SOLUTION MANUAL FOR Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition by David J. Walsh All Chapter 1-17

SOLUTION MANUAL FOR qy qy


Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


Chapter 1-17 qy




Chapter 1 qy




Solution and Answer Guide qy qy qy



DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7, 9
Q Y QY Q Y QY Q Y Q Y Q Y Q Y QY QY QY



780357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
QY Q Y QY Q Y Q Y Q Y




TABLE OF CONTENTS QY QY




Case Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 2
qy



Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc....................................................................................................... 2
qy qy qy qy qy



OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho ................................................................................................................................. 4
qy qy qy



EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ............................................................................................................................ 7
qy qy



Just The Facts ............................................................................................................................................. 8
qy qy



Practical Considerations........................................................................................................................... 10
qy



Chapter Questions .................................................................................................................................... 11
qy




©qy2024qyCengage.qyAllqyRightsqyReserved.qyMayqynotqybeqyscanned,qycopiedqyorqyduplicated,qyorqypostedqytoqyaqypubliclyqy 1
accessible
website, in whole or in part.

,CASE QUESTIONS QY




WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC. QY QY QY QY QY



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




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


at maintains a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 2019, UNFI h
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


ired Plaintiff Dennis Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liab
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


ility was plausibly alleged (He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Departme
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


nt of Health; Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed home from work while he awaited th
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


e results of his COVID-19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy




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




Answer:

The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliation f
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


or his complaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pending the
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy q


result of his COVID-
y qy qy qy


19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the terminati
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


on violates a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy




2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wrongfu
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


lly terminated? qy




Answer:

The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


the Department of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was not unde
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


r any affirmative or statutory duty to report alleged violations of the executive br
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


anch‘s COVID-19 mitigation orders.
qy qy qy


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


tayed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


19 test. He avers that because the Secretary of Health‘s April 15 order instructed that sym
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


ptomatic employees qy


―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government orders (P
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


ennsylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law). qy qy qy qy qy


The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the direction
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


of his supervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay home from
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


work while waiting for his test results, and then fired him because he stayed home w
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


hile waiting for his test results.
qy qy qy qy qy




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




Answer:



©qy2024qyCengage.qyAllqyRightsqyReserved.qyMayqynotqybeqyscanned,qycopiedqyorqyduplicated,qyorqypostedqytoqyaqypubliclyqy 2
accessible
website, in whole or in part.

, As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it could not sustain a claim pled in th
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


is manner. Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged, the c
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


ourt thus granted the dismissal of this case.
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


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


the case here. What constitutes ―public policy‖ in the Commonwealth is determined
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


by reference to judicial decisions of Pennsylvania courts, the Pennsylvania constitution
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


, and statutes promulgated by the Pennsylvania legislature. The court is sympathetic to
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


Plaintiff‘s argument that Defendant‘s conduct potentially undermined the Commonwe
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


alth‘s ability to mitigate the spread of COVID-
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


19. It is also true that the Governor‘s and Secretary of Health‘s powers to mandate ce
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


rtain pandemic mitigation standards do derive from statute, namely the Emergency Co
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


de. The court is hesitant to pronounce that an employment decision potentially inconsi
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


stent with an executive branch‘s COVID-
qy qy qy qy qy


19 mitigation effort clearly violates public policy where there is no affirmative indicat
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


ion that the legislature would agree.
qy qy qy qy qy




Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized the public policy exception where t
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


he employer: (1) compels the employee to engage in criminal activity; (2) prevents th
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


e employee from complying with a duty imposed by statute; or (3) discharges the empl
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


oyee when a statute expressly prohibits such termination. The court said that it was sk
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


eptical about Plaintiff‘s argument that there was an articulable and recognizable public
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


policy, which would be a premise for a wrongful termination claim under either theo
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


ry.

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




Answer:

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


does not apply here. The wrongful termination evidence also does not hold, as Empl
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


oyment in Pennsylvania is typically at-will. ―[T]he presumption of all non-
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


contractual employment relations is that it is at-
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


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




5. What, if any, implications does this decision hold for the efforts of public health officials to d
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


eal with the COVID-19 pandemic?
qy qy qy qy




Answer:

The spread of COVID-
qy qy qy


19 was contained with different executive orders, which were effective in public healt
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


h objectives. The governor prohibited all non-life-
qy qy qy qy qy qy


sustaining businesses from operating on March 19, 2020. April 15, 2020, the Secretar
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


y of Health ordered essential businesses to implement certain social distancing, mitiga
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


tion, and cleaning protocols to help contain the spread of COVID-
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


19. The Secretary of Health also instructed that employees of essential businesses wh
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


o develop COVID-19 symptoms
qy qy qy


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




©qy2024qyCengage.qyAllqyRightsqyReserved.qyMayqynotqybeqyscanned,qycopiedqyorqyduplicated,qyorqypostedqytoqyaqypubliclyqy 3
accessible
website, in whole or in part.

, created an online COVID-
qy qy qy qy


19 complaint form for business patrons and employees to report any relevant issues
qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy qy


or concerns.
qy qy




©qy2024qyCengage.qyAllqyRightsqyReserved.qyMayqynotqybeqyscanned,qycopiedqyorqyduplicated,qyorqypostedqytoqyaqypubliclyqy 4
accessible
website, in whole or in part.