clara Oswald, was
terminated based on her actions in regards to practising her religion with a client of Sterling,
Cooper, Draper & Pryce while serving as an account executive for the firm. Not only does this
violate the Title VII protection against discrimination based on religion, but it also goes against

9. one of the United States core values of liberty. Overall, we advocate that Sterling, Cooper,
Draper & Pryce should be held accountable for their actions in terminating our client and
compensate her as the court system believes is just.
B. Legal Argument 2: Infringement of Intellectual Property
The application “Bender” was created by Ms. Clara Oswald with the intention to be used
as social dating platform for individuals to connect upon common interests. It was deemed by the
United States Patent Office to have novelty in that it does not conflict with any of the proceeding
or currently pending patents. Bender was seen to also have utility in that it has specific and
substantial uses. The application was also deemed as to be non-obvious​ ​in that its use was not
seen to be obvious to another individual who is skilled in the field of application creation.
By meeting these requirements and being issued a patent, Ms. Oswald and her application
are subsequently afforded certain rights and protections. Those rights include but are not limited
to the exclusive and monopolistic right to use, create, and sell her patent during said patents life.
Since Ms. Oswald never granted Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce use of her application
“Bender,” Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce is inherently in violation of her patent through the
misuse of “Bender” to recruit summer interns and are in turn subject to the full extent of the law.
The case of ​Bott vs Four Star Corporation​ shows the extent to which a patent can be
enforced. A patent holder, John Bott, filed for infringement upon his patent of non-removable car
luggage rack against the Four Star Corporation. In this case, the Four Star Corporation had
already contacted and had known about Bott’s pre-existing patents upon removable luggage rack
and decided to create their own non-removable model on the basis of said patents. However,
during the same period, Bott filed for a patent for a non-removable luggage rack that Four Star
Corporation subsequently infringed upon. In this situation, Four Star Co. was fully aware of
Bott’s types of projects but not aware of this specific patent that he held and were still found to
have violated Bott’s Patent. In turn, this case sets precedent for this case of ​Oswald vs. Sterling,
Cooper, Draper, & Pryce. ​It shows that even if Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce had no notion

10. about the patent that Ms. Oswald had filed, they can still be in violation of said patent and are in
turn liable for any damages that were done to Ms. Oswald.
Another factor that must be taken into account is in the case of ​Bott vs Four Star Corp.,
Four Star Corp.​ ultimately made their own product that was intended to be even in the slightest
different from the product of Mr. Bott’s. In the case of ​Oswald vs. Sterling, Cooper, Draper, &
Pryce, Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce​ used the exact same software that Ms. Oswald had
created without attempting to make it differ in any way. This subsequently violates Ms. Oswald’s
patent significantly more blatantly the Four Star Corp. violated Mr. Bott’s
As shown in the case of ​Belair v. MGE Entertainment,​ simply changing, altering, or
enhancing the product from its original counterpart is product infringement when substantial
similarities are in hand. “Bender”, Ms. Oswald’s creation is being used differently than it was
intended for, which was a software created solely for dating purposes. Sterling, Cooper, Draper,
& Pryce used “Bender” to hire and recruit new employees for their summer program.
While Ms. Oswald is an employee for the firm, she is not a software developer. Instead,
she is an account executive of Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce. Essentially, she is in charge of
managing key accounts but is not employed by the firm for software development. As mentioned
in the case of ​Roeslin v. District of Columbia​, the program/software must have a work made for
hire to be used or become a program owned by the employer. Although Ms. Oswald is an
employee and developed the software, it ​did not occur within her authorized time and position
limits of her job. This determines whether program was not a work made for hire.
City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genetech​, Inc strengthens why Ms. Oswald
deserves to keep her rights to her app and to receive compensatory damages because of the
breach of contract. In the case, ​City of​ ​Hope National Medical Center v. Genetech​, the City Of
Hope filed a lawsuit against Genetech because they claimed that under contract and fiduciary
duties, they were owed royalties of the invention involving the specific polypeptide. However,
the only reason that the biotechnology company could not claim a breach of contract was
because the evidence ended up being barred by the Statute of Limitations. Ms. Oswald does have
proof that the app was not intended for her company since the app was meant for dating and had
not business-related. Also, as stated previously, Ms. Oswald’s job is a sales position. Thus, she

11. had no intention of creating an app for Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce when she was creating
Bender.If she was, it would not be a fiduciary duty which is why we are demanding
compensation.
To conclude, Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce has blatantly used Ms. Oswald’s
application “Bender.” This is not an issue of contention. As well it is fact that “Bender” has been
patented by Ms. Oswald and she is subsequently provided the aforementioned rights. One can
see then from our arguments that even if they did not use the patent for its intended purpose and
the application was partially made using company property, Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce
violated Ms. Oswald’s standing patent.
C. Legal Argument 3: Product Liability
Our client Clara Oswald is being sued by Zoe Hart on the grounds that she was injured as
a result of the app matching her with an internship at Sterling, Cooper, Draper & Pryce. Ms.
Oswald’s app, “Bender”, was being wrongfully used by the software development firm. Sterling,
Cooper, Draper & Pryce never obtained permission from Ms. Oswald to use her app for
recruitment purposes. The apps intended nature was to match people based on whether or not
they found each other attractive, “yes” or “yuck”.
In the case of ​Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Arcadian Corporation​,
fertilizer manufacturers created fertilizer which was used to cause an explosion in a terrorist
attack upon a building. In turn, Port Authority filed claims of negligence and product liability
against Arcadian Corporation because the fertilizer that they produced was subsequently turned
into the explosives used in the bombs in a simple manner. The claim was if Arcadian
Corporation had put all necessary precautions into place when producing and selling the fertilizer
would the terrorist attack been at least hindered. The courts however deemed that these
precautions were not necessary because the fertilizer was blatantly used for something other than
its intended purpose and it was not the burden of the manufacturer to take such precautions.
In turn, this case sets the precedent that when a product is not used for its intended
purposes, it is not upon the shoulders of the manufacturer/creator of a product to take
responsibility for the misuse of said product. In the case of ​Oswald v. Sterling, Cooper, Draper,
& Pryce​, Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce used the application “Bender” in order to connect

12. possible employees with the company. The application was originally designed, however, as a
social dating application. It is consequently obvious that Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce did
not use Ms. Oswald’s application for its intended purposes and therefore she just as Arcadian
Corporation is not liable for negligence or product liability in relationship to the case of Zoe Hart
and her occurrences.
In the case of ​McDaniel vs. Trail King Industries, Inc.,​ McDaniel sued a trailer
manufacturer due to falling from the trailer which later lead to a leg amputation. In order for a
company to be liable, the danger must be open and obvious. Zoe Hart’s unfortunate events with
the angry client had no connections with, nor was it open and obvious that the use of the
software program “Bender”. Zoe claims that it was the software “Bender” that caused her harm
during her job. In reality, it was not foreseeable that an employee could have been attacked at
workplace by an angry client simply because of a program software that was created and
intended for social dating.
No one could foresee that a woman would be attacked during her work hours, much less
caused by an app that is simply made for social interactions and dating. The software itself did
not cause her harm, nor did it guarantee the employee to be hired for her summer position in the
first place. One of the main factors in the case of ​McDaniel v.Trail King Industries, Inc.​, is that
there must be evidence to demonstrate that the product, or in this case the software, was
defective and caused the user injuries. Ms. Hart was injured by a third party and not by the
specific product. As mentioned in ​McDaniel v. Trailer King Industries, Inc.​, a product is
considered defective and unreasonably dangerous if it fails to perform in a manner that
consumers would expect. Bender did not fail to perform its original purpose. The software, nor
Ms. Oswald were negligent or liable for the injuries Zoe Hart incurred during her employment at
Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce.
Since Ms. Oswald’s product, the Bender app, was not utilized for its original purpose, she
cannot be held liable for Zoe Hart’s injuries. Sterling, Cooper, Draper, & Pryce used Ms.
Oswald’s app without her permission and for the purpose of summer intern selection. While it is
regretful that Ms. Hart was injured on employer time, it was not foreseeable that this spectacle
could have occurred by utilizing the Bender app. Ultimately, our client, Clara Oswald is not

13. accountable for any injuries that Zoe Hart sustained while working at Sterling, Cooper, Draper,
& Pryce.
CONCLUSION
For all of the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff Oswald requests this court to hold Sterling,
Cooper, Draper, & Pryce accountable for their actions in regards to religious discrimination,
infringement of intellectual property, and their liability to the the claims brought forth by Zoe
Hart.
Respectfully submitted,
Shirlene Armstrong
Enoch Erbert
Fernando Jimenez
Devon Schofield
Adam Tezak
Armstrong & Associates LLC
316 EC 301 Fulton West
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
1-800-JUSTICE