The Remote-Day Memo: What 'May Request' Actually Grants
Meridian Logistics issued this memo to all staff: "Employees who have completed probation may request up to two remote days per week, subject to manager approval. Requests must be submitted 48 hours in advance. Approval is not guaranteed where on-site coverage would fall below the minimum of three people for the requesting team."
Priya's team has a minimum of three. On the Tuesday she requested, four of five team members were already scheduled on-site. Priya completed probation three months ago and gave 72 hours' notice. Her manager denied the request, writing only that "coverage is a concern." In the same week, manager Tolu approved a remote day for Dana, who is in month five of a six-month probation, saying the memo was "about trust." HR now holds two questions: whether Priya's denial was defensible, and whether Dana's approval can stand. Neither manager documented anything beyond the messages above, and both employees have already seen the memo.
1. The memo's effect depends on how two phrases are read. Identify them, state the competing readings, and say which reading the text better supports.
Read the worked answer
The load-bearing phrases are "may request" and "subject to manager approval."
- Reading A (conditional entitlement): an employee who has completed probation and given 48 hours' notice is entitled to remote days unless the one stated condition - coverage falling below three - is breached.
- Reading B (bare permission to ask): the memo creates only a right to submit a request, with approval entirely at the manager's discretion.
Reading A is better supported. First, the drafter paired the discretion with a specific, checkable refusal ground ("not guaranteed where coverage would fall below the minimum of three"). Where an instrument names one ground for refusal, an adjudicator will not readily imply unlimited others - otherwise that sentence does no work at all. Second, Reading B would make the 48-hour rule and the coverage figure purely decorative. Third, the memo's evident purpose is to standardise an existing practice across teams, which Reading B defeats by leaving each manager unconstrained.
2. Was Priya's denial defensible on the record given? Reason it through rather than judging whether the manager was fair.
Read the worked answer
Not on the record shown. Work through the elements:
- Eligibility - probation completed three months ago: met.
- Cap - one remote day, against a maximum of two: met.
- Notice - 72 hours against a 48-hour minimum: met.
- Stated refusal ground - coverage. On-site strength was four against a minimum of three, so the condition that permits refusal was not triggered.
A discretion to approve is not a discretion to refuse on grounds the instrument does not supply; if managers could refuse for any operational reason, the coverage sentence would be redundant. The manager's message also cites "a concern" rather than the coverage test, so even a permissible refusal would be unreasoned. HR should require the manager either to grant the request or to name a ground the memo actually contains. Dana's case is separate and cuts the other way: completed probation is a precondition, not a preference, so that approval exceeds the manager's authority and should be withdrawn - sympathy for the intent does not cure the defect.
3. Rewrite the memo so both disputes become impossible, and say what each change accomplishes.
Read the worked answer
Rewrite:
Employees who have completed probation may take up to two remote days per week. Their manager must approve each request. Approval may be refused only where on-site coverage would fall below three people for that team. Requests must be submitted at least 48 hours in advance. Employees still within their probation period are not eligible.
What each edit does:
- "may request" → "may take ... must approve" converts an unenforceable request into an entitlement with a duty attached to the manager.
- "only where" closes the open set of refusal grounds that produced Priya's denial.
- "not guaranteed where" → "may be refused only where" removes the hedging that let a manager read discretion as unlimited.
- Explicit probation bar removes the ambiguity Tolu exploited; a precondition should be stated as a bar, not left to inference from "who have completed probation."
The general principle: when a rule creates a discretion, name the grounds for refusal exhaustively, or the discretion will be exercised on whatever grounds a manager finds congenial.