Nees v. Hocks
Oregon Supreme Court
272 Or. 210, 536 P.2d 512 (1975)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Robert Hocks (defendant) employed Vickie Nees (plaintiff) as a clerical worker. Nees received a summons for jury duty but requested and received a one-year postponement because she would be on her honeymoon. When Nees was called again after the postponement, Hocks gave her a letter indicating that, as Nees’s employer, he could spare her for a while but not for the entire month indicated in the summons and that he was, therefore, asking for her to be excused again. Nees presented the letter to the court clerk and mentioned that she had been excused before but would like to serve on a jury. The clerk advised Nees that she would not be excused. Nees returned to the office and informed Hocks that she would have to serve at least two weeks of jury duty. Nees did not tell Hocks that she had told the clerk she wanted to be on a jury. While Nees was out for jury duty, Hocks learned that she had told the clerk she wanted to serve. Hocks sent Nees a letter stating that she was being discharged for having requested to serve on a jury and because Hocks was not satisfied with the quality of her work. Nees filed suit against Hocks, and a jury returned a verdict in her favor. Hocks appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Denecke, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
