Custer v. Dollar Gen. Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:19-cv-750 |
| Parties | DEBBIE L. CUSTER, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
This case arises from Defendant Dolgencorp, LLC's[1] ("Defendant" or "Dollar General") alleged age discrimination against Plaintiff Debbie L. Custer ("Plaintiff" or "Custer") in violation of the Age Discriminnation, in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 P.S. § 951 et seq. Custer also alleges "tortious interference with economic advantage" on the part of Dollar General.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Dollar General's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 32). The Motion is fully briefed (ECF Nos. 33, 39, 45) and ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Dollar General's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff's ADEA claim arises under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's PHRA claim and tortious interference claim because it forms part of the same case or controversy as her ADEA claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.[2]
a. Introduction
Plaintiff Debbie L. Custer was employed by Dollar General from April 1, 2001, until November 15, 2017. (ECF Nos. 34 at ¶ 1; 40 at ¶ 1). Custer is an adult female who was born on January 19, 1964. (Id. at ¶ 2). At the time Custer was discharged from Dollar General, she held the position of District Manager. (Id. at ¶ 3). During the time at issue in this case, Joshua Allison ("Allison") held the position of Regional Director for Dollar General. (Id. at ¶ 8). As a Regional Director, Allison was responsible for over 200 stores, including the stores where Custer was a District Manager. (Id.).
b. Custer's Responsibilities as a District Manager
As a District Manager, Custer was responsible for overseeing Store Managers, conducting store visits and store walks, resolving "store issues" including customer complaints, and reviewing customer refunds of the stores within her district. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6). Custer was also responsible for managing and presenting inventory effectively and protecting company assets through loss prevention and expense efficiency. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12). Custer was required to assist in controlling "shrink" in the stores she managed. (Id. at ¶ 15). "Shrinkage" or "shrink" is a term used within Dollar General and refers to merchandise that does not "go through the register." (Id. at ¶ 15) (citing ECF No. 34-1 at Exhibit A, p. 23:13-21). Shrink includes those items lost to shoplifting and/or theft and is tracked through all inventories in Dollar General. (ECF Nos. 34 at ¶¶ 16-17: 40 at ¶¶ 16-17). District Managers are responsible for generating and overseeing shrink reduction plans within their stores. (Id. at ¶ 18).
Dollar General stores also maintain "markdown carts" which are used for general merchandise and non-perishable merchandise that is damaged and/or moving toward an expiration date. (Id. at ¶ 19). Custer was responsible for ensuring that the correct products were placed in the markdown carts within her stores and that the carts were not excessively used. (Id. at ¶ 20). As the District Manager, Custer was responsible for ensuring that each of her stores' practices with respect to markdown carts were consistent with Dollar General's policies. (Id. at ¶ 24).
Additionally, Dollar General utilizes what it terms "Exception Based Reports" ("EBR") to track various integrity concerns within Dollar General stores, including false refunds and improper time tracking. (Id. at ¶ 25). When a District Manger receives an EBR regarding a store within the District Manager's district, the District Manager has a responsibility to investigate the issues contained in the EBR. (Id. at ¶ 26). Following an investigation, the District Manager is responsible for reporting the results of his or her investigation into the Exception Base Reporting System ("EBR System"). (Id. at ¶ 27).
c. Custer's Disciplinary History with Dollar General
In or around September 2015, Custer was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan ("PIP") by her then-Regional Director, James Manegold ("Manegold"), to help Custer improve store conditions, store sales, and SAS scores. (Id. at ¶¶ 28-30). SAS scores include the issue of shrink within a given store. (Id. at ¶ 31). Custer maintains that she graduated from her September 2015 PIP with "flying colors." (ECF No. 40 at New Matter ¶ 3). In or around January 2017, when Allison was Custer's Regional Director, an additional coaching document was prepared for Custer. (ECF Nos. 34 at ¶¶ 32-33; 40 at ¶¶ 32-33). Custer was only issued two performance-related plans throughout her time at Dollar General. (ECF No. 40 at New Matter ¶ 2). Custer argues that Allison "did not have a view of [her] performance" at the time he instituted a second performance-related plan in January 2017 because Allison had just become Custer's superior that same month. (Id. at ¶ 5).
d. Allison's Review of Custer's EBRs, Dollar General's Internal Investigation and Custer's Termination
At some point in 2017, Allison reviewed Dollar General's EBRs regarding Custer's actions with respect to Store 4403. (ECF Nos. 34 at ¶ 34; 40 at ¶ 34). In his review, Allison noted that (1) certain of Custer's EBRs were incomplete, (2) there was "not a lot of information in [the EBRs submitted by Custer]," and (3) in some cases, the results of Custer's investigation of shrink issues within her store consisted of only three words. (Id. at ¶¶ 34-35). At the time the EBRs were submitted, Store 4403 had been put on Dollar General's "risk list" due in part to the increased shrinkage occurring at the store. (Id. at ¶ 37). Following an investigation into the problems of Store 4403 conducted by Dollar General, it was also determined that inappropriate items, including excess merchandise, had been placed in Store 4403's markdown cart. (Id. at ¶ 38). The investigation also revealed that there were deliberate conversations between Custer, the Store Manager and the store's team in which employees were told to place inappropriate items in the markdown cart resulting in Dollar General losing money. (Id. at ¶ 39). Allison maintains that his decision to terminate Custer was based on her misuse of the markdown cart at Store 4403, her incomplete or "falsified" EBR documentation with respect to shrinkage, and the fact that Custer's representations to Dollar General about the markdown cart and shrink issues at Store 4403 were inconsistent with the findings of an internal investigation. (Id. at ¶¶ 41-44).
e. Custer's Allegations of Age Discrimination
Custer maintains that she was wrongfully terminated on the basis of her age. (Id. at ¶ 46). In her deposition, Custer stated that it was her belief that she was terminated on the basis of her age because she was replaced by a younger woman named Carrie Snowberger ("Snowberger"). (Id. at ¶ 47). Snowberger was bom in 1973 and is approximately nine years younger than Custer. (ECF No. 34-2 at Exhibit B). Custer also stated in her deposition that nothing, other than the fact that she was replaced by the younger Snowberger, led her to believe that she was terminated because of her age. (ECF Nos. 34 at ¶¶ 48-55; 40 at ¶¶ 48-55).
To be sure, Custer also testified in her deposition that she observed Allison getting along better with other District Mangers, including Snowberger. (ECF No. 40 at New Matter ¶ 9). Custer also stated that Allison would ask Snowberger to sit next to him at meetings, Allison would never ride with Custer to do store visits, and Allison would frequently not accept Custer's emails. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-11, 13-14). Custer also stated in her deposition that Snowberger was assigned to higher-quality stores while Custer was assigned to stores with more issues, including not having enough staff. (Id. at ¶16).
f. Custer's Claims of Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage
Following her departure from Dollar General, in September 2018, Custer was hired by News America Marketing ("NAM"). (ECF Nos. 34 at ¶ 56; 40 at ¶ 56). As part of her new position with NAM, Custer was required to work within certain Dollar General Stores to stock products, fill coupon holders and put advertising stickers on the floor. (Id. at ¶¶ 57-58).
On or about November 3, 2018, Dollar General was informed that certain Store Managers were concerned that Custer would be working within their stores. (Id. at ¶ 60). Following Dollar General learning of these concerns from its Store Managers, Dollar General's Human Resources representative informed Custer that she was not permitted inside the Dollar General stores where she was previously a District Manager. (Id. at ¶ 61). NAM was also informed that Custer was asked not to work within certain Dollar General stores. (Id. at ¶ 62). NAM then terminated Custer. (Id. at ¶ 63).
On June 25, 2019, Custer filed her Complaint bringing the following three claims against Dollar General: Discrimination in Violation of the ADEA (Count I), Discrimination in Violation of the PHRA (Count II), and "Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage." (Count III). (ECF No. 1).
Dollar General moved for summary judgment on September 30, 2020. (ECF No. 32). Custer responded in opposition on November 30 2020 (ECF No. 39), and Dollar General replied on December 15, 2020...
To continue reading
Request your trial