Cash v. Walgreen Co.

REBECCA E. CASH PLAINTIFF v. WALGREEN CO. DEFENDANT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-165

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

April 10, 2020

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rebecca E. Cash filed her Complaint [1] against Walgreen Co. in this Court on August 30, 2018, premising federal jurisdiction on the basis of federal question. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Defendant filed an Answer [5] on December 3, 2018. Now before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [55], requesting summary judgment in its favor. The issues are fully briefed and ripe for review.

Factual and Procedural Background

The claims in this case arise from a previous working relationship between the parties. The Plaintiff, a 56-year-old female, graduated with her pharmacy degree from the University of Mississippi in 1986. After graduating from pharmacy school, the Plaintiff worked as a staff pharmacist at the Columbus Hospital for less than a year. She then went to work as a pharmacist/assistant manager at Rite Aid in 1987. The Plaintiff worked at Rite Aid for 11 years.

The Plaintiff then worked at Family Meds in Columbus, Mississippi from 1998-2000. When she left Family Meds, she held the position of pharmacy manager. She then went to work at Winn-Dixie as a pharmacy manager from 2000-2004 until she was offered a job at Walgreen in Columbus, Mississippi. The Plaintiff claims that she was never counseled or disciplined for performance or policy violations while working at any of these locations.

The Plaintiff was hired as a pharmacist at Walgreen in 2004 where she worked from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. She worked these hours in a seven days on, seven days off shift. She was never counseled or disciplined while working this shift. Shaquita Pruitt, a young black female, became the pharmacy manager at the Columbus store and the Plaintiff's direct supervisor in 2011. Prior to Pruitt becoming the Plaintiff's supervisor, the Plaintiff had never received a performance evaluation lower than a three on a five-point scale. While Pruitt did not discipline the Plaintiff in the four or five years she was her supervisor, she did give the Plaintiff scores under a three on her performance evaluations. Shacory Morris, a black female around 28 years old replaced Pruitt as the pharmacy manager in 2015. Morris had previously been a pharmacist at that Walgreen location, and the Plaintiff does not recall having any issues with her when they were co-workers.

Brandy Heartsill, a 37-year-old white female, became the store manager in 2013. The Plaintiff stated that Heartsill was not around the pharmacy when the Plaintiff was working; therefore, Heartsill did not know anything about the Plaintiff's performance other than what Morris relayed to her. The Plaintiff asserts that after Morris was promoted to pharmacy manager, she began talking down to the Plaintiff in front of customers and co-workers, would use harassing and derogatory comments to the Plaintiff, told the Plaintiff she should be "put out to pasture" multiple times, and referred to her as "Ms. Cash" in a mocking tone instead of "Dr. Cash." The Plaintiff asserts that Morris was making a slight at her age by calling her "Ms. Cash" as opposed to "Dr. Cash" because there was no such thing as a doctor of pharmacy degree when the Plaintiff finished pharmacy school in 1986.

Walgreen closed the overnight shift in 2015, closing the pharmacy at 11:00 p.m. The two pharmacists from the overnight shift, the Plaintiff and Steve Landrum, a 58-year-old Caucasian male, began working the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift. The Plaintiff was later moved to the dayshift. The Plaintiff had worked alone on the night shift but would work with as many as four technicians at a time on the day shift.

The majority of the pharmacists at the Columbus store were white, and the majority of the technicians at the Columbus store were black. The Plaintiff alleges that she got along with the black technicians when Morris was not present. The Plaintiff further asserts that two of the young black technicians, Jalisa Butler, who was 24 years old at the time the Plaintiff was fired, and Jasmine Jackson, who was 27 years old when the Plaintiff was fired, believed they could make fun of the Plaintiff after hearing Morris harass her. For example, Butler also told the Plaintiff multiple times that she needed to be "put out to pasture," and Butler and Jackson would sing a song to the Plaintiff with the lines, "I hate you, I hate you, I can't wait until I never have to see you again." The Plaintiff alleges that Butler and Jackson would not do as the Plaintiff asked them to do. After the Plaintiff informed Morris of the technicians' decision to disregard the Plaintiff's instructions, Morris told the Plaintiff that she could tell the technicians to go home. When the Plaintiff told them to go home, however, they refused.

Morris indicated for the first time that she was not happy with the Plaintiff's work in the pharmacy when she gave her a score of 2.7 points out of five on her annual performance evaluation in August of 2016. The Plaintiff argues that Morris did not review the evaluation with the Plaintiff. Instead, she left the evaluation on the counter where others could see it. The Plaintiff disagreed with Morris's evaluation of her. Morris put the Plaintiff on a performance improvement plan (PIP) on February 22, 2017.¹ The parties dispute the reasons the Plaintiff was placed on the PIP. The Plaintiff argues she was told it was because her evaluation score was less than a three, but theDefendant argues that it was because the Plaintiff's performance did not improve after her managers gave coaching and feedback to her. This was the Plaintiff's first time to ever be put on a PIP in her 13 years as a pharmacist at Walgreen and her 30 years total of working as a pharmacist, despite having received scores below a three from evaluations Pruitt conducted before Morris became the pharmacy manager. The Plaintiff argues that the only reason she received a low score from Pruitt was because Pruitt informed her that if everyone scored well then her bonus would be taken away.

The PIP noted areas in which the Plaintiff was required to improve, included expected dates for her to make those improvements, and provided tools for the Plaintiff to make these expected improvements. It is disputed how much interaction Morris had with the Plaintiff after placing her on the PIP. For example, the Defendant argues that Morris outlined expectations she had previously discussed with the Plaintiff and identified performance expectations for the Plaintiff after placing her on the PIP. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that Morris only met with her one time during the PIP to go over her performance. The PIP listed a "30 day" follow up meeting but noted that the meeting was held on April 26, 2017 - 60 days after she was put on the PIP. Heartsill was not present for that meeting, and Morris conducted the follow up meeting with Tyler Tabor, an assistant manager, present as a witness. The Plaintiff's time under the PIP was concluded after the follow up meeting was held on April 26, 2017. The Plaintiff testified that Morris indicated that her performance was improved and that she should keep up the good work.

The Plaintiff received no further criticism of her work from the date the PIP was completed until August 14, 2017. The Plaintiff was at the pharmacy's drive through window on August 14, 2017 when she asked Morris whether they had restocked a medication they had run out of the day before. Morris responded to the Plaintiff by saying, "Everybody stop what you're doing...let mewalk over here and see if we got this so Becky won't have to walk." See [62] at 10. The Plaintiff and Morris then discussed Morris's response, and Butler and Jackson began laughing and singing their same song.

The Plaintiff called Heartsill to tell her what happened. Heartsill informed the Plaintiff that she would talk to Morris about the exchange. The Defendant asserts that Heartsill, Morris, and Nicole Lewis, a 35-year-old Caucasian female who was the store's district manager, had previously made a decision to place the Plaintiff on a two week notice on August 14, 2017 and that it was a coincidence that the Plaintiff's incident with Morris and her conversation about the two week notice fell on the same day. Heartsill contacted Lewis to ask whether they should proceed with the meeting about the two week notice in light of the Plaintiff's complaint about Morris. Lewis informed Heartsill that they should continue with the meeting. When the Plaintiff was later called back to Heartsill's office, she was told that she had two weeks to greatly improve her performance or risk being terminated. A few days after the August 14 meeting, Heartsill and Morris gave the Plaintiff a three-page list of improvements they thought the Plaintiff needed to make. Morris told Heartsill which improvements to include in the list. The Plaintiff was told that Morris would train her on whatever she thought the Plaintiff was doing improperly.

Prior to terminating the Plaintiff, Morris and Heartsill reviewed the items on the list, and Morris circled the items that she believed the Plaintiff did not improve during the two-week period. Heartsill admitted that she relied on Morris's evaluation of the Plaintiff's behaviors during this time because she was not in the pharmacy all day whereas Morris was. Heartsill and Morris consulted Lewis and determined that the Plaintiff had not made the improvements required of her at the end of the two-week period. The Plaintiff showed up to work in order to start her shift at 10:00 a.m. on August 28, 2017, when Morris told her she needed to go to Heartsill's office whereshe met with Heartsill and Morris. Heartsill then told her that her...