skip to content »

Cvs employee dating policy

cvs employee dating policy-74

Plaintiff also told Molett and Elliott that she had taken the three-month leave of absence due to severe anxiety and depression, requesting that they reassign her to the CVS in St. None of the requested stores had openings available.

cvs employee dating policy-74cvs employee dating policy-70cvs employee dating policy-36

Defendants' problems with plaintiff at Store Number 563 were similar to the previous problems dating back to 2012 at Store Number 4395. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R, ECF No. For the reasons set forth above, the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's R&R, ECF No. NORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the court on United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker's report and recommendation ("R&R"), ECF No. §§ 12101-12213, ("ADA"), which allegedly occurred during her employment and subsequent termination by defendants. In the amended complaint, plaintiff asserts three causes of action; however, because the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of the first and third causes of action for a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, ECF No. In short and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, plaintiff began employment with defendants in 1999 as a pharmacist at Store Number 4395 located at 10599 Dorchester Road in Summerville, South Carolina. 99, that the court grant defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CVS Caremark, and CVS Rx Services, Inc.'s (collectively "CVS") motion for summary judgment, ECF No. For the reasons set forth below, the court adopts the R&R and grants CVS's motion for summary judgment. Wigger brings this employment discrimination action against defendants for a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U. Plaintiff seeks damages "for back pay, front pay, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and punitive damages." Am. In 2010, plaintiff became the pharmacist-in-charge ("PIC") at the same store. In 2011, plaintiff completed a mid-year self-assessment in which she determined that she needed improvement in several employment duties, such as achieving pharmacy business metrics, managing inventory, and more broadly, delivering results. Plaintiff's supervisor at the time, Jeffrey Holcombe, reviewed the evaluation with her and likewise determined she needed improvement in several broad categories, such as leading and developing her team, maintaining business and service foundations, managing workflow and quality assurance, and focusing on customers and the market. Subsequently, plaintiff was written up once per month for deficient performance in September, October, and November 2012.

With respect to the November 2012 write-up, Molett told plaintiff that this was her final job warning.

As the R&R correctly points out, plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint that Dr. Fermo unequivocally testified that he did not diagnose her with PTSD because she did not meet the criteria for such diagnosis. Upon her return, plaintiff was offered a choice between her prior position at Store Number 4395 and a position as staff pharmacist at Store Number 563, located at 1515 Old Trolley Road, Summerville, South Carolina, with the same pay.

Thus, there is no evidence in the record to support plaintiff's alleged diagnosis of PTSD. Molett told plaintiff she had the right to resume her previous position at Store Number 4395 if plaintiff so desired but that Molett wanted to keep the new PIC who took over during plaintiff's leave in that position, and plaintiff agreed "that was fine" because she did not need any additional stress.

Elliott instructed her to put her request The R&R observes that this note was obtained in discovery by plaintiff from CVS, marked confidential by one of the parties, and filed as a court-only exhibit not accessible by the public. The R&R recommends that the note be publicly filed as part of ECF No. CVS had a policy in effect addressing requests for accommodation, which applied to employees requesting transfer due to anxiety.

The policy provided that when a request for a reasonable accommodation is made to a supervisor, the supervisor completes a reasonable accommodation form in order to assess the employee's situation. complained to defendants that she was offended and embarrassed by plaintiff's condescending attitude.

The transaction, one of the largest of the year, reflects the increasingly blurred lines between the traditionally separate spheres of a rapidly changing industry.