Evans v. Walgreen Co.

Decision Date25 August 2011
Docket NumberNo. 09–2491.,09–2491.
Citation813 F.Supp.2d 897
PartiesChandra EVANS, Plaintiff, v. WALGREEN COMPANY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Darrell J. O'Neal, Law Office of Darrell J. O'Neal, Memphis, TN, Aubrey Pittman, Kristin Kay Schroeder, The Pittman Law Firm, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

J. Gregory Grisham, Frank L. Day, Leitner Williams Dooley & Napolitan, Memphis, TN, for Defendant.

ORDER

SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR., District Judge.

Before the Court are the October 15, 2010 Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Walgreen Company (Walgreens) seeking summary judgment on its counterclaim for breach of contract and on Plaintiff Chandra Evans' (Evans) claims arising from Walgreens' termination of her employment. 1 ( See Counter/Plaintiff's Mot. for Summ. J. as to Countercl. for Breach of Contract, ECF No. 44; Def. Walgreen Co.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 45.) On November 14, 2010, Evans responded in opposition. ( See Pl.'s Resp. and Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 62 (“Pl.'s Resp.”); Pl.'s Resp. and Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. on Breach of Contract Countercl., ECF No. 63.) Walgreens replied on December 2, 2010. (Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 70.)

Also before the Court is Evans' Motion for Summary Judgment on Walgreens' breach of contract counterclaim filed on October 15, 2010. ( See Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. Against Def. Walgreens Company, ECF No. 46.) (“Pl.'s Mot. and Statement of Facts”) Walgreens responded in opposition on November 13, 2010. (Def.'s, Counter/Plaintiff's Mem. in Opp'n to Pl., Counter/Defendant's Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 61.) Evans replied on November 22, 2010. (Pl.'s Reply to Def.'s/Counterplaintiff's Resp. and Mem. in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. on Pl.'s Breach of Contract Claim, ECF No. 64.)

For the following reasons, Walgreens' Motion for Summary Judgment on Evans' claims is GRANTED. Walgreens' Motion for Summary Judgment on its counterclaim for breach of contract is DENIED. Evans' Motion for Summary Judgment on Walgreens' breach of contract claim is DENIED.

I. Background 2

In July 2004, Evans began working for Walgreens while she was a pharmacy student in North Carolina. ( See Def.'s Concise Statement of Undisputed Facts in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ 8, ECF No. 45–2 (“Walgreens' Statement of Facts”); Pl.'s Resp. and Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ 8, ECF No. 62–6 (“Evans' Resp. to Walgreens' Statement of Facts”).) While still in pharmacy school, Walgreens offered Evans the opportunity to relocate to Memphis, Tennessee, to work in Walgreens' East Memphis District as a pharmacy intern and as a licensed pharmacist once she had graduated and passed the Tennessee licensing examination. ( See Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶ 10; Evans' Resp. to Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶ 10.)

According to Walgreens, Evans accepted the offer and was paid $1,500.00 as a relocation incentive payment and $20,000.00 as a sign-on-bonus incentive payment. ( See Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶¶ 11–12.) As a condition of accepting those payments, Walgreens allegedly required Evans to agree to repay the money if she did not work for Walgreens as a licensed pharmacist in the East Memphis District for three years. ( See id. ¶¶ 11, 53, 57–58, 61–63.) Walgreens has attached a copy of the contracts in which Evans allegedly made those promises and electronically checked a box next to the statement “I understand the above terms of the WALGREEN CO. Pharmacy Incentive Program, and agree to abide by such terms.” ( See Pharmacy Relocation Incentive Payment, ECF No. 45–6; Pharmacy Sign–on–Bonus Incentive Payment, ECF No. 45–6.)

According to Evans, she did not place a check mark in the box on the contracts stating that she understood and agreed to abide by their terms. ( See Evans' Resp. to Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶¶ 11–12, 57–58, 61–63.) She has attached an affidavit in which she states [t]he first time I saw the alleged written bonus document was during the course of this litigation. I did not sign or acknowledge this agreement.” (Aff. of Chandra Evans ¶ 4, ECF No. 62–1.)

Evans moved to Memphis before her graduation from pharmacy school and worked as an intern at Walgreens until she graduated and passed the Tennessee licensing examination. ( See Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶ 14; Evans' Resp. to Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶ 14.) After passing the examination, Evans began working as a staff pharmacist in the East Memphis District in January 2007. ( See Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶ 15; Evans' Resp. to Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶ 15.) Staff pharmacists at Walgreens are responsible for managing the pharmacy's operations when they are scheduled to work and the pharmacy manager is not on duty.3 ( See Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶ 6.) In those situations, staff pharmacists have supervisory authority over pharmacy technicians and cashiers working in the pharmacy.4 ( See id. ¶ 7.) In August 2007, Evans was transferred to a Walgreens store in Cordova. ( See id. ¶ 17; Evans' Resp. to Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶ 17.)

On December 13, 2007, Walgreens Loss Prevention Supervisor Steve Walker (“Walker”) received notice from Store Manager Bryan Lindfield (“Lindfield”) of a potential workplace violence incident between Evans and Photo Technician Rafael Renfroe (Renfroe). ( See Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶¶ 18, 76.) The incident had occurred on December 11, 2007. ( See id. ¶ 28.) Walker began an investigation. ( See id. ¶ 19.) He interviewed Assistant Store Manager Kathi Holland (“Holland”) and Pharmacy Technician Tracie Davis (“Davis”), who had witnessed the incident and who voluntarily provided a written statement. ( See id. ¶¶ 20, 22.)

Holland reported to Walker that Renfroe had entered the office at the Walgreens store with Evans' cell phone and that Davis had entered to count money from the cash register.5 ( See id. ¶ 21.) Evans called the office and asked to speak to Renfroe, and Renfroe left the office, leaving Evans' cell phone on the counter. ( See id.) Davis called Evans and told her that Renfroe had left her cell phone on the counter. ( See id.) After a few minutes, Evans entered the office looking for Renfroe, and Holland told her that he had left the office. ( See id.) Evans paged Renfroe, but he did not answer. ( See id.) Evans left the office, and Holland heard her yelling at Renfroe a few minutes later to come into the office. ( See id.) Evans and Renfroe entered the office, and Evans began to yell at Renfroe very loudly. ( See id.) Evans was approximately one foot away from Renfroe, shaking her finger in his face, when she began screaming as loudly as she could, “do not ever touch my personal belongings again.” ( Id.) Evans then told Renfroe, “If you ever take anything of mine again, I will slap the piss out of you” and that “you['re] lucky you did not take my car keys or you would be in the ground.” ( Id.) Renfroe attempted to apologize, but Evans told him to “shut up.” ( Id.) Davis gave Walker substantially identical information.6 ( See id. ¶ 23.)

Walker informed Jacob Tibbe (“Tibbe”), Evans' Pharmacy Supervisor, about his investigation of the incident and the information he had gathered. ( See Walgreens' Statement of Facts ¶ 24.) On December 14, 2007, Walker and Tibbe attempted to interview Evans about the incident, but Evans refused. ( See id. ¶ 25.) In response, Tibbe suspended Evans because she refused to cooperate, contrary to Walgreens' policy requiring cooperation with investigations conducted by the loss prevention department, and based on the information obtained in the investigation.7 ( See id. ¶¶ 25–26.)

The same day, Walker interviewed Renfroe about the incident, and Renfroe voluntarily provided a written statement. ( See id. ¶ 27.) Renfroe reported that he took Evans' phone without her permission as a joke and that Evans yelled at him in the office, saying that she was going to slap the piss out of him” and “that if he had taken her car keys he would be in the ground.” 8 ( See id. ¶ 28.)

While investigating the incident between Evans and Renfroe, Walker learned that Davis had used the term “wigger” in the presence of Evans and Dondre Halley (Halley).9 ( See id. ¶ 29.) In response, Walker began investigating Davis' use of the term. ( See id. ¶¶ 29–30.) He interviewed Davis, Assistant Store Manager Lora Holbrooks (“Holbrooks”), Halley, and Evans about Davis' use of the term. ( See id. ¶¶ 30–31, 33.)

Halley reported that, on December 11, 2007, Davis described a blind date she had taken and remarked that the male on her date had a lot of tattoos and was a “Wigger.” 10 ( See id. ¶ 34.) Evans asked what a “Wigger” was and Halley told her it was a term used by the rapper Eminem. ( Id.) Evans remarked, “You mean white nigger?” and Halley and Davis said yes. ( Id.) Halley did not hear Davis use the term “nigger” during the conversation. ( Id.)

Davis provided substantially identical information.11 ( See id. ¶ 32.) According to Davis, she was describing a blind date to Evans and Halley and said that her date was not her type because he had a lot of tattoos. ( See id.) She asked Halley, [D]o you remember my ex-boyfriend,” Halley responded, [Y]es,” and Davis said that he is a “Wigger.” ( Id.) Evans said, “What is that?” and Davis responded that Eminem is a “Wigger.” ( Id.) Evans asked, “You mean a white nigger,” and Davis responded that she did not like the word, but the answer was [Y]es.” ( Id.) Davis apologized to Evans and Halley, both of whom are African–American, and said that they laughed about the comment. ( Id.) After the conversation, customers' prescriptions began to fall on the floor off of a conveyor belt, and Davis reported that, as she and Evans began to pick them up, Evans said, [I]t must have been a Wigger that did it” and they both laughed. ( Id.) Sometime later, when Evans was leaving for lunch, she told Davis that sh...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Jones v. Fed. Express Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • August 11, 2021
    ...may prove a claim of race discrimination under Title VII with either direct or circumstantial evidence. See Evans v. Walgreen Co., 813 F. Supp. 2d 897, 917 (W.D. Tenn. 2011) (citing Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502, 514 (6th Cir. 2009) ). "[T]o compensate for the fact that direct ev......
  • Greer v. Cummins Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • July 1, 2022
    ... ... evidence, the same analysis governs both statutory ... provisions. [ 5 ] See Evans v. Walgreens Co. , 813 ... F.Supp.2d 897, 917 (W.D. Tenn. 2011) (citing Barrett v ... Whirlpool Corp. , 556 F.3d 502, 514 (6th Cir ... ...
  • Nanologix, Inc. v. Novak
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • March 25, 2016
    ...conclusively establish movant's right to a judgment after trial should nonmovant fail to rebut the evidence.").Evans v. Walgreen Co., 813 F. Supp. 2d 897, 916 (W.D. Tenn. 2011) aff'd, 559 F. App'x 508 (6th Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original). Defendant's motion for summary judgment is devoted......
  • Wiggins v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • February 3, 2015
    ...claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. See Leach v. Taylor, 124 S.W.3d 87, 91 (Tenn. 2003); Evans v. Walgreen Co., 813 F.Supp.2d 897, 938 (W.D.Tenn. 2011). Invasion of privacy is subject to a one-year statute of limitations. Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a). Wiggins does not ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT