Adamson v. Walgreens Co., 750 F.3d 73

Adamson, age 55 at hire (Sept 2007), became Walgreens assistant manager in Florida, then transferred to Massachusetts (Chicopee, Worcester, then Ware) under supervisor Benoit.
On Oct 21, 2010, a customer attempted a return; Adamson, in the back delivering, did not immediately respond; customer later complained.
Benoit consulted Serafin; Adamson received a Final Written Warning for Poor Customer Service/refused customer return.
On Feb 5, 2011, Adamson opened Ware store alone; two minutes in back office, he called colleagues for missing employee’s number; a customer complaint about unattended register followed.
Walgreens terminated Adamson on Feb 10, 2011 for Poor Customer Service; an older employee was later hired into his role; Adamson sued in federal court alleging ADEA and MA Chapter 151B discrimination; district court granted Walgreens summary judgment, which this court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walgreens’ reason is pretext for age bias.	Adamson argues pretext shown by credibility issues and policy deviations.	Walgreens contends reason (two customer service incidents) is legitimate and non-discriminatory.	No genuine issue; reasons credible and not pretextual.
Whether Adamson established a prima facie case and shifting burdens favorable to him.	Adamson meets age, adverse action, and continued need; challenges pretext.	Walgreens had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons; burden shifts resolved.	Prima facie shown; burden shifted appropriately and upheld by record.
Whether alleged disparate treatment of younger employees shows pretext.	Younger managers allegedly received more favorable treatment after similar misconduct.	Comparators not similarly situated; second incident distinguishes Adamson; no pretext.	No valid disparate-treatment showing; evidence insufficient to prove pretext.
Whether Walgreens violated its own policies to facilitate termination.	Policies violated or not uniformly enforced.	No clear policy violation established; business judgment governs.	No policy violation shown that would create triable issue.

Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (but-for standard for ADEA claims)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework)
Mesnick v. Gen. Electric Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) (focus on decisionmaker’s perception of credibility)
Acevedo-Parrilla v. Novartis Ex-Lax, Inc., 696 F.3d 128 (1st Cir. 2012) (pretext may be shown by weak or inconsistent reasons)
Gómez-González v. Rural Opportunities, Inc., 626 F.3d 654 (1st Cir. 2010) (pretext where reasons are implausible or unworthy of credence)
Vélez v. Thermo King de P.R., Inc., 585 F.3d 441 (1st Cir. 2009) (disparate treatment evidence must show similarly situated)
Domínguez-Cruz v. Suttle Caribe, Inc., 202 F.3d 424 (1st Cir. 2000) (summary judgment when no genuine issue as to discrimination)
Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2000) (caution in granting summary judgment on motive)
Rivera-Aponte v. Restaurant Metropol #3, Inc., 338 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003) (explanation that non-discriminatory termination decisions need not be perfect)
Gray v. New Eng. Tel. & Tel. Co., 792 F.2d 251 (1st Cir. 1986) (relevance of evaluating decisionmaker’s credibility)