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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more