1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer’s mistaken Zelle transfer leads to…

Ethics

Lawyer’s mistaken Zelle transfer leads to ethics complaint

By Debra Cassens Weiss

November 5, 2024, 9:30 am CST

An Ohio lawyer mistakenly sent $550 via money transfer app Zelle to an Illinois resident, peppered him with emails and texts while a bank fraud department investigated, and then sued him after the money was returned, according to an ethics complaint by the Dayton Bar Association.

An Oct. 31 ethics complaint alleges that Dayton, Ohio, lawyer Christine M. Baker violated attorney ethics rules by filing a lawsuit with false statements without basis in law or fact.

The ethics complaint also alleges that Baker engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law by “aggressively waging a campaign of attack” against the mistaken Zelle recipient and his wife.

The Legal Profession Blog summarized the ethics complaint.

Baker denied the allegations in an interview with the ABA Journal. Everything in the suit is true, she says, and one of its aims was to recover damages for the “serious legwork” that she did trying to get her money back.

Baker had intended to send $550 to her husband, Zachary Reynolds, on Sept. 19 and 20 in 2023. Instead, she typed an email address that apparently differed from her husband’s by one character and sent the money to an Illinois resident named Zack Reynolds, the ethics complaint says.

On Sept. 21, 2023, Reynolds in Illinois contacted his bank after noticing the mistaken transfer. He was informed that the bank’s fraud department would handle the matter, and he should not send funds related to the Zelle transfer.

By Sept. 22, 2023, Baker had learned Illinois Reynolds’ cellphone number, email address, personal address, employer, charity affiliations, wife’s identity, contact information for his wife’s employer and his wife’s email address.

According to the ethics complaint, Baker sent electronic communications Sept. 22, 2023, that allegedly included:

  • A text to Illinois Reynolds, telling him that his retention of the money is “unlawful,” and if he did not return the money in 24 hours, “collection, garnishment and all available recovery methods will commence, including notifying your employer of your conduct.”

  • Another text threatening to sue Illinois Reynolds, informing him that he is a “thief,” threatening to tell a charity affiliated with Reynolds that he committed a “theft,” and saying she should share the information with “anyone with a basic internet connection.”

  • Yet another text telling Illinois Reynolds that he and his wife were being named in a civil action for unjust enrichment. The text included an address thought to be his “in an effort to intimidate” him and his wife, according to the complaint.

  • An email threatening a suit to Illinois Reynolds’ wife, a third grade teacher, using her school email address.

In additional texts, Baker forwarded materials to Illinois Reynolds’ employer and co-worker “in an effort to cast him in a negative light and to disparage him,” the ethics complaint says.

On Sept. 24, 2023, Illinois Reynolds was advised that the funds were being returned to Baker.

“At no time did Mr. Reynolds try to prevent the funds from being returned or attempt to keep the funds,” the ethics complaint says. “He simply followed the advice of his bank about not returning the funds himself since the nature of the transaction was suspicious for fraud.”

The funds were available in Baker’s account Oct. 3, 2023, yet Baker filed suit Nov. 17, 2023, the ethics complaint says. She filed an amended suit in December 2023.

The suit was removed to federal court and dismissed without prejudice at her request, according to a February order.

Court records for Montgomery County, Ohio, indicate that Baker filed a new suit
for alleged defamation, conversion and emotional distress against Reynolds on Oct. 30.

Alleged false statements in the amended suit included:

  • An allegation that Illinois Reynolds advised Baker “that he would take no steps to return the money.” In reality, Illinois Reynolds said, “Considering this is your error, I find your threats offensive, and they are noted. You can follow the appropriate channels with [name of his bank] to recoup your mistake.”

  • An allegation that Illinois Reynolds told Baker that she would have to serve him with papers to recover her money. In reality, Reynolds said, “As I mentioned to you, as advised by my bank and attorney, [name of bank]’s fraud department is handling the dispute. … Based on your behavior, all involved assume this is a scam. If it’s not a scam, you should be ashamed and embarrassed by your behavior.” Baker responded by saying if Illinois Reynolds is represented by a lawyer, he should refer the lawyer to her. Reynolds responded, “I suggest you call [bank’s name] or formally serve me papers. I will no longer respond to any attempts to contact me.”

Baker told the Journal that the ethics charges are “if not inflated, falsified.”

“I think the DBA alleges that I filed a lawsuit with misleading or untruthful information, and that I didn’t cooperate with the DBA’s initial inquiry,” she says.

“I of course deny both of those claims. Everything I’ve ever said to anyone about this matter was, is and will always be true. I also was very cooperative with the Dayton Bar Association. What they referred to as my noncooperation was my request, rather insistence even, to meet with the Dayton Bar Association’s broader panel via Zoom,” she says.

Baker said her suit had claimed that Illinois Reynolds defamed her in statements during the Dayton Bar Association investigation and to a representative in Illinois. It also sought $2,500 in damages for conversion.

“Conversion is taking or keeping something that isn’t yours,” Baker says. Illinois Reynolds “told me that he wasn’t going to return my money unless I pursued it, and it took me hours of time to pursue it.”

“And for that, the DBA is responding I think disproportionately,” Baker says. The conversion allegation is “a true claim, it’s a claim with a basis in law and fact.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Coca-Cola delivery man who used slurs as…

Disability Law

Coca-Cola delivery man who used slurs as result of Tourette syndrome loses disability suit after job transfer

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 21, 2024, 12:37 pm CST

A Coca-Cola delivery man whose Tourette syndrome caused him to use profanity and racial slurs when stocking customer stores was not entitled to keep that job under the Americans With Disabilities Act, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati ruled against Tennessee driver Cameron Cooper in a Feb. 15 opinion.

HR Dive has coverage, the Volokh Conspiracy has opinion highlights, and the National Law Review has an analysis.

Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, plaintiffs must show that they are disabled. They also must show that they are otherwise qualified for their position without accommodations, with the elimination of a job requirement, or with a reasonable accommodation.

To win the ADA case, the employer then must show that the challenged job requirement is essential and a business necessity, and that any proposed accommodation would be an undue hardship.

Coca-Cola had received at least two complaints from store managers about Cooper’s profanity and racial slurs.

Coca-Cola approved two medical leaves for Cooper; adjusted his route, so that he wouldn’t have to visit Dollar General stores; and allowed him to have a seasonal position as a delivery helper. In December 2019, Coca-Cola moved Cooper to a warehouse position, with negotiated pay of $18.96 per hour instead of the $20.38 per hour that he made as a delivery driver.

Cooper had alleged that the transfer was discriminatory because he was otherwise qualified for the delivery position without an accommodation or, in the alternative, that he was qualified for the position with a reasonable accommodation—an alternative route that was not customer-facing.

The appeals court rejected the arguments in upholding a grant of summary judgment to Coca-Cola.

First, the 6th Circuit determined that “excellent customer service” was an essential function of Cooper’s position. Coca-Cola had identified “excellent customer services skills” in its written job description for Cooper’s job, and Cooper stipulated that those skills were an essential function of the position.

Next, the appeals court concluded that Cooper could not have provided excellent customer service without an accommodation.

“It is undisputed that Cooper used racial slurs, those slurs were decipherable to at least some customers, and the decipherable slurs offended customers,” the 6th Circuit said. “Cooper’s own doctor also stated that Cooper needed an accommodation to perform his job. Based on these facts, the district court did not err in finding that, as a matter of law, Cooper could not provide excellent customer service without an accommodation.”

Finally, the appeals court said Cooper did not identify a reasonable accommodation. He had sought a position that didn’t involve customer interaction, but none was available.

The National Law Review article, written by law firm Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, said the decision has a lesson for employers.

“Although the thought of updating and adding more detail to your written job descriptions may make your HR department grumble, this case demonstrates why good job descriptions are extremely important,” the article said.

“Even something that would seem to be common sense—being able to effectively relate and not offend your customers—may be the key to defending your next lawsuit. [Coca-Cola] defeated this lawsuit because it was able to point to that essential function in the job description, as well as their attempts to figure out any way to accommodate Cooper’s disability.”