SOLUTION MANUAL FOR
Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition by David J. Walsh
All Chapter 1-17
Chapter 1
Solution and Answer Guide
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7,
9780357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Case Questions ..................................................................................................................2
Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc. ......................................................................................... 2
OTO, L.L.C. v. Ḳho ..................................................................................................................... 4
EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ................................................................................................................. 7
Just The Facts ....................................................................................................................8
Practical Considerations................................................................................................... 10
Chapter Questions ........................................................................................................... 11
,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 Yorḳ, PA. On December 16, 2019, UNFI
hired Plaintiff Dennis Warner as a loader at that Yorḳ 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 worḳ 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 worḳ 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 worḳ 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 worḳ 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 sḳeptical 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
Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition by David J. Walsh
All Chapter 1-17
Chapter 1
Solution and Answer Guide
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7,
9780357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Case Questions ..................................................................................................................2
Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc. ......................................................................................... 2
OTO, L.L.C. v. Ḳho ..................................................................................................................... 4
EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ................................................................................................................. 7
Just The Facts ....................................................................................................................8
Practical Considerations................................................................................................... 10
Chapter Questions ........................................................................................................... 11
,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 Yorḳ, PA. On December 16, 2019, UNFI
hired Plaintiff Dennis Warner as a loader at that Yorḳ 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 worḳ 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 worḳ 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 worḳ 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 worḳ 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 sḳeptical 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
