Solution Manual for
Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
Chapter 1-17
Chapter 1
Solution and Answer Guide
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT L AW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7,
9780357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT L AW
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
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 1
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 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 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 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 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 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 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:
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 2
website, in whole or in part.
, 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 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, 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 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 patrons and employees to
report any relevant issues or concerns.
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 3
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 questions 1-4, but there are no implications
of public health objectives not being met. However, it could be debated that there 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 OneToyota 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, and 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 Court concluded that the agreement was
unenforceable. A ―de novo‖ hearing will 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 legal issues were whether the arbitration agreement signed by the Plaintiff 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 power.
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 contract 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 when a contract
involves a lack of negotiation and meaningful choice, and surprise when the allegedly
unconscionable provision is hidden within a prolix printed form such as this case.
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 4
website, in whole or in part.
Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 7th Edition
Chapter 1-17
Chapter 1
Solution and Answer Guide
DAVID WALSH, EMPLOYMENT L AW FOR HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE 2024, EDITION: 7,
9780357717547; CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT L AW
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
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 1
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 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 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 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 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 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 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:
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 2
website, in whole or in part.
, 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 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, 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 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 patrons and employees to
report any relevant issues or concerns.
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 3
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 questions 1-4, but there are no implications
of public health objectives not being met. However, it could be debated that there 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 OneToyota 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, and 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 Court concluded that the agreement was
unenforceable. A ―de novo‖ hearing will 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 legal issues were whether the arbitration agreement signed by the Plaintiff 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 power.
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 contract 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 when a contract
involves a lack of negotiation and meaningful choice, and surprise when the allegedly
unconscionable provision is hidden within a prolix printed form such as this case.
© 2024 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible 4
website, in whole or in part.
