©uy2024uyCengage.uyAlluyRightsuyReserved.uyMayuynotuybeuyscanned,uycopieduyoruyduplicated,uyoruyposteduytouyauypubliclyuy 1
accessible
website, in whole or in part.
,Chapter 1-17 uy
Chapter 1 uy
Solution and Answer Guide uy uy uy
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7, 9
U Y UY U Y UY U Y U Y U Y U Y UY UY UY
780357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
UY U Y UY U Y U Y U Y
TABLE OF CONTENTS UY UY
Case Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 2
uy
Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc....................................................................................................... 2
uy uy uy uy uy
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho ................................................................................................................................. 4
uy uy uy
EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ............................................................................................................................ 7
uy uy
Just The Facts ............................................................................................................................................. 8
uy uy
Practical Considerations........................................................................................................................... 10
uy
Chapter Questions .................................................................................................................................... 11
uy
©uy2024uyCengage.uyAlluyRightsuyReserved.uyMayuynotuybeuyscanned,uycopieduyoruyduplicated,uyoruyposteduytouyauypubliclyuy 2
accessible
website, in whole or in part.
,CASE QUESTIONS UY
WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. UY UY UY UY UY
513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
Plaintiff was an employee of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―UNFI‖), a Rhode Island corporation th
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
at maintains a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 2019, UNFI h
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ired Plaintiff Dennis Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liab
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ility was plausibly alleged (He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Departme
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
nt of Health; Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed home from work while he awaited th
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
e results of his COVID-19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
Answer:
The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliation f
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
or his complaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pending the
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy u
result of his COVID-
y uy uy uy
19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the terminati
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
on violates a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wrongfu
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
lly terminated? uy
Answer:
The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
the Department of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was not unde
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
r any affirmative or statutory duty to report alleged violations of the executive br
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
anch‘s COVID-19 mitigation orders.
uy uy uy
Plaintiff‘s second theory also fails. To reiterate, Plaintiff claims he was fired because he s
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
tayed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
19 test. He avers that because the Secretary of Health‘s April 15 order instructed that sym
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ptomatic employees uy
―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government orders (P
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ennsylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law). uy uy uy uy uy
The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the direction
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
of his supervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay home from
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
work while waiting for his test results, and then fired him because he stayed home w
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
hile waiting for his test results.
uy uy uy uy uy
3. Why does the court rule for the defendant-employer despite expressing sympathy for the plaintiff?
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
Answer:
©uy2024uyCengage.uyAlluyRightsuyReserved.uyMayuynotuybeuyscanned,uycopieduyoruyduplicated,uyoruyposteduytouyauypubliclyuy 3
accessible
website, in whole or in part.
, As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it could not sustain a claim pled in th
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
is manner. Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged, the c
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ourt thus granted the dismissal of this case.
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
The Public Policy exception could be used if legislation was disobeyed, but that is not
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
the case here. What constitutes ―public policy‖ in the Commonwealth is determined
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
by reference to judicial decisions of Pennsylvania courts, the Pennsylvania constitution
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
, and statutes promulgated by the Pennsylvania legislature. The court is sympathetic to
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
Plaintiff‘s argument that Defendant‘s conduct potentially undermined the Commonwe
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
alth‘s ability to mitigate the spread of COVID-
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
19. It is also true that the Governor‘s and Secretary of Health‘s powers to mandate ce
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
rtain pandemic mitigation standards do derive from statute, namely the Emergency Co
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
de. The court is hesitant to pronounce that an employment decision potentially inconsi
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
stent with an executive branch‘s COVID-
uy uy uy uy uy
19 mitigation effort clearly violates public policy where there is no affirmative indicat
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ion that the legislature would agree.
uy uy uy uy uy
Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the public policy exception where t
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
he employer: (1) compels the employee to engage in criminal activity; (2) prevents th
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
e employee from complying with a duty imposed by statute; or (3) discharges the empl
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
oyee when a statute expressly prohibits such termination. The court said that it was sk
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
eptical about Plaintiff‘s argument that there was an articulable and recognizable public
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
policy, which would be a premise for a wrongful termination claim under either theo
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ry.
4. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not?
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
Answer:
Students‘ answers will differ, but most may conclude that the Public Policy exemption
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
does not apply here. The wrongful termination evidence also does not hold, as Empl
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
oyment in Pennsylvania is typically at-will. ―[T]he presumption of all non-
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
contractual employment relations is that it is at-
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
will and … this presumption is an extremely strong one.‖
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
5. What, if any, implications does this decision hold for the efforts of public health officials to d
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
eal with the COVID-19 pandemic?
uy uy uy uy
Answer:
The spread of COVID-
uy uy uy
19 was contained with different executive orders, which were effective in public healt
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
h objectives. The governor prohibited all non-life-
uy uy uy uy uy uy
sustaining businesses from operating on March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, the Secretar
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
y of Health ordered essential businesses to implement certain social distancing, mitiga
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
tion, and cleaning protocols to help contain the spread of COVID-
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
19. The Secretary of Health also instructed that employees of essential businesses wh
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
o develop COVID-19 symptoms
uy uy uy
―should notify their superior and stay home.‖ Soon after, the Department of Health
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
©uy2024uyCengage.uyAlluyRightsuyReserved.uyMayuynotuybeuyscanned,uycopieduyoruyduplicated,uyoruyposteduytouyauypubliclyuy 4
accessible
website, in whole or in part.
accessible
website, in whole or in part.
,Chapter 1-17 uy
Chapter 1 uy
Solution and Answer Guide uy uy uy
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7, 9
U Y UY U Y UY U Y U Y U Y U Y UY UY UY
780357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
UY U Y UY U Y U Y U Y
TABLE OF CONTENTS UY UY
Case Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 2
uy
Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc....................................................................................................... 2
uy uy uy uy uy
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho ................................................................................................................................. 4
uy uy uy
EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ............................................................................................................................ 7
uy uy
Just The Facts ............................................................................................................................................. 8
uy uy
Practical Considerations........................................................................................................................... 10
uy
Chapter Questions .................................................................................................................................... 11
uy
©uy2024uyCengage.uyAlluyRightsuyReserved.uyMayuynotuybeuyscanned,uycopieduyoruyduplicated,uyoruyposteduytouyauypubliclyuy 2
accessible
website, in whole or in part.
,CASE QUESTIONS UY
WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. UY UY UY UY UY
513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
Plaintiff was an employee of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―UNFI‖), a Rhode Island corporation th
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
at maintains a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 2019, UNFI h
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ired Plaintiff Dennis Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liab
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ility was plausibly alleged (He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Departme
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
nt of Health; Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed home from work while he awaited th
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
e results of his COVID-19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
Answer:
The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliation f
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
or his complaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pending the
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy u
result of his COVID-
y uy uy uy
19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the terminati
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
on violates a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wrongfu
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
lly terminated? uy
Answer:
The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
the Department of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was not unde
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
r any affirmative or statutory duty to report alleged violations of the executive br
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
anch‘s COVID-19 mitigation orders.
uy uy uy
Plaintiff‘s second theory also fails. To reiterate, Plaintiff claims he was fired because he s
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
tayed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
19 test. He avers that because the Secretary of Health‘s April 15 order instructed that sym
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ptomatic employees uy
―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government orders (P
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ennsylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law). uy uy uy uy uy
The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the direction
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
of his supervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay home from
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
work while waiting for his test results, and then fired him because he stayed home w
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
hile waiting for his test results.
uy uy uy uy uy
3. Why does the court rule for the defendant-employer despite expressing sympathy for the plaintiff?
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
Answer:
©uy2024uyCengage.uyAlluyRightsuyReserved.uyMayuynotuybeuyscanned,uycopieduyoruyduplicated,uyoruyposteduytouyauypubliclyuy 3
accessible
website, in whole or in part.
, As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it could not sustain a claim pled in th
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
is manner. Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged, the c
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ourt thus granted the dismissal of this case.
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
The Public Policy exception could be used if legislation was disobeyed, but that is not
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
the case here. What constitutes ―public policy‖ in the Commonwealth is determined
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
by reference to judicial decisions of Pennsylvania courts, the Pennsylvania constitution
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
, and statutes promulgated by the Pennsylvania legislature. The court is sympathetic to
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
Plaintiff‘s argument that Defendant‘s conduct potentially undermined the Commonwe
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
alth‘s ability to mitigate the spread of COVID-
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
19. It is also true that the Governor‘s and Secretary of Health‘s powers to mandate ce
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
rtain pandemic mitigation standards do derive from statute, namely the Emergency Co
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
de. The court is hesitant to pronounce that an employment decision potentially inconsi
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
stent with an executive branch‘s COVID-
uy uy uy uy uy
19 mitigation effort clearly violates public policy where there is no affirmative indicat
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ion that the legislature would agree.
uy uy uy uy uy
Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the public policy exception where t
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
he employer: (1) compels the employee to engage in criminal activity; (2) prevents th
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
e employee from complying with a duty imposed by statute; or (3) discharges the empl
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
oyee when a statute expressly prohibits such termination. The court said that it was sk
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
eptical about Plaintiff‘s argument that there was an articulable and recognizable public
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
policy, which would be a premise for a wrongful termination claim under either theo
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
ry.
4. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not?
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
Answer:
Students‘ answers will differ, but most may conclude that the Public Policy exemption
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
does not apply here. The wrongful termination evidence also does not hold, as Empl
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
oyment in Pennsylvania is typically at-will. ―[T]he presumption of all non-
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
contractual employment relations is that it is at-
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
will and … this presumption is an extremely strong one.‖
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
5. What, if any, implications does this decision hold for the efforts of public health officials to d
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
eal with the COVID-19 pandemic?
uy uy uy uy
Answer:
The spread of COVID-
uy uy uy
19 was contained with different executive orders, which were effective in public healt
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
h objectives. The governor prohibited all non-life-
uy uy uy uy uy uy
sustaining businesses from operating on March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, the Secretar
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
y of Health ordered essential businesses to implement certain social distancing, mitiga
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
tion, and cleaning protocols to help contain the spread of COVID-
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
19. The Secretary of Health also instructed that employees of essential businesses wh
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
o develop COVID-19 symptoms
uy uy uy
―should notify their superior and stay home.‖ Soon after, the Department of Health
uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy uy
©uy2024uyCengage.uyAlluyRightsuyReserved.uyMayuynotuybeuyscanned,uycopieduyoruyduplicated,uyoruyposteduytouyauypubliclyuy 4
accessible
website, in whole or in part.
