1 © 202 4 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Solution Manual for Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition 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. Kho ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 EEOC v. AUTOZONE, ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 7 Just The Facts ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 8 Practical Considerations ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 10 Chapter Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 NURSEDOCS 2 © 202 4 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. 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 w as plausibly alleged (He was wrongfully terminated based on his complaint to the Department of Health; Plaintiff claims he was fired because he s tayed 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 compla int 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 go vernment 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: NURSEDOCS 3 © 202 4 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. As mentioned in question 2, the court said that it c ould not sustain a claim pled in this manner. Because neither of Plaintiff‘s theories of liability is plausibly alleged, the court thus grant ed the dismiss al of this case. The Public Policy exception could be used if legislation was disobeyed , but th at 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 mitigatio n 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, implication s 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 COV ID-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 pa trons and employees to report any relevant issues or concerns . NURSEDOCS 4 © 202 4 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Yet, some individual cases , such as Warner, suffered being terminated. The court ruled dismissal because of the reasons explained in que stions 1 -4, but there are no implications of public heal th objectives not being met. However, it could be debated that t here should be a legislative effort to amend the Public Policy exemption in case of executive decisions such as this one. OTO, L.L.C. V. KHO 8 Cal. 5th 111 (Supreme Court of California), cert. denied, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3046 (U.S., June 8, 2020) Ken Kho was hired as a service technician for One Toyota of Oakland (OneToyota) in January 2010. Three years later, he was compelled to sign an arbitration document . Kho‘s employment ended in April 2014. Several months later, he filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner for unpaid wages. OneToyota did not go to the proceeding, and without OneToyota, the hearing officer awarded Kho $102,912 in unpaid wages and $55,634 in liquidated damages, interest, an d penalties. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for return to the trial court for proceedings on OneToyota‘s de novo appeal from the Labor Commissioner‘s award. The Appeals C ourt concluded that the agreement was unenforceable. A ―de novo‖ hearing w ill increase the time for deliberation, but the agreement is still unenforceable. 1. What is the main legal issue in this case? What did the California Supreme Court decide? Answer: The l egal issues were whether the arbitration agreement signed by the Plain tiff was unconscionable , and whether it was enforceable . 2. What circumstances does the Court point to as general indicators of a procedurally unconscionable arbitration agreement? What evidence supported the conclusion that the specific arbitration agreement at issue , in this case, was procedurally unconscionable? Answer: A procedurally unconscionable arbitration agreement is seen when circumstances of contract negotiation (and formation ) focus on oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining po wer. This case created oppression or surprise due to unequal bargaining power. It failed to provide a speedy, informal , and affordable method of resolving wage claims and has virtually none of the benefits afforded by the Labor Commission‘s hearing procedure. The OneToyota arbitration agreement in this case seeks, in large part, to restore the procedural rules and procedures that create expense and delay in civil litigation . The evidence is seen in different parts of the agreement. An adhesive cont ract is standardized, generally on a preprinted form, and offered by the party with superior bargaining power ―on a take -it-or-leave -it basis.‖ Oppression occurs w hen a contract involves a lack of negotiation and meaningful choice, and surprise when the al legedly unconscionable provision is hidden within a prolix printed form such as this case . NURSEDOCS
