Tony Mumfrey v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
719 F.3d 392
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Mumfrey worked as a CVS pharmacist from 2004 until termination in February 2009; multiple October–December 2008 warnings for policy and professionalism issues preceded dismissal.
- A December 16, 2008 mis-fill was not reported; Mumfrey then took leave (Dec 17, 2008–Jan 26, 2009) and returned under new supervision, receiving a final warning on behavior.
- February 2009 complaints by Mumfrey about retaliation for requesting accommodations culminated in CVS terminating him after an investigation of a Category II prescription incident.
- Mumfrey filed a state-court suit in October 2009 alleging retaliation and other claims; CVS removed to federal court asserting inappropriate joinder of Texas defendants and complete diversity.
- The district court held removal timely and improper-joinder sufficient; after a bench trial, the court found no retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence, and Mumfrey appealed the denial of remand and the legal rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal | Original petition facially suggested damages met the amount in controversy. | Removal timely triggered by amended pleading showing $3,575,000 in damages; Chapman rule controls. | Timeliness determined by Chapman rule; removal timely after amended petition. |
| Improper joinder of in-state defendants | Non-diverse defendants were improperly joined; complete diversity lacking only temporarily. | Plaintiff cannot establish any possibility of recovery against in-state defendants; joinder improper. | Improper joinder established; complete diversity existed; district court had jurisdiction. |
| Standard for proving retaliation (pretext) at trial | CVS’s reason for termination was pretext for retaliation after EEOC complaint. | Termination for failure to verify a prescription, not pretextual retaliation; record supports non-retaliatory reason. | No pretext; termination justified by the verified facts and district court's findings. |
| Disparate treatment and temporal proximity | Other employees’ treatment shows pretext; timing of termination post-complaint indicates retaliation. | Differences in roles and disciplinary histories mean not 'nearly identical'; proximity alone insufficient. | No sufficient disparate-treatment or proximity-based pretext proof to establish retaliation. |
| Appropriate legal standard for improper joinder and review level | Smallwood framework correctly applied to pierce pleadings. | District court properly applied Smallwood and Exxon standards; burden on defendant met. | Properly applied framework; defendant carried burden showing no recovery against in-state defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc., 969 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1992) (bright-line rule: removal clock runs from facially removable damages in the initial pleading)
- Bosky v. Kroger Tex., LP, 288 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 2002) (reiterates Chapman; clarifies timing and notices for removal)
- Marcel v. Pool Co., 5 F.3d 81 (5th Cir. 1993) (discusses removal context; not controlling for triggering the clock in the same way as Chapman)
- De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404 (5th Cir. 1995) (addressed damages pleading strategies in remand/removal context)
- In re Exxon Mobil Corp., 558 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2009) (en banc discussion of improper joinder and state-law liability standards)
- Smallwood v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (establishes procedure for determining improper joinder; burden on defendant when piercing pleadings)
- McKee v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 358 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 2004) (statutory standard and joinder considerations in removal cases)