©x2024xCengage.xAllxRightsxReserved.xMayxnotxbexscanned,xcopiedxorxduplicated,xorxpostedxtoxaxpubliclyxaccessible 1
website,xinxwholexorxinxpart.
,SOLUTION MANUAL FOR x x
Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
x x x x x x x
Chapter 1-17 x
Chapter 1 x
Solution and Answer Guide x x x
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7, 97803577
X X X X X X X X X X X
17547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
X X X X X X
TABLE OF CONTENTS X X
Case Questions ............................................................................................................................................. 2
x
Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc. ......................................................................................................... 2
x x x x x
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho ................................................................................................................................... 4
x x x
EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ............................................................................................................................. 7
x x
Just The Facts .............................................................................................................................................. 8
x x
Practical Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 10
x
Chapter Questions ..................................................................................................................................... 11
x
©x2024xCengage.xAllxRightsxReserved.xMayxnotxbexscanned,xcopiedxorxduplicated,xorxpostedxtoxaxpubliclyxaccessible 2
website,xinxwholexorxinxpart.
,CASE QUESTIONS X
WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. X X X X X
513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
x x x x x x x x x
Plaintiff was an employee of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―UNFI‖), a Rhode Island corporation that mai
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ntains a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 2019, UNFI hired Plaintiff
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Dennis Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability was plausibly al
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
leged (He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Department of Health; Plaintiff claim
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
s he was fired because he stayed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
x x x x x x x x x x x
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?
x x x x x x x x x x x x
Answer:
The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for his
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
complaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pending the result of his
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
COVID-
x
19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the termination vi
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
olates a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
x x x x x x
2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wrongfully ter
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
minated?
Answer:
The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the D
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
epartment of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was not under any affir
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
mative or statutory duty to report alleged violations of the executive branch‘s COVID-
x x x x x x x x x x x x
19 mitigation orders.
x x
Plaintiff‘s second theory also fails. To reiterate, Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
x x x x x x x x x x
19 test. He avers that because the Secretary of Health‘s April 15 order instructed that symptomat
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ic employees
x
―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government orders (Penns
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law).
x x x x x
The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the direction of his s
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
upervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay home from work while w
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
aiting for his test results, and then fired him because he stayed home while waiting for his te
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
st results.
x
3. Why does the court rule for the defendant-employer despite expressing sympathy for the plaintiff?
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Answer:
©x2024xCengage.xAllxRightsxReserved.xMayxnotxbexscanned,xcopiedxorxduplicated,xorxpostedxtoxaxpubliclyxaccessible 3
website,xinxwholexorxinxpart.
, As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it could not sustain a claim pled in this mann
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
er. Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged, the court thus gran
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ted the dismissal of this case.
x x x x x
The Public Policy exception could be used if legislation was disobeyed, but that is not the ca
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
se here. What constitutes ―public policy‖ in the Commonwealth is determined by reference
x x x x x x x x x x x x
xto judicial decisions of Pennsylvania courts, the Pennsylvania constitution, and statutes pro
x x x x x x x x x x x
mulgated by the Pennsylvania legislature. The court is sympathetic to Plaintiff‘s argument t
x x x x x x x x x x x x
hat Defendant‘s conduct potentially undermined the Commonwealth‘s ability to mitigate th
x x x x x x x x x x
e spread of COVID-
x x x
19. It is also true that the Governor‘s and Secretary of Health‘s powers to mandate certain p
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
andemic mitigation standards do derive from statute, namely the Emergency Code. The cou
x x x x x x x x x x x x
rt is hesitant to pronounce that an employment decision potentially inconsistent with an exe
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
cutive branch‘s COVID- x x
19 mitigation effort clearly violates public policy where there is no affirmative indication th
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
at the legislature would agree.
x x x x
Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the public policy exception where the e
x x x x x x x x x x x
mployer: (1) compels the employee to engage in criminal activity; (2) prevents the employe
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
e from complying with a duty imposed by statute; or (3) discharges the employee when a stat
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ute expressly prohibits such termination. The court said that it was skeptical about Plaintiff‘
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
s argument that there was an articulable and recognizable public policy, which would be a p
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
remise for a wrongful termination claim under either theory.
x x x x x x x x
4. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not?
x x x x x x x x x x x x
Answer:
Students‘ answers will differ, but most may conclude that the Public Policy exemption does
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
not apply here. The wrongful termination evidence also does not hold, as Employment in P
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ennsylvania is typically at-will. ―[T]he presumption of all non- x x x x x x x x
contractual employment relations is that it is at-
x x x x x x x x
will and … this presumption is an extremely strong one.‖
x x x x x x x x x
5. What, if any, implications does this decision hold for the efforts of public health officials to deal wit
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
h the COVID-19 pandemic?
x x x
Answer:
The spread of COVID- x x x
19 was contained with different executive orders, which were effective in public health obj
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ectives. The governor prohibited all non-life-
x x x x x
sustaining businesses from operating on March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, the Secretary of
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Health ordered essential businesses to implement certain social distancing, mitigation, and
x x x x x x x x x x x
cleaning protocols to help contain the spread of COVID-
x x x x x x x x
19. The Secretary of Health also instructed that employees of essential businesses who dev
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
elop COVID-19 symptoms x x
―should notify their superior and stay home.‖ Soon after, the Department of Health crea
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ted an online COVID-x x x
©x2024xCengage.xAllxRightsxReserved.xMayxnotxbexscanned,xcopiedxorxduplicated,xorxpostedxtoxaxpubliclyxaccessible 4
website,xinxwholexorxinxpart.
website,xinxwholexorxinxpart.
,SOLUTION MANUAL FOR x x
Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
x x x x x x x
Chapter 1-17 x
Chapter 1 x
Solution and Answer Guide x x x
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7, 97803577
X X X X X X X X X X X
17547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
X X X X X X
TABLE OF CONTENTS X X
Case Questions ............................................................................................................................................. 2
x
Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc. ......................................................................................................... 2
x x x x x
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho ................................................................................................................................... 4
x x x
EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ............................................................................................................................. 7
x x
Just The Facts .............................................................................................................................................. 8
x x
Practical Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 10
x
Chapter Questions ..................................................................................................................................... 11
x
©x2024xCengage.xAllxRightsxReserved.xMayxnotxbexscanned,xcopiedxorxduplicated,xorxpostedxtoxaxpubliclyxaccessible 2
website,xinxwholexorxinxpart.
,CASE QUESTIONS X
WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. X X X X X
513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
x x x x x x x x x
Plaintiff was an employee of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―UNFI‖), a Rhode Island corporation that mai
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ntains a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 2019, UNFI hired Plaintiff
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Dennis Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability was plausibly al
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
leged (He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Department of Health; Plaintiff claim
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
s he was fired because he stayed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
x x x x x x x x x x x
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?
x x x x x x x x x x x x
Answer:
The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for his
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
complaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pending the result of his
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
COVID-
x
19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the termination vi
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
olates a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
x x x x x x
2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wrongfully ter
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
minated?
Answer:
The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the D
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
epartment of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was not under any affir
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
mative or statutory duty to report alleged violations of the executive branch‘s COVID-
x x x x x x x x x x x x
19 mitigation orders.
x x
Plaintiff‘s second theory also fails. To reiterate, Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
x x x x x x x x x x
19 test. He avers that because the Secretary of Health‘s April 15 order instructed that symptomat
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ic employees
x
―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government orders (Penns
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law).
x x x x x
The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the direction of his s
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
upervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay home from work while w
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
aiting for his test results, and then fired him because he stayed home while waiting for his te
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
st results.
x
3. Why does the court rule for the defendant-employer despite expressing sympathy for the plaintiff?
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Answer:
©x2024xCengage.xAllxRightsxReserved.xMayxnotxbexscanned,xcopiedxorxduplicated,xorxpostedxtoxaxpubliclyxaccessible 3
website,xinxwholexorxinxpart.
, As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it could not sustain a claim pled in this mann
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
er. Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged, the court thus gran
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ted the dismissal of this case.
x x x x x
The Public Policy exception could be used if legislation was disobeyed, but that is not the ca
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
se here. What constitutes ―public policy‖ in the Commonwealth is determined by reference
x x x x x x x x x x x x
xto judicial decisions of Pennsylvania courts, the Pennsylvania constitution, and statutes pro
x x x x x x x x x x x
mulgated by the Pennsylvania legislature. The court is sympathetic to Plaintiff‘s argument t
x x x x x x x x x x x x
hat Defendant‘s conduct potentially undermined the Commonwealth‘s ability to mitigate th
x x x x x x x x x x
e spread of COVID-
x x x
19. It is also true that the Governor‘s and Secretary of Health‘s powers to mandate certain p
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
andemic mitigation standards do derive from statute, namely the Emergency Code. The cou
x x x x x x x x x x x x
rt is hesitant to pronounce that an employment decision potentially inconsistent with an exe
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
cutive branch‘s COVID- x x
19 mitigation effort clearly violates public policy where there is no affirmative indication th
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
at the legislature would agree.
x x x x
Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the public policy exception where the e
x x x x x x x x x x x
mployer: (1) compels the employee to engage in criminal activity; (2) prevents the employe
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
e from complying with a duty imposed by statute; or (3) discharges the employee when a stat
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ute expressly prohibits such termination. The court said that it was skeptical about Plaintiff‘
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
s argument that there was an articulable and recognizable public policy, which would be a p
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
remise for a wrongful termination claim under either theory.
x x x x x x x x
4. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not?
x x x x x x x x x x x x
Answer:
Students‘ answers will differ, but most may conclude that the Public Policy exemption does
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
not apply here. The wrongful termination evidence also does not hold, as Employment in P
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ennsylvania is typically at-will. ―[T]he presumption of all non- x x x x x x x x
contractual employment relations is that it is at-
x x x x x x x x
will and … this presumption is an extremely strong one.‖
x x x x x x x x x
5. What, if any, implications does this decision hold for the efforts of public health officials to deal wit
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
h the COVID-19 pandemic?
x x x
Answer:
The spread of COVID- x x x
19 was contained with different executive orders, which were effective in public health obj
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ectives. The governor prohibited all non-life-
x x x x x
sustaining businesses from operating on March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, the Secretary of
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Health ordered essential businesses to implement certain social distancing, mitigation, and
x x x x x x x x x x x
cleaning protocols to help contain the spread of COVID-
x x x x x x x x
19. The Secretary of Health also instructed that employees of essential businesses who dev
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
elop COVID-19 symptoms x x
―should notify their superior and stay home.‖ Soon after, the Department of Health crea
x x x x x x x x x x x x x
ted an online COVID-x x x
©x2024xCengage.xAllxRightsxReserved.xMayxnotxbexscanned,xcopiedxorxduplicated,xorxpostedxtoxaxpubliclyxaccessible 4
website,xinxwholexorxinxpart.
