Scribd
Upload
29 views4 pages

Pepsico, Inc v. Redmond

In the case of PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond (1995), PepsiCo sued former employee William Redmond for accepting a position at Quaker, claiming he would inevitably disclose trade secrets despite a confidentiality agreement. The court ruled in favor of PepsiCo, enforcing the 'inevitable disclosure doctrine' and preventing Redmond from working for Quaker for six months. The case highlights the importance of trade secret protection and aligns with biblical principles of fairness and respect.

Uploaded by

aidan.webster827
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views4 pages

Pepsico, Inc v. Redmond

In the case of PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond (1995), PepsiCo sued former employee William Redmond for accepting a position at Quaker, claiming he would inevitably disclose trade secrets despite a confidentiality agreement. The court ruled in favor of PepsiCo, enforcing the 'inevitable disclosure doctrine' and preventing Redmond from working for Quaker for six months. The case highlights the importance of trade secret protection and aligns with biblical principles of fairness and respect.

Uploaded by

aidan.webster827
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Pepsico, Inc. v.

Redmond (1995)

Aidan Webster

Southern Nazarene University

MGT-5233

Professor Linque H. Gillett

February 11, 2025


Facts

In 1995, PepsiCo sued a former employee named William Redmond, after he had

accepted a job to work for Quaker, owner of companies such as Gatorade and Snapple.

Previous to accepting the job for Quaker, Mr. Redmond held a “relatively high position” with

the company and thus had access to inside information and trade secrets. During his time at

PepsiCo, Redmond signed a confidentiality agreement stating that he would not disclose any

standard practices of the company to anyone who it does not pertain to. PepsiCo exclaimed in

their case against Mr. Redmond that he would inevitably disclose inside information and

trade secrets to those at Quaker, providing them an unfair advantage. This is called the

“inevitable disclosure rule”. This case challenged the notion of whether or not someone can

be prevented from working for a competitor where there is no breach of the confidentiality

agreement, proven or not. The court ruled in favor of PepsiCo stating that at some point,

disclosure of inside information and trade secrets would be inevitable. Redmond was not

permitted to work for Quaker for six months.

Legal Concepts

The first key concept that pertains to this case is the “inevitable disclosure doctrine”.

This doctrine is fairly straightforward and indicates that even if there is a binding agreement

to not disclose certain information, as there was in this particular case, it is expected that this

information is to be disclosed regardless. It is essentially saying that no matter ones efforts to

not disclose information to another that is impermissible, it will happen regardless. Another

legal concept of note is “trade secret protection”. As described by the World Intellectual

Property Organization, “Trade secrets can be protected for an unlimited period of time, unless

they cease to meet the criteria for trade secret protection” (wipo.int). Trade secrets are any

information that they do not want disclosed to outside personnel, or that could harm their

business operations.
Biblical Worldview

This case decision aligns with biblical worldview in the way that it promotes the

values of fairness and respect. I believe that a simple verse that relates to this case is Exodus

20:15- “Thou shall not steal”. This verse is very straightforward in protecting the possessions

of one from another, ensuring fairness. It also perpetuates respect in the fashion that it is not

ethical for one business to have access to another's secrets.


References

Part III: Basics of Trade Secret Protection, (n.d.), World Intellectual Property Organization,

https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/wipo-guide-to-trade-secrets-and-innovation/

en/part-iii-basics-of-trade-secret-protection.html#:~:text=Trade%20secrets%20can

%20be%20protected,contrary%20to%20honest%20commercial%20practice.

You might also like