813 F. Supp. 2d 897
W.D. Tenn.2011Background
- Evans began working for Walgreens in 2004, relocated to Memphis with incentive payments including a sign-on bonus and relocation bonus.
- Evans contends she did not sign or acknowledge the incentive agreements and disputes their enforceability.
- In Dec 2007 Evans was investigated for a workplace-violence incident involving a coworker; she admitted to profane conduct and other statements during the investigation.
- Walgreens terminated Evans for violating its workplace violence policy; plans to reinstate she refused.
- Evans filed a federal case alleging multiple civil rights and contract claims; Walgreens sought summary judgment on Evans' claims and its breach-of-contract counterclaim.
- The court applied Tennessee, North Carolina, Illinois law to contract issues and Tennessee law to tort claims, and granted Walgreens summary judgment on Evans' claims while denying its counterclaim to Evans and denying Evans' summary on Walgreens' counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination under Title VII | Evans asserts race discrimination under §2000e-2(a)(1). | Walgreens contends termination was for a legitimate policy violation, not race-based. | Evans fails to show pretext; Walgreens entitled to summary judgment on race claim. |
| Sex discrimination under Title VII | Evans asserts sex discrimination under §2000e-2(a)(1). | Walgreens contends termination was based on policy violation, not sex. | Evans lacks evidence of discrimination or pretext; Walgreens entitled to summary judgment. |
| Mixed-motive Title VII claim | Evans asserts race/sex were motivating factors for actions. | Walgreens argues legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons control; no mixed motive evidence. | Insufficient evidence to submit to jury; Walgreens entitled to summary judgment on mixed-motive claim. |
| Hostile work environment | Evans alleges pervasive discriminatory harassment. | Walgreens argues conduct was not severe or pervasive enough. | Record shows no severe/pervasive harassment; Walgreens entitled to summary judgment. |
| Breach of contract counterclaim viability | Walgreens should be liable for breach of contract by Evans failing to repay bonuses if contract existed. | Evans disputes signing/acknowledging contracts; meeting of minds disputed; contract counterclaim requires trial. | Genuine issues of material fact exist about signing mutual assent; counterclaim denied for summary judgment; Evans' motion denied on Walgreens' counterclaim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 2009) (direct vs. circumstantial evidence and mixed-motive framework guidance)
- DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 2004) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2010) (standards for proving discrimination—direct and circumstantial evidence)
- Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2009) (application of McDonnell Douglas framework; pretext analysis)
- White v. Columbus Metro. Hous. Auth., 429 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 2005) (mixed-motive approach and burden-shifting framework in Title VII claims)
- Hunter v. Sec’y of U.S. Army, 565 F.3d 986 (6th Cir. 2009) (retaliation framework under Title VII)
- Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 347 N.C. 329, 493 S.E.2d 420 (N.C. 1997) (employment-at-will doctrine recognized in North Carolina)
- Cummings Inc. v. Dorgan, 320 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (at-will employment presumption in Tennessee)
- Mortensen v. Magneti Marelli U.S.A., Inc., 470 S.E.2d 354 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996) (contractual protection in employment context; just-cause termination)
- Academy Chicago Publishers v. Cheever, 161 Ill.Dec. 335, 578 N.E.2d 984 (Ill. 1991) (meeting of the minds required for contract formation)