Cvs employee dating policy
must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial"). With respect to the first element, the magistrate judge found that there is evidence in the record sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability because of her asserted anxiety, depression, and stress. Neither party has articulated an objection to the same, and the court finds no clear error in this finding. probative evidence that [she] was, in fact, performing at a level that met [her] employer's legitimate expectations." at 385 (citation omitted). Upon such a showing, the burden shifts back to plaintiff to then prove that defendants' proffered reasons "were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." , 2013 WL 5468237, at *9 (citation omitted). The first two objections address whether there is sufficient evidence to support an , 411 U. 792 (1973), which "establishes a three-step proof scheme under which the burden of evidentiary production is shifted back and forth between the plaintiff and defendant; however, the ultimate burden of persuasion never shifts from the plaintiff to prove intentional unlawful discrimination." , 411 U. The parties agree that plaintiff was discharged on August 26, 2013, and thus do not dispute the second element. 28, 2015) (holding that evidence set forth by employer-defendant was "overwhelming" when demonstrating that employer was not satisfied with plaintiff's job performance, plaintiff received disciplinary notice and was given an action plan detailing specific areas of improvement, and customers complained). Once per month, plaintiff met with Molett to review her progress on the IDP goals. Between May and August 2013, plaintiff did not meet her goals. Alternatively, an employee may call human resources, who then processes the form. The R&R notes that defendants failed to adduce evidence that human resources or one of plaintiff's supervisors completed a reasonable accommodation form according to its policy specifications. Plaintiff alleges that human resources failed to respond to her request to be transferred because of extreme stress, and defendants have not brought forth evidence to the contrary. In the same month, defendants received another complaint that plaintiff was rude to and dismissive of a customer, causing that customer to fill his wife's prescription at Publix instead and vow not to return. In May 2013, defendants received a handwritten letter from a customer who stated that she had switched from Store Number 4395 to 563 because of plaintiff's rudeness and bad attitude, and was dismayed that plaintiff now worked at Store Number 563. Defendants also received several complaints about plaintiff from Fippen, who requested that plaintiff be moved to another store because she was unfit for service and created discord among employees. Either way, human resources resolves the request by reviewing and responding to it. On May 13, 2013, Molett and Elliott placed plaintiff on an "Individual Development Plan" ("IDP"), which provided seven areas where they would monitor plaintiff's improvement and provide corrective action. NORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the court on United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker's report and recommendation ("R&R"), ECF No. §§ 12101-12213, ("ADA"), which allegedly occurred during her employment and subsequent termination by defendants. In the amended complaint, plaintiff asserts three causes of action; however, because the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of the first and third causes of action for a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, ECF No. In short and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, plaintiff began employment with defendants in 1999 as a pharmacist at Store Number 4395 located at 10599 Dorchester Road in Summerville, South Carolina. 99, that the court grant defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CVS Caremark, and CVS Rx Services, Inc.'s (collectively "CVS") motion for summary judgment, ECF No. For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts the R&R and grants CVS's motion for summary judgment. Wigger brings this employment discrimination action against defendants for a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U. Plaintiff seeks damages "for back pay, front pay, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and punitive damages." Am.
The policy provided that when a request for a reasonable accommodation is made to a supervisor, the supervisor completes a reasonable accommodation form in order to assess the employee's situation. complained to defendants that she was offended and embarrassed by plaintiff's condescending attitude.
99, and GRANTS defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No.
Defendants' problems with plaintiff at Store Number 563 were similar to the previous problems dating back to 2012 at Store Number 4395. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R, ECF No. For the reasons set forth above, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's R&R, ECF No.
In 2010, plaintiff became the pharmacist-in-charge ("PIC") at the same store. In 2011, plaintiff completed a mid-year self-assessment in which she determined that she needed improvement in several employment duties, such as achieving pharmacy business metrics, managing inventory, and more broadly, delivering results.
Plaintiff's supervisor at the time, Jeffrey Holcombe, reviewed the evaluation with her and likewise determined she needed improvement in several broad categories, such as leading and developing her team, maintaining business and service foundations, managing workflow and quality assurance, and focusing on customers and the market.