Solution Manual –
Employment Law For Human Resource Practice,
By David J. Walsh
7th Edition
,Table Of Contents
Part 1. Introduction To Employment Law
1. Overview Of Employment Law
2. The Employment Relationship
3. Overview Of Employment Discrimination
Part 2. The Hiring Process
4. Recruitment
5. Background Checks, References, And Verifying Employment Eligibility
6. Employment Tests
7. Hiring And Promotion Decisions
Part 3. Managing A Diverse Workforce
8. Harassment
9. Reasonably Accommodating Disability And Religion
10. Work–Life Conflicts And Other Diversity Issues
Part 4. Pay, Benefits, Terms And Conditions Of Employment
11. Wages, Hours, And Pay Equity
12. Benefits
13. Unions And Collective Bargaining
14. Occupational Safety And Health
15. Privacy On The Job
Part 5. Terminating Employment
16. Terminating Individual Employees
17. Downsizing And Post-Termination Issues
,CASE QUESTIONS
WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC.
513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
Plaintiff Was An Employee Of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―Unfi‖), A Rhode Island Corporation
That Maintains A Wholesale Food Distribution Operation In York, Pa. On December 16, 2019, Unfi
Hired Plaintiff Dennis Warner As A Loader At That York Location. Neither Of Plaintiff‘S Theories Of
Liability Was Plausibly Alleged (He Was Wrongfully Terminated Based On His Complaint To The
Department Of Health; Plaintiff Claims He Was Fired Because He Stayed Home From Work While
He Awaited The Results Of His Covid-19 Test), The Courts Granted The Motion And Dismissal Of
This Case.
1. What Was The Legal Issue In This Case? What Did The Court Decide?
Answer:
The Legal Issues Were Whether The Plaintiff Was Wrongfully Terminated In
Retaliation For His Complaint To The Department Of Health, Or Because He Missed
Work Pending The Result Of His Covid-19 Test. Furthermore, The Case Questions
Whether The Plaintiff Can Allege The Termination Violates A ―Clear Mandate Of
Public Policy.‖
2. What Arguments And Evidence Support The Plaintiff‘S (Warner) Claim That He Was
Wrongfully Terminated?
Answer:
The Plaintiff Argues That He Was Wrongfully Terminated Based On His Complaint
To The Department Of Health. This Argument Does Not Hold As Plaintiff Was Not
Under Any Affirmative Or Statutory Duty To Report Alleged Violations Of The
Executive Branch‘S Covid-19 Mitigation Orders.
Plaintiff‘S Second Theory Also Fails. To Reiterate, Plaintiff Claims He Was Fired Because
He Stayed Home From Work While He Awaited The Results Of His Covid-19 Test. He Avers
That Because The Secretary Of Health‘S April 15 Order Instructed That Symptomatic
Employees
―Should Notify Their Supervisor And Stay Home,‖ He Was Following The Government
Orders (Pennsylvania Disease Prevention And Control Law).
The Plaintiff Pleads That He Quarantined While Waiting For Test Results At The
Direction Of His Supervisors. It Is Implausible That Defendant Instructed Him To Stay
Home From Work While Waiting For His Test Results, And Then Fired Him Because
He Stayed Home While Waiting For His Test Results.
3. Why Does The Court Rule For The Defendant-Employer Despite Expressing Sympathy For The
Plaintiff?
Answer:
, As Mentioned In Question 2, The Court Said That It Could Not Sustain A Claim Pled In
This Manner. Because Neither Of Plaintiff‘S Theories Of Liability Is Plausibly Alleged,
The Court Thus Granted The Dismissal Of This Case.
The Public Policy Exception Could Be Used If Legislation Was Disobeyed, But That Is
Not The Case Here. What Constitutes ―Public Policy‖ In The Commonwealth Is
Determined By Reference To Judicial Decisions Of Pennsylvania Courts, The
Pennsylvania Constitution, And Statutes Promulgated By The Pennsylvania Legislature.
The Court Is Sympathetic To Plaintiff‘S Argument That Defendant‘S Conduct Potentially
Undermined The Commonwealth‘S Ability To Mitigate The Spread Of Covid-19. It Is
Also True That The Governor‘S And Secretary Of Health‘S Powers To Mandate Certain
Pandemic Mitigation Standards Do Derive From Statute, Namely The Emergency Code.
The Court Is Hesitant To Pronounce That An Employment Decision Potentially
Inconsistent With An Executive Branch‘S Covid-19 Mitigation Effort Clearly Violates
Public Policy Where There Is No Affirmative Indication That The Legislature Would
Agree.
Furthermore, Pennsylvania Courts Have Recognized The Public Policy Exception Where
The Employer: (1) Compels The Employee To Engage In Criminal Activity; (2) Prevents
The Employee From Complying With A Duty Imposed By Statute; Or (3) Discharges The
Employee When A Statute Expressly Prohibits Such Termination. The Court Said That It
Was Skeptical About Plaintiff‘S Argument That There Was An Articulable And
Recognizable Public Policy, Which Would Be A Premise For A Wrongful Termination
Claim Under Either Theory.
4. Do You Agree With The Decision In This Case? Why Or Why Not?
Answer:
Students‘ Answers Will Differ, But Most May Conclude That The Public Policy
Exemption Does Not Apply Here. The Wrongful Termination Evidence Also Does Not
Hold, As Employment In Pennsylvania Is Typically At-Will. ―[T]He Presumption Of
All Non- Contractual Employment Relations Is That It Is At-Will And … This
Presumption Is An Extremely Strong One.‖
5. What, If Any, Implications Does This Decision Hold For The Efforts Of Public Health Officials
To Deal With The Covid-19 Pandemic?
Answer:
The Spread Of Covid-19 Was Contained With Different Executive Orders, Which Were
Effective In Public Health Objectives. The Governor Prohibited All Non-Life-Sustaining
Businesses From Operating On March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, The Secretary Of
Health Ordered Essential Businesses To Implement Certain Social Distancing,
Mitigation, And Cleaning Protocols To Help Contain The Spread Of Covid-19. The
Secretary Of Health Also Instructed That Employees Of Essential Businesses Who
Develop Covid-19 Symptoms
―Should Notify Their Superior And Stay Home.‖ Soon After, The Department Of
Health Created An Online Covid-19 Complaint Form For Business Patrons And
Employment Law For Human Resource Practice,
By David J. Walsh
7th Edition
,Table Of Contents
Part 1. Introduction To Employment Law
1. Overview Of Employment Law
2. The Employment Relationship
3. Overview Of Employment Discrimination
Part 2. The Hiring Process
4. Recruitment
5. Background Checks, References, And Verifying Employment Eligibility
6. Employment Tests
7. Hiring And Promotion Decisions
Part 3. Managing A Diverse Workforce
8. Harassment
9. Reasonably Accommodating Disability And Religion
10. Work–Life Conflicts And Other Diversity Issues
Part 4. Pay, Benefits, Terms And Conditions Of Employment
11. Wages, Hours, And Pay Equity
12. Benefits
13. Unions And Collective Bargaining
14. Occupational Safety And Health
15. Privacy On The Job
Part 5. Terminating Employment
16. Terminating Individual Employees
17. Downsizing And Post-Termination Issues
,CASE QUESTIONS
WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC.
513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
Plaintiff Was An Employee Of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―Unfi‖), A Rhode Island Corporation
That Maintains A Wholesale Food Distribution Operation In York, Pa. On December 16, 2019, Unfi
Hired Plaintiff Dennis Warner As A Loader At That York Location. Neither Of Plaintiff‘S Theories Of
Liability Was Plausibly Alleged (He Was Wrongfully Terminated Based On His Complaint To The
Department Of Health; Plaintiff Claims He Was Fired Because He Stayed Home From Work While
He Awaited The Results Of His Covid-19 Test), The Courts Granted The Motion And Dismissal Of
This Case.
1. What Was The Legal Issue In This Case? What Did The Court Decide?
Answer:
The Legal Issues Were Whether The Plaintiff Was Wrongfully Terminated In
Retaliation For His Complaint To The Department Of Health, Or Because He Missed
Work Pending The Result Of His Covid-19 Test. Furthermore, The Case Questions
Whether The Plaintiff Can Allege The Termination Violates A ―Clear Mandate Of
Public Policy.‖
2. What Arguments And Evidence Support The Plaintiff‘S (Warner) Claim That He Was
Wrongfully Terminated?
Answer:
The Plaintiff Argues That He Was Wrongfully Terminated Based On His Complaint
To The Department Of Health. This Argument Does Not Hold As Plaintiff Was Not
Under Any Affirmative Or Statutory Duty To Report Alleged Violations Of The
Executive Branch‘S Covid-19 Mitigation Orders.
Plaintiff‘S Second Theory Also Fails. To Reiterate, Plaintiff Claims He Was Fired Because
He Stayed Home From Work While He Awaited The Results Of His Covid-19 Test. He Avers
That Because The Secretary Of Health‘S April 15 Order Instructed That Symptomatic
Employees
―Should Notify Their Supervisor And Stay Home,‖ He Was Following The Government
Orders (Pennsylvania Disease Prevention And Control Law).
The Plaintiff Pleads That He Quarantined While Waiting For Test Results At The
Direction Of His Supervisors. It Is Implausible That Defendant Instructed Him To Stay
Home From Work While Waiting For His Test Results, And Then Fired Him Because
He Stayed Home While Waiting For His Test Results.
3. Why Does The Court Rule For The Defendant-Employer Despite Expressing Sympathy For The
Plaintiff?
Answer:
, As Mentioned In Question 2, The Court Said That It Could Not Sustain A Claim Pled In
This Manner. Because Neither Of Plaintiff‘S Theories Of Liability Is Plausibly Alleged,
The Court Thus Granted The Dismissal Of This Case.
The Public Policy Exception Could Be Used If Legislation Was Disobeyed, But That Is
Not The Case Here. What Constitutes ―Public Policy‖ In The Commonwealth Is
Determined By Reference To Judicial Decisions Of Pennsylvania Courts, The
Pennsylvania Constitution, And Statutes Promulgated By The Pennsylvania Legislature.
The Court Is Sympathetic To Plaintiff‘S Argument That Defendant‘S Conduct Potentially
Undermined The Commonwealth‘S Ability To Mitigate The Spread Of Covid-19. It Is
Also True That The Governor‘S And Secretary Of Health‘S Powers To Mandate Certain
Pandemic Mitigation Standards Do Derive From Statute, Namely The Emergency Code.
The Court Is Hesitant To Pronounce That An Employment Decision Potentially
Inconsistent With An Executive Branch‘S Covid-19 Mitigation Effort Clearly Violates
Public Policy Where There Is No Affirmative Indication That The Legislature Would
Agree.
Furthermore, Pennsylvania Courts Have Recognized The Public Policy Exception Where
The Employer: (1) Compels The Employee To Engage In Criminal Activity; (2) Prevents
The Employee From Complying With A Duty Imposed By Statute; Or (3) Discharges The
Employee When A Statute Expressly Prohibits Such Termination. The Court Said That It
Was Skeptical About Plaintiff‘S Argument That There Was An Articulable And
Recognizable Public Policy, Which Would Be A Premise For A Wrongful Termination
Claim Under Either Theory.
4. Do You Agree With The Decision In This Case? Why Or Why Not?
Answer:
Students‘ Answers Will Differ, But Most May Conclude That The Public Policy
Exemption Does Not Apply Here. The Wrongful Termination Evidence Also Does Not
Hold, As Employment In Pennsylvania Is Typically At-Will. ―[T]He Presumption Of
All Non- Contractual Employment Relations Is That It Is At-Will And … This
Presumption Is An Extremely Strong One.‖
5. What, If Any, Implications Does This Decision Hold For The Efforts Of Public Health Officials
To Deal With The Covid-19 Pandemic?
Answer:
The Spread Of Covid-19 Was Contained With Different Executive Orders, Which Were
Effective In Public Health Objectives. The Governor Prohibited All Non-Life-Sustaining
Businesses From Operating On March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, The Secretary Of
Health Ordered Essential Businesses To Implement Certain Social Distancing,
Mitigation, And Cleaning Protocols To Help Contain The Spread Of Covid-19. The
Secretary Of Health Also Instructed That Employees Of Essential Businesses Who
Develop Covid-19 Symptoms
―Should Notify Their Superior And Stay Home.‖ Soon After, The Department Of
Health Created An Online Covid-19 Complaint Form For Business Patrons And
