Question for lawyers

I have a question about policies, in general. In my INTPness I tend to question policies a lot which leads me to question the legalities of them. As an example, just because a business has certain policies does that mean it is legally binding? To me, it seems that businesses or whatever will create their policies and "hide" behind them as if they were a law.

Is this too general or do I need to provide detail?

Signing off on an employee manual can make policies binding, though there are can be caveats and exceptions to explore. But the main thing to bear in mind is that every state except Montana is an "at will" state: that is, the employer can fire you or let you go for just about any reason, so long as they are not implicating certain state or federal laws (e.g., firing you solely because of your gender).

If you have something on your mind, you may want to provide more detail. Please note that I NEVER post legal advice online, nor do I warrant any information that I may post. All my law-related posts are for HYPOTHETICAL purposes only. But you if want some more detailed, purely hypothetical discussion, write away....

I'm not too sure about the law in the United States (or individual states), but I'm a law student in England so my knowledge is relevant to the legal system in England and Wales. As far as I know, any policies which are not conflicting with the law can be legally binding for anyone who enters a contract with them. They just can't make ridiculous policies and expect the law to treat them as solid, they have to be legal and logical in the eyes of the law. Even with slightly strange policies, the customers are usually expected to have read the fine print (including the policies) before entering a contract with them by purchasing an item, joining a website, etc.

Originally Posted by More Tea

Signing off on an employee manual can make policies binding, though there are can be caveats and exceptions to explore. But the main thing to bear in mind is that every state except Montana is an "at will" state: that is, the employer can fire you or let you go for just about any reason, so long as they are not implicating certain state or federal laws (e.g., firing you solely because of your gender).

If you have something on your mind, you may want to provide more detail. Please note that I NEVER post legal advice online and online, nor do I warrant any information that I may post. All my law-related posts are for HYPOTHETICAL purposes only.

Right, I understand. I am more concerned with business/customer policies, not employer/employee policies

But here is a case in point that is more specific. Here is the quote from the policy that I am questioning:

XXXXXXX County Board of Education Policy 09.312 states that “All students trying out for, participating in, or assisting with interscholastic athletics must be covered by school athletic insurance.” This requirement is essential for the protection of all players, managers, statisticians, cheerleaders, and helpers participating in District athletic programs. By requiring each participating student to purchase student athletic insurance, the District is always assured such students have insurance coverage. Although some families also carry their own health and accident insurance, there is no way for the District to monitor personal insurance coverage. For this reason, every student participating in a District athletic program is required to purchase student athletic insurance.

Now, in my case this insurance is useless to me because I must use my primary insurance first and then the above policy would kick in to cover what the primary does not. I have verified with my insurance company that should anything happen to my child that it would cover everything and there is no limits. That being said, the premium that the school board says that I must pay would never come into play as all costs would be covered through my insurance provided by my employer.

So, if I were to pursue this further, is it legally binding? Can the board legally refuse to allow my child to participate if I do not get this secondary coverage, although I can and would provide proof that my primary insurance would cover all costs. I do not like being grouped under umbrella statements like this. Although I do understand that it would be a very difficult task in verifying every ones insurance coverage to see if a secondary policy is needed, but is it my problem that they cant do that and just to make it a blanket statement.

It seems that they are making their problem my problem and when it affects my wallet it gives me a severe case of chap ass.

See my point?

Sorry, even for purely theoretical discussions like this one, that question is way outside of any areas that I've practiced in or seriously studied. Just a general thought: maybe you can try submitting some sort of written--even notarized--statement to the effect that your child is already covered, and see what they do from there? But you may very well hit the brick wall of them not wanting to make exceptions. The local folks will need to be the ones who tells you more, if you choose to explore non-hypothetical questions regarding the law on this one.

Good luck.

Originally Posted by More Tea

Sorry, even for purely theoretical discussions like this one, that question is way outside of any areas that I've practiced in or seriously studied. Just a general thought: maybe you can try submitting some sort of written--even notarized--statement to the effect that your child is already covered, and see what they do from there? But you may very well hit the brick wall of them not wanting to make exceptions. The local folks will need to be the ones who tells you more, if you choose to explore non-hypothetical questions regarding the law on this one.

Good luck.

Well, looks like I need to shoot them another email and break the logic down to them then. Test the waters and see what happens.