CVS Attempts to Avoid Racial Profiling Class Action Lawsuit

CVS has moved for summary judgment in hopes of evading further litigation of a racial discrimination class action lawsuit.

The nationwide pharmacy chain is now bringing dual motions for summary judgment, one against each of the two named plaintiffs who claim CVS directed its anti-shoplifting staff to target Black and Hispanic persons.

CVS claims the plaintiffs’ allegations are “legally irrelevant” and that they fail to show the company forced plaintiffs to work in a hostile work environment.

Plaintiff Sheree Steele originally filed this CVS class action lawsuit along with three other CVS employees in June 2015. She claims CVS regional loss prevention managers, who train and supervise staff to guard stores against shoplifting, expressly direct their staff to target Black and Hispanic customers.

Steele also alleges CVS retaliated against her for complaining about the situation by refusing to allow her to return to work after she took leave in July 2013.

After the other original plaintiffs withdrew their claims in August 2015, Steele has since been joined by plaintiff Mominna Ansoralli.

The two plaintiffs say CVS specifically directs its market investigators to target Black and Hispanic shoppers as shoplifting suspects. They allege the company’s store managers and loss prevention managers “regularly direct extremely offensive and highly racist comments” toward her and other CVS market investigators.

They also argue the company’s policy and management’s allegedly racist comments create a hostile work environment for the two of them and for other potential Class Members.

In its motion for summary judgment, CVS argues that Steele’s allegations frittered away in her deposition. According to the company, management directed Steele’s attention to particular shoppers because of those shoppers’ suspicious behavior, never because of their race.

As for Ansoralli’s claims, CVS argues the racist comments and orders she alleges were apparently not targeted at her own race.

“While Ansoralli alleged comments about blacks and Hispanics, she testified that she does not identify as Hispanic, and there is no evidence that she identifies as black,” CVS points out.

CVS further argues that both plaintiffs’ claims for hostile work environment hold no water because neither plaintiff availed herself of the company’s internal complaint process before filing suit. The company says it’s therefore entitled to an affirmative defense under existing case law.

The plaintiffs are proposing to represent a Class consisting of all CVS market investigators, store detectives, and other employees with similar jobs who either have worked in New York City or who have worked under the same Regional Loss Prevention Managers as the New York City market investigators.

They seek a declaratory judgment stating that the alleged actions by CVS violate federal and state laws, as well as a court order requiring CVS to cease the actions complained of and to take steps to mitigate their effects. They also seek an award of damages, court costs, attorneys’ fees, and interest on all amounts due.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Douglas H. Wigdor, David E. Gottlieb, Michael J. Willemin and Kenneth Sommer of Wigdor LLP

The CVS Market Investigator Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit is Sheree Steele, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04261, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.