I had these two questions today on a test. While they might sound like GD material, they obviously had factual answers:
Sally works for XYZ Corp. It is a 24/7/365 outfit. She has recently become a born again Christian and wants Sundays off. The company assigns days off on a seniority based system. The company goes so far as to ask for volunteers to work on Sunday for Sally. Nobody volunteers.
Sally sues her company. Did the employer make “reasonable accomodation”?
Dave owes Jack $700. Dave mails Jack a detailed letter asking him to accept $500 as payment in full and includes a $500 check with the letter. Jack cashes the check and sues Dave for $200.
Did cashing the check novate the contract, or does Dave still owe $200?
No. “Reasonable accomodation” means they essentially have to give her the day off unless the request itself is unreasonable based on their business - ie., they’re only open Sunday and Tuesday, for example. She can request religious accomodation at any time, not just at the time of hire, and so long as the employer has no reason to doubt her sincerity, she’ll win her suit.
If there’s a valid contract, accepting partial payment doesn’t prevent Jack from seeking the remaining $200. However, Jack has to make a good faith effort to obtain payment directly if he doesn’t want his suit tossed.
I’m not convinced either question has a factual answer. Arguments can be raised on both sides. In the first question, the employer argues that forcing a senior employee to accept a “less desirable” day off in favor of a less senior employee is not reasonable, and it is not clear that the employee has a religious prohibition against working on Sunday. There may also be union contract considerations. The employee argues that the Bible says to keep Holy the Sabbath, and that means she can’t work on Sunday. It would require a trial to determine the issue of whether they’ve made a reasonable accomodation or not.
On the second question, there is nothing explicit about whether the check is marked “Paid in full” or not. The creditor is going to argue he’s entitled to collect the full amount due. The debtor is going to argue that cashing the check constitutes acceptance of a revised contract. Laws regarding negotiable instruments vary from state to state. Likewise contract law varies in different jurisdictions.
I don’t think a lawyer would be making a frivolous claim representing either party on the facts presented, unless there was controlling case law in the applicable jurisdiction directly on point, and there is nothing in the question to indicate that, nor is there any indication which body of law is to be considered…and even then, a lawyer is entitled to make a good faith argument for a change in law, or to distinguish his case from a previously decided case that might appear to be controlling. Perhaps it could be said that one outcome is more likely than another…but it boils down to a matter of opinion and interpetation of the applicable law in a particular jurisdiction. This is why laymen are not permitted to practice law. I’m not willing to offer a definitive yes or no to either question without more information than what appears to be available.
I don’t disagree with you, but these were actual test questions (I paraphrased) which required factual answers. I’m pretty sure that I didn’t miss anything relevant (e.g. The question didn’t specify whether or not the debtor said anything about cashing the check being acceptance. Would that make a difference? I know marking “paid in full” on a check means squat)
I don’t know. That’s not the way I would have handled the matter as a debtor. I’d have tried to obtain written agreement to compromise the debt before tendering any funds. “Paid in full” on the check may or may not constitute a defense to the debt…or there can be other limitations imposed…sometimes release language is included in the memo field of the check. I’ve seen that used in small personal injury suits, as an example–but have not tested the validity of the language in court.
Was this in law school, or an undergrad course in business law?
That’s what I thought. The questions are kinda sloppy. In law school, the “yes or no” is not as important as the quality of the analysis of the issues and the argument made. At least in traditional exams. Some profs use mulitple choice questions, but they generally provide a lot more detail.
Given the paucity of facts supporting an intention to create a new contract, I’d argue there was no novation. If this was a general business law class, though, I’d also entertain the theory that the person who wrote the exam doesn’t realize there’s a difference and analyze it as an accord and satisfaction. Note that under the U.C.C. the check itself doesn’t have to have the accord and satisfaction wording on it. Also, some states have more specific provisions about accord and satisfaction by check.
Nevertheless, offering nothing, as in this case, is unlikely to constitute a reasonable accommodation, and unless there’s a seniority system or union contract, there’s no reason the employer couldn’t simply move the shifts around without asking for volunteers.
I’m going to clarify my answer here. It’s definitely not a reasonable accommodation because it does nothing to eliminate the conflict between the employee’s religious and work requirements. If that was the entire exam question, the correct answer is no. Assuming it was an essay question, I’d continue to explain that the employer doesn’t have to provide a reasonable accommodation if it presents an undue hardship, but the employer’s meager efforts would probably be insufficient to demonstrate that it would do so.
The employer has very little burden to make a reasonable accomodation - employers can avoid the duty to accomodate by claiming “undue hardship” – but the standard set by the Sup Ct. and the EEOC is absurdly low - basically “it’s inconvenient/it would cost more.”
The EEOC has interpreted this to mean that an employer can show that a requested accommodation causes it an undue hardship if accommodating an employee’s religious practices requires anything more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes coworkers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation. http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/religion_workplace.asp
So, no they didn’t make a reasonable accommodation, and Sally will lose her lawsuit. I’m trying to remember the case, but it involved an airline and their efforts to accomodate were similarly pathetic, and they won.
Ah yes, it was Trans World Airlines v. Hardison - almost the exact fact pattern, the Supreme Court finding that forcing another employee to work the unwanted weekend shift in Plaintiff’s stead was an undue burden. http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/tran_v_hard.html
First I would want to know why Dave owes Jack the money. Did Jack ship goods to Dave? If so, then one would need to look at the UCC. If not, you need to look at common law.
Again, there’s a threshhold question of which law is being applied. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? In New York City, what matters most is the New York City Human Rights Law, which says the following:
So one would need to no more about the circumstances to evaluate things.
It seems to me that your professor may be oversimplifying things a bit.
The case you cited included a union contract, and the union declined to exempt Plaintiff from the seniority system. Forcing another employee to work the shift Plaintiff found problematic would have violated the collective bargaining agreement. Those matters are not mentioned in the OP’s question. I’m not saying that the outcome necessarily changes, but it is a significant difference…enough to at least argue that the cited case is not controlling.
Hardison did reject the idea of giving the employee a four-day week and filling his Sundays with supervisory personnel, qualified personnel from other departments, or other available employees through the payment of premium wages, speaking very broadly in the process. This part of the opinion supports the employer in this case:
This last sentence offers another defense for the employer. Scheduling other employees on the plaintiff’s holidays is another form of discrimination. We had a thread about this issue a while back.
The UCC is not law anywhere. You’d actually have to look at the state statutes. As far as I know, all states have adopted the UCC, but there is some variation in the UCC and the versions adopted in some states. There may also be Article 9 issues to consider–the OP’s question does not say whether this was a secured transaction.
Of course, to be fair, this is an undergraduate course, and the OP’s prof probably did not anticipate having his questions nit-picked by a bunch of lawyers.
I’m not sure what this means, since most (all?) states have adopted the UCC. People frequently use the phrase “UCC” to mean “the version of the UCC which has been adopted in the relevant jurisdiction.”
But you are right, the “U” in UCC is a bit of a misnomer. In fact, I believe that not every state adopted UCC provision which deals with this situation.
