Haynes, an animal keeper at the Zoological Society of Cincinnati (“the Zoo”), was assigned to the bear and walrus area with responsibilities for feeding and general care of the animals. Haynes lodged several complaints with her supervisors about the unsafe conditions in her assigned areas, but the Zoo failed to address her concerns. One afternoon, Stober, a co-worker, stopped in front of a male polar bear’s den and offered the bear a grape through the bars of the bear’s cage. The bear pulled Stober’s hand through the bars and bit off a portion of her arm. Haynes, who was with Stober when the attack occurred, gave a statement to authorities about the incident and blamed lack of personnel training and poor conditions inside the bear den as contributing factors to Stober’s injuries. The next day, Haynes was demoted to an entry-level position at the birdhouse; a few days later, she was suspended without pay for insubordination.

Haynes sued the Zoo asserting that the Zoo had demoted and suspended her in retaliation for reporting alleged unsafe working conditions to authorities. The Zoo countered that Haynes was a member of a union and therefore could not avail herself of whistleblower protections that were available only to at-will employees.

CASE QUESTIONS

1. Should Haynes be prevented from asserting a whistleblower claim because she is a member of a union?

2. Could Haynes be protected from termination by a common law exception?