CASE SUMmARY $11\mathrm{.}7$ Haynes v$.$ Zoological Society of Cincinnati, $652$ N$.$E$.2$ d $948($Ohio Ct$.$ App. $1995)$

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION

Haynes, an animal keeper at the Zoological Society of Cincinnati $($Zoo$),$ was assigned to the bear and walrus areas and was responsible for feeding and taking general care of the animals. Haynes lodged several complaints with her supervisors about the unsafe conditions in her assigned areas, but Zoo failed to address her concerns. One afternoon, a co$-$worker, Stober, stopped in front of the den of a male polar bear 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 factors contributing to Stober's injuries. The next

day, Haynes was demoted to an entry$-$level position at the birdhouse and then, a few days later, was suspended without pay for insubordination. Haynes sued $Z_0,$ asserting that Zoo had demoted and suspended her in retaliation for reporting alleged unsafe working conditions to authorities. Zoo countered that Haynes was a member of a union and therefore could not avail her. self of whistleblower protections that were afforded to other employees.

CASE QUESTIONS

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

Could Haynes claim the public policy exception in regard to this termination? Why or why not?