Solution Manual for Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition by David J. Walsh 2024 || All Chapters included 1-17 ||Latest updated version.

SOLUTION MANUAL FOR S! S!


Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


Chapter 1-17 S!




Chapter 1 S!




Solution and Answer Guide S! S! S!



DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7, 978
S ! S! S ! S! S ! S ! S ! S ! S! S! S!


0357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
S! S ! S! S ! S ! S !




TABLE OF CONTENTS S! S!




Case Questions............................................................................................................................................. 2
S!



Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc. ...................................................................................................... 2
S! S! S! S! S!



OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho.................................................................................................................................. 4
S! S! S!



EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ............................................................................................................................ 7
S! S!



Just The Facts ............................................................................................................................................. 8
S! S!



Practical Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 10
S!



Chapter Questions..................................................................................................................................... 11
S!




©S!2024S!Cengage.S!AllS!RightsS!Reserved.S!MayS!notS!beS!scanned,S!copiedS!orS!duplicated,S!orS!postedS!toS!aS!publiclyS!acce 1
ssible
website,S!inS!wholeS!orS!inS!part.

,CASE QUESTIONS S!




WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. S! S! S! S! S!


513 F. Supp 3d 477 (M.D. Pa., January 13, 2021)
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!




Plaintiff was an employee of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―UNFI‖), a Rhode Island corporation that
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


maintains a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 2019, UNFI hire
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


d Plaintiff Dennis Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S


was plausibly alleged (He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Department of
! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


Health; Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed home from work while he awaited the result
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


s of his COVID-19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!




1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!




Answer:

The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliation fo
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


r his complaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pending the re
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


sult of his COVID- S! S! S!


19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the terminatio
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


n violates a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
S! S! S! S! S! S! S!




2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wrongfull
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


y terminated? S!




Answer:

The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to t
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


he Department of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was not under
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


any affirmative or statutory duty to report alleged violations of the executive bran
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


ch‘s COVID-19 mitigation orders.
S! S! S!


Plaintiff‘s second theory also fails. To reiterate, Plaintiff claims he was fired because he sta
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


yed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


19 test. He avers that because the Secretary of Health‘s April 15 order instructed that symp
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


tomatic employees S!


―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government orders (Pe
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


nnsylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law). S! S! S! S! S!


The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the direction of
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


his supervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay home from wor
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


k while waiting for his test results, and then fired him because he stayed home while
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


waiting for his test results. S! S! S! S!




3. Why does the court rule for the defendant-employer despite expressing sympathy for the plaintiff?
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!




Answer:



©S!2024S!Cengage.S!AllS!RightsS!Reserved.S!MayS!notS!beS!scanned,S!copiedS!orS!duplicated,S!orS!postedS!toS!aS!publiclyS!acce 2
ssible
website,S!inS!wholeS!orS!inS!part.

, As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it could not sustain a claim pled in this
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


manner. Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged, the cour
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


t thus granted the dismissal of this case.
S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


The Public Policy exception could be used if legislation was disobeyed, but that is not t
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


he case here. What constitutes ―public policy‖ in the Commonwealth is determined by
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S


reference to judicial decisions of Pennsylvania courts, the Pennsylvania constitution, an
! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


d statutes promulgated by the Pennsylvania legislature. The court is sympathetic to Plai
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


ntiff‘s argument that Defendant‘s conduct potentially undermined the Commonwealth‘s
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S


ability to mitigate the spread of COVID-
! S! S! S! S! S! S!


19. It is also true that the Governor‘s and Secretary of Health‘s powers to mandate cert
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


ain pandemic mitigation standards do derive from statute, namely the Emergency Code.
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


The court is hesitant to pronounce that an employment decision potentially inconsisten
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


t with an executive branch‘s COVID-
S! S! S! S! S!


19 mitigation effort clearly violates public policy where there is no affirmative indicati
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


on that the legislature would agree.
S! S! S! S! S!




Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the public policy exception where th
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


e employer: (1) compels the employee to engage in criminal activity; (2) prevents the e
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


mployee from complying with a duty imposed by statute; or (3) discharges the employee
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


when a statute expressly prohibits such termination. The court said that it was skeptica
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


l about Plaintiff‘s argument that there was an articulable and recognizable public policy
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


, which would be a premise for a wrongful termination claim under either theory.
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!




4. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not?
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!




Answer:

Students‘ answers will differ, but most may conclude that the Public Policy exemption
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


does not apply here. The wrongful termination evidence also does not hold, as Employ
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


ment in Pennsylvania is typically at-will. ―[T]he presumption of all non-
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


contractual employment relations is that it is at-
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


will and … this presumption is an extremely strong one.‖
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!




5. What, if any, implications does this decision hold for the efforts of public health officials to de
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


al with the COVID-19 pandemic?
S! S! S! S!




Answer:

The spread of COVID-
S! S! S!


19 was contained with different executive orders, which were effective in public health
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


objectives. The governor prohibited all non-life-
S! S! S! S! S! S!


sustaining businesses from operating on March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, the Secretary
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


of Health ordered essential businesses to implement certain social distancing, mitigati
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


on, and cleaning protocols to help contain the spread of COVID-
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


19. The Secretary of Health also instructed that employees of essential businesses who
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


develop COVID-19 symptoms S! S!


―should notify their superior and stay home.‖ Soon after, the Department of Health
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


created an online COVID- S! S! S!




©S!2024S!Cengage.S!AllS!RightsS!Reserved.S!MayS!notS!beS!scanned,S!copiedS!orS!duplicated,S!orS!postedS!toS!aS!publiclyS!acce 3
ssible
website,S!inS!wholeS!orS!inS!part.

, 19 complaint form for business patrons and employees to report any relevant issues
S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S! S!


or concerns.
S!




©S!2024S!Cengage.S!AllS!RightsS!Reserved.S!MayS!notS!beS!scanned,S!copiedS!orS!duplicated,S!orS!postedS!toS!aS!publiclyS!acce 4
ssible
website,S!inS!wholeS!orS!inS!part.