Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Rite Aid Corp.

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Northern Division

January 27, 2014

JERALINE TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
RITE AID CORPORATION, et al., Defendants

Decided January 24, 2014.

Page 552

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 553

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 554

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 555

For Jeraline Taylor, Plaintiff: Charles Grant Byrd, Jr, Alston and Byrd, Baltimore, MD.

For Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc., Defendants: James A Rothschild, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rachel Lynn Stewart, Anderson Coe and King LLP, Baltimore, MD.

OPINION

Page 556

MEMORANDUM OPINION

William D. Quarles, Jr., United States District Judge.

Jeraline Taylor sued Rite Aid Corporation (the " Corporation" ) and Rite Aid of Maryland, Inc. (" Rite Aid" ), (together the " defendants" ), for employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (" Title VII" ),[1] the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (" ADA" ),[2] and the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (" FMLA" ).[3] ECF No. 1. Pending is the defendants' motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 15. No hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). For the following reasons, the defendants' motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background [4]

In 1998, Rite Aid hired Taylor, an African-American female over the age of 40, as an Order Fulfillment Associate. See ECF Nos. 15-1 at 3, 15-2 at 2-3, 18-10 at 12. For the duration of her employment with Rite Aid, Taylor worked at the Rite Aid Distribution Center in Perryman, Maryland. ECF No. 15-3. In 1999, she was promoted to assistant manager, and in 2003, she was assigned to the Replenishment Department. See id. " The Replenishment Department is responsible for [e]nsuring that product has been moved from storage to the proper location to be picked by pickers to fulfill store orders." Id.

Taylor has lupus,[5] a condition that causes symptoms of " tiredness." See ECF

Page 557

No. 18-2 at 11-12. Her condition did not force her to take extended absences from work, but some days she was too tired to come to work or would need to leave for several hours to go to doctor's appointments. See id. In 2000 or 2001, she was approved for intermittent FMLA leave by Rite Aid to accommodate her symptoms and need to visit the doctor. See id.

As an assistant manager, Taylor was responsible for supervising drivers and stockers (together " associates" ), and leads (other supervisors), at the distribution center.[6] ECF No. 15-2 at 3, 6-7, 14. The associates had productivity goals which were tracked by a computer and reported on weekly. Id. at 6-7. One of Taylor's responsibilities was to monitor the associates' performance, and talk to them if they were not meeting their productivity goals. Id. at 7. This was referred to as a " counseling." Id. Taylor was required to complete counselings within a certain time--generally two weeks--from receiving the relevant data and record their completion on the computer. See id. at 9, 23.

From 2003 until April 2007, Karen Brown supervised Taylor. See ECF Nos. 15-5 at 5, 18 at 3. Brown conducted several formal performance reviews of Taylor. See, e.g., ECF No. 15-2 at 74. The reviews generally rated employee performance from " Unsatisfactory" to " Outstanding" in 15 performance areas. Id. at 27. In Taylor's April 2005 review, for example, Brown rated Taylor as " Very Good" in several performance areas, as " Meets Expectations" in several other performance areas, and as " Needs Improvement" in two areas. Id. at 74-77. Taylor received an overall rating of " Meets Expectations," which meant that Taylor's performance was considered " standard" and her results " as expected." [7] Id. at 77. In an addendum to the review, Brown set four concrete objectives for Taylor following the review, including: " Improve organizational skills" and " Start holding leads accountable for responsibilities[; ] Issue counselings when needed." Id. at 78. Taylor's April 2006 review closely resembled her previous year's review, except she was only marked as " Needs Improvement" in one performance area. See id. at 79-82. She again received an overall rating of " Meets Expectations." Id. at 82.

On June 30, 2006, Taylor received a " corrective action" which took the form of a written counseling. Id. at 83. The incident was described as follows: " Jerri has had work performance that . . . does not meet the requirements for the position. She has failed to carry out her responsibility of conducting productivity counseling by the due dates given." Id. It noted that Taylor had not met her deadlines for March, April, and May.[8] Id.

In August, September, and October of 2006, Taylor received summaries of her performance generated from computer data tracked by the company's " Performance Assessment Tool" (" PAT" ). ECF No. 15-2 at 84-92. She received favorable assessments in a few areas, but in several

Page 558

others, including " Productivity" and " Attendance" counseling of associates, she received marks of " Unsatisfactory," because she failed to counsel many of her associates " within two weeks of data availability." Id. at 84. On October 18, 2006, she received another corrective action because of her unsatisfactory results on the PAT assessments. Id. at 93. The corrective action noted that " [f]ailure to consistently adhere to the timely issuance of reviews as well as coaching, counseling and exception administration . . . fosters an atmosphere of associate dissatisfaction . . . . Continuation of this negligence will result in progressive disciplinary action and/or termination." Id. Following this corrective action, Taylor continued to receive poor PAT assessments.[9] Id. at 94-99.

On December 20, 2006, the day after Taylor took a day of FMLA leave, Jen Lazor, a Human Resources (" HR" ) Manager, and Brown met with Taylor to discuss their concerns about her performance. ECF Nos. 18-2 at 18, 20, 18-7 at 2-3. They discussed her difficulties in timely administering counselings to her associates and suggested that these difficulties may have been caused by her lupus and FMLA status. See ECF No. 18-2 at 30-31. They also felt that the stress of her job may be exacerbating her symptoms. See id. at 22, 30-31. They offered to find her another, less demanding, job. See id. at 22, 30-31. Taylor refused their offer. Id. at 22.

In April 2007, Brown conducted another performance review of Taylor. ECF No. 15-2 at 100-03. In the written portion of the review, Brown wrote " Below Expectations[:] Jerri did not succeed with the tracking and counseling of the associates['] attendance and productivity . . . for majority of the year. . . . . She needs to improve [time] management and multi-tasking skills. Jerri did show improvement toward the latter part of the year." Id. at 100. Taylor received ratings of " Needs Improvement" in six performance areas and favorable reviews in the other areas. Id. at 101-03. However, Taylor's overall rating was still " Meets Expectations." Id. at 103.

Beginning in May 2007, Charles Williams replaced Brown as Taylor's supervisor for the remainder of Taylor's employment at Rite Aid. ECF No. 15-5 at 5. Although they got along well at first, Williams soon began to give Taylor instructions through her co-worker, Cipriano Valdez, a male assistant manager, rather than speak to Taylor directly. ECF No. 18-2 at 10. Also, Williams spoke to Taylor at least twice about her tardiness in completing counselings for associates. See ECF No. 15-5 at 9-11.

At some time,[10] Taylor met with Williams to discuss filling an open position for a driver trainer. ECF No. 18-2 at 12-13. Taylor recommended Laurie Lockett, whom she believed was the department's " top driver." Id. ; ECF No. 18-6 at 24. According to Taylor, Williams refused to promote Lockett, because Lockett's FMLA status might affect her availability.[11] ECF No. 18-2 at 13. Instead,

Page 559

Williams told Taylor that he planned to choose another driver to fill the position, who had only worked in the department for six months. See id. According to Taylor, she asked Williams: " You have something against people who have FMLA?" Id. at 14. He replied: " Sometimes it can hinder us if people just take off any time." Id. Taylor then informed Williams that she also had an FMLA, and he responded " You do?" [12] Id. Taylor said " [y]es" and walked out of the room. Id.

On August 10, 2007, Taylor received a final performance review from Brown.[13] ECF No. 18-8. She was marked as " Needs Improvement" in two performance areas, was otherwise rated favorably, and received " Meets Expectations" overall. Id. In the written performance summary, Brown noted that " Jerri has been able to complete the required appraisals and counselings by given deadlines . . . . She has ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.