Wigger v. CVS Pharmacy
2:15-cv-01122
D.S.C.Sep 27, 2017Background
- Delores Wigger, a pharmacist employed by CVS since 1999 and PIC in 2010, took medical leave for depression/anxiety in late 2012 and was released to return to work in March 2013.
- Upon return CVS offered her either her prior PIC position or a staff-pharmacist role at another store; she chose the staff role and later complained about stress and requested transfers to several stores (no vacancies existed).
- CVS documented performance problems beginning in 2011–2012, issued monthly write-ups in late 2012, and placed Wigger on a three-month Individual Development Plan (IDP) from May–August 2013 for failure to meet goals.
- Multiple customer and coworker complaints about Wigger’s attitude and service were received while she worked at the new store.
- After failing to meet IDP goals, CVS terminated Wigger on August 26, 2013. She sued under the ADA for wrongful termination and failure to accommodate; the magistrate judge recommended summary judgment for CVS, and the district court adopted the R&R.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wigger established a prima facie ADA wrongful-termination claim (qualified, meeting expectations, inference of discrimination) | Wigger said she was a qualified individual and disputed that she was failing performance expectations at termination; alleged discriminatory motive by supervisor | CVS pointed to documented performance deficiencies, write-ups, IDP, and customer complaints as legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for termination | Court: Wigger failed to show she met employer's legitimate expectations at time of discharge and failed to raise a reasonable inference of discrimination; summary judgment for CVS granted |
| Whether Wigger established failure-to-accommodate (could perform essential functions with accommodation) | Wigger requested transfer to less stressful stores and argued CVS failed to process/deny her accommodation request | CVS showed no vacancies at requested stores and that accommodating would require bumping other employees; CVS’s accommodation policy requires HR processing | Court: Reassignment to filled positions is not a required reasonable accommodation; Wigger failed to show she could perform essential functions with a reasonable accommodation; claim fails |
| Whether CVS’s proffered reasons for termination were pretextual | Wigger contested supervisors’ credibility and pointed to earlier satisfactory performance evidence | CVS relied on contemporaneous written documentation (write-ups, IDP, customer complaints) to support nondiscriminatory reason | Court: Plaintiff did not present evidence showing CVS’s reasons were pretext; nondiscriminatory reasons stand |
| Whether procedural issues (R&R objections) required de novo review and changed outcome | Wigger objected to portions of the R&R on the three ADA elements | CVS responded; court reviewed objections de novo where required and for clear error otherwise | Court: After de novo review, adopted R&R and granted summary judgment to CVS |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Reynolds v. Am. Nat'l Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143 (elements of ADA wrongful-termination prima facie case)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (plaintiff must prove employer’s reasons were pretext for discrimination)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: reasonable factfinder requirement)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (magistrate judge R&R standard)