Test Bank for Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition Author:David J. Walsh | All Chapters 1-17 Covered| Complete Guide 2025

©x@2024x@Cengage.x@Allx@Rightsx@Reserved.x@Mayx@notx@bex@scanned,x@copiedx@orx@duplicated,x@orx@postedx@tox@ax@p 1
ublicly accessible

,SOLUTION MANUAL FOR x@ x@




Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




Chapter 1-17 x@




Chapter 1 x@




Solution and Answer Guide x@ x@ x@




DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7
X @ X@ X @ X@ X @ X @ X @ X @ X@ X@




, 9780357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
X@ X@ X @ X@ X @ X @ X @




TABLE OF CONTENTS X@ X@




Case Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 2
x@




Warner v. United Natural Foods, Inc. .................................................................................................. 2
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho ............................................................................................................................... 4
x@ x@ x@




EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ........................................................................................................................... 7
x@ x@




Just The Facts ............................................................................................................................................ 8
x@ x@




Practical Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 10
x@




Chapter Questions .................................................................................................................................... 11
x@




©x@2024x@Cengage.x@Allx@Rightsx@Reserved.x@Mayx@notx@bex@scanned,x@copiedx@orx@duplicated,x@orx@postedx@tox@ax@p 2
ublicly accessible

,CASE QUESTIONS X@




WARNER V. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC.
X@ X@ X@ X@ X@




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




Plaintiff was an employee of United Natural Foods, Inc. (―UNFI‖), a Rhode Island corporati
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




on that maintains a wholesale food distribution operation in York, PA. On December 16, 201
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




9, UNFI hired Plaintiff Dennis Warner as a loader at that York location. Neither of Plaintiff‘s
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




x@ theories of liability was plausibly alleged (He was wrongfully terminated based on his compl
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




aint to the Department of Health; Plaintiff claims he was fired because he stayed home from
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x




@work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




19 test), the courts granted the motion and dismissal of this case.
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




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




Answer:

The legal issues were whether the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated in retaliati
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




on for his complaint to the Department of Health, or because he missed work pe
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




nding the result of his COVID-
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




19 test. Furthermore, the case questions whether the Plaintiff can allege the term
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




ination violates a ―clear mandate of public policy.‖
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




2. What arguments and evidence support the plaintiff‘s (Warner) claim that he was wro
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




ngfully terminated? x@




Answer:

The Plaintiff argues that he was wrongfully terminated based on his complain
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




©x@2024x@Cengage.x@Allx@Rightsx@Reserved.x@Mayx@notx@bex@scanned,x@copiedx@orx@duplicated,x@orx@postedx@tox@ax@p 3
ublicly accessible

, t to the Department of Health. This argument does not hold as Plaintiff was
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x




@not under any affirmative or statutory duty to report alleged violations of th
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




e executive branch‘s COVID-19 mitigation orders.
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




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




@he stayed home from work while he awaited the results of his COVID-
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




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




x@ symptomatic employees x@




―should notify their supervisor and stay home,‖ he was following the government order
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




s (Pennsylvania Disease Prevention and Control Law).
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




The Plaintiff pleads that he quarantined while waiting for test results at the direc
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




tion of his supervisors. It is implausible that Defendant instructed him to stay ho
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




me from work while waiting for his test results, and then fired him because he
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




stayed home while waiting for his test results.
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




3. Why does the court rule for the defendant-
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




employer despite expressing sympathy for the plaintiff?
x@ x@ x@ x@ x@ x@




Answer:




©x@2024x@Cengage.x@Allx@Rightsx@Reserved.x@Mayx@notx@bex@scanned,x@copiedx@orx@duplicated,x@orx@postedx@tox@ax@p 4
ublicly accessible