©r2024rCengage.rAllrRightsrReserved.rMayrnotrberscanned,rcopiedrorrduplicated,rorrpostedrtorarpubliclyraccessible 1
website,rinrwholerorrinrpart.
,SOLUTION MANUAL FOR r r
Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
r r r r r r r
Chapter 1-17 r
Chapter 1 r
SolutionandAnswerGuide r r r
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7, 97803577
R R R R R R R R R R R
17547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
R R R R R R
TABLE OF CONTENTS R R
Case Questions ............................................................................................................................................. 2
r
Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc. .......................................................................................................... 2
r r r r r
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho .................................................................................................................................... 4
r r r
EEOC v. AUTOZONE, .............................................................................................................................. 7
r r
Just The Facts............................................................................................................................................... 8
r r
Practical Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 10
r
Chapter Questions ..................................................................................................................................... 11
r
©r2024rCengage.rAllrRightsrReserved.rMayrnotrberscanned,rcopiedrorrduplicated,rorrpostedrtorarpubliclyraccessible 2
website,rinrwholerorrinrpart.
,CASE QUESTIONS R
WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. R R R R R
513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
r r r r r r r r r
Plaintiff was an employee of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―UNFI‖), a Rhode Island corporation that mainta
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ins a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 2019, UNFI hired Plaintiff Denn
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
is Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability was plausibly alleged (
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Department of Health; Plaintiff claims he was
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
fired because he stayed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
r r r r r r r r r r r
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?
r r r r r r r r r r r r
Answer:
The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for his c
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
omplaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pending the result of his C
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
OVID-
19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the termination viola
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
tes a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
r r r r r r
2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wrongfully ter
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
minated?
Answer:
The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Dep
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
artment of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was not under any affirmativ
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
e or statutory duty to report alleged violations of the executive branch‘s COVID-
r r r r r r r r r r r r
19 mitigation orders.
r r
Plaintiff‘s second theory also fails. To reiterate, Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed ho
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
me from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
r r r r r r r r r r
19 test. He avers that because the Secretary of Health‘s April 15 order instructed that symptomatic
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
employees
―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government orders (Pennsyl
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
vania Disease Prevention and Control Law).
r r r r r
The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the direction of his sup
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay home from work while waitin
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
g for his test results, and then fired him because he stayed home while waiting for his test resul
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ts.
3. Why does the court rule for the defendant-employer despite expressing sympathy for the plaintiff?
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
Answer:
©r2024rCengage.rAllrRightsrReserved.rMayrnotrberscanned,rcopiedrorrduplicated,rorrpostedrtorarpubliclyraccessible 3
website,rinrwholerorrinrpart.
, As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it could not sustain a claim pled in this manner.
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged, the court thus granted th
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
e dismissal of this case.
r r r r
The Public Policy exception could be used if legislation was disobeyed, but that is not the case
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
here. What constitutes ―public policy‖ in the Commonwealth is determined by reference to j
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
udicial decisions of Pennsylvania courts, the Pennsylvania constitution, and statutes promulg
r r r r r r r r r r
ated by the Pennsylvania legislature. The court is sympathetic to Plaintiff‘s argument that Def
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
endant‘s conduct potentially undermined the Commonwealth‘s ability to mitigate the spread
r r r r r r r r r r r
of COVID-
r
19. It is also true that the Governor‘s and Secretary of Health‘s powers to mandate certain pan
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
demic mitigation standards do derive from statute, namely the Emergency Code. The court is
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
hesitant to pronounce that an employment decision potentially inconsistent with an executive
r r r r r r r r r r r r
branch‘s COVID- r
19 mitigation effort clearly violates public policy where there is no affirmative indication that
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
the legislature would agree.
r r r
Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the public policy exception where the em r r r r r r r r r r r
ployer: (1) compels the employee to engage in criminal activity; (2) prevents the employee fro
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
m complying with a duty imposed by statute; or (3) discharges the employee when a statute ex
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
pressly prohibits such termination. The court said that it was skeptical about Plaintiff‘s argum
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ent that there was an articulable and recognizable public policy, which would be a premise for
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
a wrongful termination claim under either theory.
r r r r r r
4. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not?
r r r r r r r r r r r r
Answer:
Students‘ answers will differ, but most may conclude that the Public Policy exemption does n
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ot apply here. The wrongful termination evidence also does not hold, as Employment in Penn
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
sylvania is typically at-will. ―[T]he presumption of all non-
r r r r r r r r
contractual employment relations is that it is at-
r r r r r r r r
will and … this presumption is an extremely strong one.‖
r r r r r r r r r
5. What, if any, implications does this decision hold for the efforts of public health officials to deal with
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
the COVID-19 pandemic?
r r r
Answer:
The spread of COVID-r r r
19 was contained with different executive orders, which were effective in public health objec
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
tives. The governor prohibited all non-life-
r r r r r
sustaining businesses from operating on March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, the Secretary of He
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
alth ordered essential businesses to implement certain social distancing, mitigation, and clea
r r r r r r r r r r r
ning protocols to help contain the spread of COVID-
r r r r r r r r
19. The Secretary of Health also instructed that employees of essential businesses who devel
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
op COVID-19 symptoms
r r
―should notify their superior and stay home.‖ Soon after, the Department of Health create
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
d an online COVID-
r r r
©r2024rCengage.rAllrRightsrReserved.rMayrnotrberscanned,rcopiedrorrduplicated,rorrpostedrtorarpubliclyraccessible 4
website,rinrwholerorrinrpart.
website,rinrwholerorrinrpart.
,SOLUTION MANUAL FOR r r
Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
r r r r r r r
Chapter 1-17 r
Chapter 1 r
SolutionandAnswerGuide r r r
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7, 97803577
R R R R R R R R R R R
17547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
R R R R R R
TABLE OF CONTENTS R R
Case Questions ............................................................................................................................................. 2
r
Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc. .......................................................................................................... 2
r r r r r
OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho .................................................................................................................................... 4
r r r
EEOC v. AUTOZONE, .............................................................................................................................. 7
r r
Just The Facts............................................................................................................................................... 8
r r
Practical Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 10
r
Chapter Questions ..................................................................................................................................... 11
r
©r2024rCengage.rAllrRightsrReserved.rMayrnotrberscanned,rcopiedrorrduplicated,rorrpostedrtorarpubliclyraccessible 2
website,rinrwholerorrinrpart.
,CASE QUESTIONS R
WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. R R R R R
513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
r r r r r r r r r
Plaintiff was an employee of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―UNFI‖), a Rhode Island corporation that mainta
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ins a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 2019, UNFI hired Plaintiff Denn
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
is Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability was plausibly alleged (
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Department of Health; Plaintiff claims he was
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
fired because he stayed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
r r r r r r r r r r r
1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?
r r r r r r r r r r r r
Answer:
The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for his c
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
omplaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pending the result of his C
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
OVID-
19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the termination viola
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
tes a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
r r r r r r
2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wrongfully ter
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
minated?
Answer:
The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Dep
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
artment of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was not under any affirmativ
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
e or statutory duty to report alleged violations of the executive branch‘s COVID-
r r r r r r r r r r r r
19 mitigation orders.
r r
Plaintiff‘s second theory also fails. To reiterate, Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed ho
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
me from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
r r r r r r r r r r
19 test. He avers that because the Secretary of Health‘s April 15 order instructed that symptomatic
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
employees
―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government orders (Pennsyl
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
vania Disease Prevention and Control Law).
r r r r r
The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the direction of his sup
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay home from work while waitin
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
g for his test results, and then fired him because he stayed home while waiting for his test resul
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ts.
3. Why does the court rule for the defendant-employer despite expressing sympathy for the plaintiff?
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
Answer:
©r2024rCengage.rAllrRightsrReserved.rMayrnotrberscanned,rcopiedrorrduplicated,rorrpostedrtorarpubliclyraccessible 3
website,rinrwholerorrinrpart.
, As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it could not sustain a claim pled in this manner.
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged, the court thus granted th
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
e dismissal of this case.
r r r r
The Public Policy exception could be used if legislation was disobeyed, but that is not the case
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
here. What constitutes ―public policy‖ in the Commonwealth is determined by reference to j
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
udicial decisions of Pennsylvania courts, the Pennsylvania constitution, and statutes promulg
r r r r r r r r r r
ated by the Pennsylvania legislature. The court is sympathetic to Plaintiff‘s argument that Def
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
endant‘s conduct potentially undermined the Commonwealth‘s ability to mitigate the spread
r r r r r r r r r r r
of COVID-
r
19. It is also true that the Governor‘s and Secretary of Health‘s powers to mandate certain pan
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
demic mitigation standards do derive from statute, namely the Emergency Code. The court is
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
hesitant to pronounce that an employment decision potentially inconsistent with an executive
r r r r r r r r r r r r
branch‘s COVID- r
19 mitigation effort clearly violates public policy where there is no affirmative indication that
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
the legislature would agree.
r r r
Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the public policy exception where the em r r r r r r r r r r r
ployer: (1) compels the employee to engage in criminal activity; (2) prevents the employee fro
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
m complying with a duty imposed by statute; or (3) discharges the employee when a statute ex
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
pressly prohibits such termination. The court said that it was skeptical about Plaintiff‘s argum
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ent that there was an articulable and recognizable public policy, which would be a premise for
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
a wrongful termination claim under either theory.
r r r r r r
4. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not?
r r r r r r r r r r r r
Answer:
Students‘ answers will differ, but most may conclude that the Public Policy exemption does n
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
ot apply here. The wrongful termination evidence also does not hold, as Employment in Penn
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
sylvania is typically at-will. ―[T]he presumption of all non-
r r r r r r r r
contractual employment relations is that it is at-
r r r r r r r r
will and … this presumption is an extremely strong one.‖
r r r r r r r r r
5. What, if any, implications does this decision hold for the efforts of public health officials to deal with
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
the COVID-19 pandemic?
r r r
Answer:
The spread of COVID-r r r
19 was contained with different executive orders, which were effective in public health objec
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
tives. The governor prohibited all non-life-
r r r r r
sustaining businesses from operating on March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, the Secretary of He
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
alth ordered essential businesses to implement certain social distancing, mitigation, and clea
r r r r r r r r r r r
ning protocols to help contain the spread of COVID-
r r r r r r r r
19. The Secretary of Health also instructed that employees of essential businesses who devel
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
op COVID-19 symptoms
r r
―should notify their superior and stay home.‖ Soon after, the Department of Health create
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
d an online COVID-
r r r
©r2024rCengage.rAllrRightsrReserved.rMayrnotrberscanned,rcopiedrorrduplicated,rorrpostedrtorarpubliclyraccessible 4
website,rinrwholerorrinrpart.
