Cosby v. Correct Care Solutions, LLC
K15C-06-019 JJC
| Del. Super. Ct. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- Paula Cosby, an African American administrative assistant, was hired by Correct Care Solutions and was an at-will employee with a 90-day probationary period; she was terminated one day before the period ended.
- Cosby alleges inadequate training and rude supervision from coworker/trainer Tina Roy‑Stevenson, which she says caused job performance errors.
- Employer evidence documents multiple performance problems: incorrect supply orders (including diabetic needles and sharps containers), failure to maintain/organize supply closet, incomplete inmate grievance logs, and repeated failures to comply with a four‑hour call‑out policy.
- Cosby missed work Sept. 3–5, 2013 for a urological condition; she acknowledges emailing supervisors but also admits not complying with the four‑hour notice rule.
- Cosby sued for (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (claiming fictitious grounds/manufactured reasons) and (2) race discrimination under the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act (DDEA). Correct Care moved for summary judgment.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Correct Care, finding no evidence that the employer manufactured reasons for termination or that race was connected to the firing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (manufactured/fictitious grounds) | Cosby: Roy‑Stevenson failed to train and misrepresented Cosby’s performance; employer relied on those representations to create false grounds for termination. | Correct Care: Termination based on actual performance failures (ordering, supply maintenance, grievance logs, call‑out violations); Cosby admitted many mistakes. | Court: GRANTED Dismissal — no evidence employer manufactured reasons; plaintiff admitted most alleged misconduct, and dislike/poor training do not show fraud or falsification. |
| Race discrimination under DDEA (McDonnell Douglas framework) | Cosby: Was treated less favorably (examples of differential treatment) and termination was product of race bias. | Correct Care: Provided legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination; no nexus between race and firing decision. | Court: GRANTED Dismissal — Cosby failed to show nexus between race and termination and offered no significantly probative evidence that employer’s reasons were pretextual. |
Key Cases Cited
- Merrill v. Crothall‑American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96 (Del. 1992) (recognizes implied covenant in employment contracts)
- E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman, 679 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996) (limits actionable breach of implied covenant; ill will alone insufficient)
- Lord v. Souder, 748 A.2d 393 (Del. 2000) (enumerates narrow categories for covenant claims)
- Rizzitiello v. McDonald’s Corp., 868 A.2d 825 (Del. 2005) (discusses falsification/manufacture of grounds for termination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (requires specific, significantly probative evidence to show pretext)
- Boggerty v. Stewart, 14 A.3d 542 (Del. 2011) (discusses evidence required to show pretext under Delaware law)