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