Cvs employee dating policy
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.
must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial"). With respect to the first element, the magistrate judge found that there is evidence in the record sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability because of her asserted anxiety, depression, and stress. Neither party has articulated an objection to the same, and the court finds no clear error in this finding. probative evidence that [she] was, in fact, performing at a level that met [her] employer's legitimate expectations." at 385 (citation omitted). Upon such a showing, the burden shifts back to plaintiff to then prove that defendants' proffered reasons "were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." , 2013 WL 5468237, at *9 (citation omitted).
Either way, human resources resolves the request by reviewing and responding to it. On May 13, 2013, Molett and Elliott placed plaintiff on an "Individual Development Plan" ("IDP"), which provided seven areas where they would monitor plaintiff's improvement and provide corrective action.
In June 2012, Darlene Molett ("Molett") replaced Jeffrey Holcombe as plaintiff's supervisor.