Patrick is employed as a correctional officer at a state prison, and his brother William is employed as a grocery store manager. Both Patrick and William seek permission from their respective employers to wear a fez at work as an act of faith on a particular holy day as part of their religious expression. Both employers deny the request, citing a uniformly applied workplace policy prohibiting employees from wearing any type of head covering. The prison’s policy is based on security concerns, supported by evidence, that head coverings may be used to conceal drugs, weapons, or other contraband, and may spark internal violence among prisoners. The grocery store’s policy is based on a stated desire that all employees wear uniform clothing so that they can be readily identified by customers. If both brothers file EEOC charges challenging the denials of their accommodation requests, the EEOC likely will not find reasonable cause in Patrick’s case because the prison’s denial of his request was based on legitimate, evidence-based security considerations posed by the particular religious garb sought to be worn. The EEOC likely will find cause in William’s case because there is no indication it would pose an undue hardship for the grocery store to modify its policy with respect to his request Your task is to answer the foll Question:

1. Assume that you are an EEOC Administrative Judge, who handles cases similar to these. Pass your judgement

2. provide your Justification for the verdict

A company incorporated in Newfoundland, Joey’s Fish Ltd., enters into a contract with TastyFish Ltd., a British (UK) firm, incorporated in the United Kingdom. Joey’s Fish agreed to supply the British company with regular shipments of dried fish, coming from Newfoundland to the United Kingdom. The parties used the standard form contract prepared by Joey’s Fish; however, Testy Fish objected to the provision that if shipping rates between Newfoundland and the United Kingdom increased by more than 10% in any six-month period, the price of the shipment would be adjusted to reflect the increased cost of shipping. The sales manager of Joey’s Fish agreed during negotiations that the offending clause would not be applied against TestyFish, but no change to the standard form was made, and both parties signed the standard form without changing the term in the written document. Shipping rates did rise during the life of the contract, but deliveries were made on schedule by Joey’s Fish. Testy Fish refused to pay the increased price, and Joey’s Fish sued Tasty Fish for the unpaid amount Please answer these questions. The length of each answer should not be more than 400 words. 1) What law will apply to this contract? Will Joey’s Fish succeed in this action? Eyalet VIATETET WAT 19 marra H Please answer these questions. The length of each answer should not be more than 400 words. 1) What law will apply to this contract? Will Joey’s Fish succeed in this action? Explain your answer. (8 marks) 2) Suppose, in this scenario, that Testy Fish was located, not in the United Kingdom but in Japan. Would this change the outcome of the action? Why? Explain your answer. (5 marks) 3) Can you recommend an approach that might have mitigated or reduced any conflicts of laws issues that could arise from this contract between the Newfounland firm and the UK firm? (2 marks)