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.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

October 7, 2014

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant

For U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff: Deborah Lois Hamilton, LEAD ATTORNEY, John C. Hendrickson, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL; Gregory M. Gochanour, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL; Justin Mulaire, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL; Laura R. Feldman, EEOC, Chicago District Office, Chicago, IL.

For CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant: Eric S. Dreiband, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jones Day, Washington, DC; Jacob Moshe Roth, PRO HAC VICE, Jones Day, Washington, DC.

For Retail Litigation Center, Inc., Movant: Gregory M. Boyle, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL; Jason C. Schwartz, PRO HAC VICE, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Llp, Washington, DC.

Page 938

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John W. Darrah, J..

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the " EEOC" ) filed suit against Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (" CVS" ), alleging a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-6(a). On April 18, 2014, CVS filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth below, CVS's Motion for Summary Judgment [15] is granted.

LOCAL RULE 56.1

Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to provide " a statement of material facts as to which the party contends there is no genuine issue for trial." Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir. 2004). Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) requires the non-moving party to admit or deny every factual statement proffered by the moving party and to concisely designate any material facts that establish a genuine dispute for trial. See Schrott v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 403 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2005). Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C), the nonmovant may submit additional statements of material facts that " require the denial of summary judgment. Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) further permits the nonmovant to submit a statement " of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment . . . ." To the extent that a response to a statement of material fact provides only extraneous or argumentative information, this response will not constitute a proper denial of the fact, and the fact is admitted. See Graziano v. Vill. of Oak Park, 401 F.Supp.2d 918, 936 (N.D. Ill. 2005). Similarly, to the extent that a statement of fact contains a legal conclusion or otherwise unsupported statement, including a fact that relies upon inadmissible hearsay, such a fact is disregarded. Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp., 113 F.3d 738, 742 (7th Cir. 1997).

BACKGROUND

The majority of the facts are undisputed. The following facts are taken from the Rule 56.1 statement of facts filed by CVS. CVS is a Delaware corporation, doing business in Chicago, Illinois. (SOF ¶ 2.) This Court has federal jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and venue is proper pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6. (SOF ¶ ¶ 3-4.)

Tonia Ramos is a former CVS Pharmacy manager who was discharged in July 2011. (SOF ¶ 5.) On July 27, 2011 Ms. Ramos

Page 939

signed a separation agreement with CVS,[1] (Compl. Ex. A). (SOF ¶ 6). Soon thereafter, Ms. Ramos filed a charge with EEOC alleging that CVS terminated her due to her sex and race. (SOF ¶ 7).

On June 13, 2013, the EEOC dismissed Ramos's charge. (SOF ¶ 9). However, the EEOC sent CVS a letter, stating there was reasonable cause to believe that, based on the severance agreement, CVS was engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights secured by Title ...


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.