SOLUTION MANUAL FOR xw xw
Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Chapter 1-17 xw
Chapter 1 xw
Solution and Answer Guide xw xw xw
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7,
X W XW X W XW X W X W X W X W XW XW XW
9780357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
XW X W XW X W X W X W
TABLE OF CONTENTS XW XW
Case Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 2
xw
Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc. .................................................................................................... 2
xw xw xw xw xw
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho ................................................................................................................................ 4
xw xw xw
EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ........................................................................................................................... 7
xw xw
Just The Facts ............................................................................................................................................ 8
xw xw
Practical Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 10
xw
Chapter Questions .................................................................................................................................... 11
xw
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 1
website, in whole or in part.
,CASE QUESTIONS XW
WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. XW XW XW XW XW
513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Plaintiff was an employee of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―UNFI‖), a Rhode Island corporation
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw x
wthat maintains a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 2019, U
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
NFI hired Plaintiff Dennis Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s theori
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
es of liability was plausibly alleged (He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to t
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
he Department of Health; Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed home from work whil
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
e he awaited the results of his COVID-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Answer:
The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliation
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
for his complaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pendin
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
g the result of his COVID-
xw xw xw xw xw
19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the termin
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
ation violates a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wrongf
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
ully terminated? xw
Answer:
The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
to the Department of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was not
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw x
wunder any affirmative or statutory duty to report alleged violations of the exec
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
utive branch‘s COVID-19 mitigation orders.
xw xw xw xw
Plaintiff‘s second theory also fails. To reiterate, Plaintiff claims he was fired because h
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
e stayed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
19 test. He avers that because the Secretary of Health‘s April 15 order instructed that s
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
ymptomatic employees xw
―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government orders
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
(Pennsylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law). xw xw xw xw xw
The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the directio
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
n of his supervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay home fr
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
om work while waiting for his test results, and then fired him because he stayed h
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
ome while waiting for his test results.
xw xw xw xw xw xw
3. Why does the court rule for the defendant-employer despite expressing sympathy for the plaintiff?
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Answer:
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 2
website, in whole or in part.
, As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it could not sustain a claim pled in
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
xwthis manner. Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged,
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
the court thus granted the dismissal of this case.
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
The Public Policy exception could be used if legislation was disobeyed, but that is
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
not the case here. What constitutes ―public policy‖ in the Commonwealth is deter
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
mined by reference to judicial decisions of Pennsylvania courts, the Pennsylvania co
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
nstitution, and statutes promulgated by the Pennsylvania legislature. The court is sy
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
mpathetic to Plaintiff‘s argument that Defendant‘s conduct potentially undermined th
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
e Commonwealth‘s ability to mitigate the spread of COVID-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
19. It is also true that the Governor‘s and Secretary of Health‘s powers to mandate
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw x
wcertain pandemic mitigation standards do derive from statute, namely the Emergenc
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
y Code. The court is hesitant to pronounce that an employment decision potentially
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw x
winconsistent with an executive branch‘s COVID- xw xw xw xw xw
19 mitigation effort clearly violates public policy where there is no affirmative indi
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
cation that the legislature would agree.
xw xw xw xw xw
Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the public policy exception where
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
xwthe employer: (1) compels the employee to engage in criminal activity; (2) prevent
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
s the employee from complying with a duty imposed by statute; or (3) discharges th
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
e employee when a statute expressly prohibits such termination. The court said that
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw x
wit was skeptical about Plaintiff‘s argument that there was an articulable and recogni
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
zable public policy, which would be a premise for a wrongful termination claim un
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
der either theory.
xw xw
4. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not?
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Answer:
Students‘ answers will differ, but most may conclude that the Public Policy exempti
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
on does not apply here. The wrongful termination evidence also does not hold, as
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Employment in Pennsylvania is typically at-will. ―[T]he presumption of all non-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
contractual employment relations is that it is at-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
will and … this presumption is an extremely strong one.‖
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
5. What, if any, implications does this decision hold for the efforts of public health officials to
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
deal with the COVID-19 pandemic?
xw xw xw xw xw
Answer:
The spread of COVID-
xw xw xw
19 was contained with different executive orders, which were effective in public he
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
alth objectives. The governor prohibited all non-life-
xw xw xw xw xw xw
sustaining businesses from operating on March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, the Secre
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
tary of Health ordered essential businesses to implement certain social distancing,
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
mitigation, and cleaning protocols to help contain the spread of COVID-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
19. The Secretary of Health also instructed that employees of essential businesses
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
who develop COVID-19 symptoms
xw xw xw
―should notify their superior and stay home.‖ Soon after, the Department of Hea
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 3
website, in whole or in part.
, lth created an online COVID-
xw xw xw xw
19 complaint form for business patrons and employees to report any relevant issu
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
es or concerns.
xw xw
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 4
website, in whole or in part.
Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Chapter 1-17 xw
Chapter 1 xw
Solution and Answer Guide xw xw xw
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7,
X W XW X W XW X W X W X W X W XW XW XW
9780357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
XW X W XW X W X W X W
TABLE OF CONTENTS XW XW
Case Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 2
xw
Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc. .................................................................................................... 2
xw xw xw xw xw
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho ................................................................................................................................ 4
xw xw xw
EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ........................................................................................................................... 7
xw xw
Just The Facts ............................................................................................................................................ 8
xw xw
Practical Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 10
xw
Chapter Questions .................................................................................................................................... 11
xw
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 1
website, in whole or in part.
,CASE QUESTIONS XW
WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. XW XW XW XW XW
513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Plaintiff was an employee of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―UNFI‖), a Rhode Island corporation
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw x
wthat maintains a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 2019, U
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
NFI hired Plaintiff Dennis Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s theori
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
es of liability was plausibly alleged (He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to t
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
he Department of Health; Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed home from work whil
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
e he awaited the results of his COVID-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Answer:
The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliation
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
for his complaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pendin
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
g the result of his COVID-
xw xw xw xw xw
19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the termin
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
ation violates a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wrongf
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
ully terminated? xw
Answer:
The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
to the Department of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was not
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw x
wunder any affirmative or statutory duty to report alleged violations of the exec
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
utive branch‘s COVID-19 mitigation orders.
xw xw xw xw
Plaintiff‘s second theory also fails. To reiterate, Plaintiff claims he was fired because h
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
e stayed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
19 test. He avers that because the Secretary of Health‘s April 15 order instructed that s
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
ymptomatic employees xw
―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government orders
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
(Pennsylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law). xw xw xw xw xw
The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the directio
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
n of his supervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay home fr
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
om work while waiting for his test results, and then fired him because he stayed h
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
ome while waiting for his test results.
xw xw xw xw xw xw
3. Why does the court rule for the defendant-employer despite expressing sympathy for the plaintiff?
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Answer:
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 2
website, in whole or in part.
, As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it could not sustain a claim pled in
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
xwthis manner. Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged,
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
the court thus granted the dismissal of this case.
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
The Public Policy exception could be used if legislation was disobeyed, but that is
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
not the case here. What constitutes ―public policy‖ in the Commonwealth is deter
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
mined by reference to judicial decisions of Pennsylvania courts, the Pennsylvania co
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
nstitution, and statutes promulgated by the Pennsylvania legislature. The court is sy
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
mpathetic to Plaintiff‘s argument that Defendant‘s conduct potentially undermined th
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
e Commonwealth‘s ability to mitigate the spread of COVID-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
19. It is also true that the Governor‘s and Secretary of Health‘s powers to mandate
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw x
wcertain pandemic mitigation standards do derive from statute, namely the Emergenc
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
y Code. The court is hesitant to pronounce that an employment decision potentially
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw x
winconsistent with an executive branch‘s COVID- xw xw xw xw xw
19 mitigation effort clearly violates public policy where there is no affirmative indi
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
cation that the legislature would agree.
xw xw xw xw xw
Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the public policy exception where
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
xwthe employer: (1) compels the employee to engage in criminal activity; (2) prevent
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
s the employee from complying with a duty imposed by statute; or (3) discharges th
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
e employee when a statute expressly prohibits such termination. The court said that
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw x
wit was skeptical about Plaintiff‘s argument that there was an articulable and recogni
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
zable public policy, which would be a premise for a wrongful termination claim un
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
der either theory.
xw xw
4. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not?
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Answer:
Students‘ answers will differ, but most may conclude that the Public Policy exempti
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
on does not apply here. The wrongful termination evidence also does not hold, as
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
Employment in Pennsylvania is typically at-will. ―[T]he presumption of all non-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
contractual employment relations is that it is at-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
will and … this presumption is an extremely strong one.‖
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
5. What, if any, implications does this decision hold for the efforts of public health officials to
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
deal with the COVID-19 pandemic?
xw xw xw xw xw
Answer:
The spread of COVID-
xw xw xw
19 was contained with different executive orders, which were effective in public he
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
alth objectives. The governor prohibited all non-life-
xw xw xw xw xw xw
sustaining businesses from operating on March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, the Secre
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
tary of Health ordered essential businesses to implement certain social distancing,
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
mitigation, and cleaning protocols to help contain the spread of COVID-
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
19. The Secretary of Health also instructed that employees of essential businesses
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
who develop COVID-19 symptoms
xw xw xw
―should notify their superior and stay home.‖ Soon after, the Department of Hea
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 3
website, in whole or in part.
, lth created an online COVID-
xw xw xw xw
19 complaint form for business patrons and employees to report any relevant issu
xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw xw
es or concerns.
xw xw
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 4
website, in whole or in part.
