Skip to main content

Employee Refuses to Perform Essential Job Functions? The Employer *May* Be Able to Avoid Liability For Taking Subsequent Action Against the Employee


Prewitt v. Walgreens - United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania


Facts:  In 2006, Rodney Prewitt ("Prewitt") was hired by Walgreens as a full time pharmacist.  At the time he was hired, Prewitt was 57.  In 2009, Walgreens began offering flu vaccines at Prewitt's store.  However, Prewitt was morally opposed to administering the flu vaccine because of a friend who died after receiving the vaccine.  After he voiced his concerns, Prewitt was permitted to not administer the vaccines.  However, in 2010, Walgreens changed its policy and required all pharmacists become certified to immunize and perform flu immuniations.  Prewitt again voiced his objections but signed up for the required certification course.  Of note, Prewitt was the only pharmacist employed in Pennsylvania who objected to immunizing.

The District Pharmacy Supervisor believed Prewitt's objections were sincere and offered Prewitt different work schedules or a temporary transfer to another store in order to avoid performing immunizations during the flu season.  Prewitt refused.  In the fall of 2010, Prewitt was no longer scheduled to work at his location.  Instead, another licensed immunizing pharmacist, six years younger than Prewitt, began working full time at the store.  Upon learning that he had passed the certification course, Prewitt again refused to return, on the grounds of his moral objections to the vaccine.

Prewitt's attorney then sent Walgreens a letter and requested that Prewitt be reinstated to his former position.  The letter also alleged age discrimination on the grounds that other "younger" Walgreens' pharmacists who had not raised objections to the immunizations were working despite non-compliance with Walgreens' policy.  Walgreen's Senior Attorney responded and made efforts to work with Prewitt on a new schedule.  Prewitt refused and filed an EEOC charge, which ultimately resulted in the present suit.  Walgreens filed a motion for summary judgment against Prewitt's age discrimination and retaliation claims. 

Holding:  The District Court noted upfront that Prewitt did not allege any direct evidence of age discrimination by Walgreens.  With that being said, the Court held that Prewitt had established a prima facie case to meet his initial burden, however Walgreens had a "legitimate nondiscriminatory explanation for the employer's adverse employment action."  Walgreens demoted and later terminated Prewitt because he failed to immunize customers.  Given that immunizations were an essential part of Prewitt's job functions, Walgreens was held to have had a legitimate reason for how it treated Prewitt's employment situation.

As for Prewitt's retaliation claim, the Court again noted that he had established a prima facie case of retaliation related to his termination.  However, as with its analysis of Prewitt's age discrimination claim, the Court held that Walgreens had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory rebuttal to Prewitt's claims as the decision to terminate Prewitt for refusing to immunize was based upon the position's essential job duty required of all pharmacists.

Judgment:  The District Court granted Walgreens' motion for summary judgment against Prewitt's age discrimination and retaliation claims on the grounds that Prewitt failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to his claims. 

The Takeaway:  This was a good ruling from the Court and should give employers that are leery of taking certain employment actions against employees room to breathe.  In this instance, Walgreens established that it had valid, nondiscriminatory reasons for choosing to demote, and ultimately terminate, an employee.  By having the proper documentation lined up to show certain job functions were essential to the job, an employer can take certain employment actions against an employee and shield itself from liability by showing no discriminatory intent.  I think the big thing employers can keep in mind is to ensure they are keeping records of what they are doing to work with employees, before taking certain employment actions that could be construed as discriminatory.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Stengel

Date:  February 19, 2015

Opinion:  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michiganemploymentlawadvisor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F341%2F2015%2F02%2F15-02-19_Prewitt_v_Walgreens_01.pdf&ei=7o_vVPi9JeO1sAT-nYLwDg&usg=AFQjCNGk4nl9D_jdvpn40THPNuIHP-qCyw&sig2=ruQAXgJ_RjtxeJdX8TuyRA&bvm=bv.86956481,d.cWc

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more