Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00011/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Sex)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edna Richardson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Sam’s Club, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-00011-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 25), plaintiff’s

response (doc. 27), and defendants’ reply (doc. 29).

I.

Plaintiff was hired by defendant Sam’s Club on November 16, 2006. She became a

cashier in August of 2008. Sam’s Club has a “Coaching for Improvement Policy” designed

to help employees improve their job performance. If an employee receives four “coachings”

within a twelve-month period, the employee is subject to termination. Cashiers are randomly

given “shrink tests” by Sam’s Club’s audit team. During the test, items are hidden inside a

shopping cart and cashiers are expected to discover the hidden items. Plaintiff received

“coachings” for cash register overages and shortages and for failing shrink tests beginning

in November 2010. Because she ultimately received four coachings within a twelve-month

period, she was terminated on April 18, 2012. 

Case 2:13-cv-00011-FJM Document 30 Filed 04/29/14 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Plaintiff alleges that Sam’s Club started retaliating against her in August 2009 after

she reported to management that other employees took extended breaks. She claims the

retaliation included a reduction in her hours and an order by her supervisor to mop the floor.

She filed her first Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on May 24, 2011, complaining

of mopping, extended breaks, and reduced hours. She filed a Second Charge of

Discrimination on May 9, 2012, shortly after her termination, asserting claims related to her

coachings and termination. Plaintiff filed this action on January 3, 2013, alleging that Sam’s

Club discriminated against her because of her age (75) and her race (African American), and

retaliated against her for filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC.

II.

A.

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, plaintiff has the burden of

showing that (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was performing according to her

employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action;

and (4) similarly situated employees not in her protected class were treated more favorably.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824 (1973); Noyes

v. Kelly Servs., 488 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2007). Once a plaintiff makes her prima facie

showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to present legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons

for the employment actions. Id. at 1169. If the defendant satisfies its burden, the burden

shifts back to plaintiff “to put forth specific and substantial evidence that [defendant’s]

reasons are really a pretext for . . . discrimination.” Aragon v. Republic Silver State

Disposal Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 661 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original).

The EEOC issued its Dismissal and Notice of Right to Sue related to plaintiff’s First

Charge of Discrimination on August 16, 2011. She was notified that any civil action based

on these allegations must be commenced within 90 days. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

Plaintiff did not file her lawsuit until January 3, 2013, over a year late. Therefore, the

allegations contained in the First Charge of Discrimination are time-barred. See Scholar v.

Pacific Bell, 963 F.2d 264, 267 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 2:13-cv-00011-FJM Document 30 Filed 04/29/14 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Plaintiff timely filed this action with respect to claims contained in her Second Charge

of Discrimination, specifically unfair coachings and termination. These discrete allegations

of discrimination do not support a continuing violation theory that would revive the timebarred allegations contained in plaintiff’s First Charge of Discrimination.

Plaintiff has shown that she is a member of a protected class and suffered adverse

employment actions. But she has not shown that she was performing satisfactorily or that

similarly situated employees not in her protected classes were treated more favorably. 

As evidence of discrimination, plaintiff suggests that race and age must have played

a role in her unequal treatment because she was “the only African American cashier and the

only cashier over the age of 40.” Response at 5-6. But plaintiff cites no evidence to support

this claim. And even if true, these facts do not establish unequal treatment. Plaintiff

produced no evidence that similarly situated employees who are younger or not African

American were treated more favorably. 

Moreover, plaintiff has failed to show that she was performing according to her

employer’s legitimate expectations. She disputes that there were discrepancies in her cash

drawer, but other than her own beliefs, she presents no evidence to support the claim. 

Even if we decided that plaintiff had made a prima facie showing, we would

nevertheless conclude that plaintiff has failed to support a claim of discrimination. Sam’s

Club has presented substantial evidence that plaintiff was not performing satisfactorily.

Plaintiff received multiple coachings related to cash drawer discrepancies and failed shrink

tests. This constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Sam’s Club’s decision to

terminate her. The burden then shifts back to plaintiff to set forth specific and substantial

evidence that this reason is merely pretext for discrimination. But plaintiff has offered no

evidence of pretext. Her subjective beliefs that the cash register discrepancies were a “set

up” are insufficient to establish pretext. She admits that she has no evidence to support the

claim. PCSOF ¶ 40. 

In contrast, Sam’s Club has presented evidence that it has coached and given shrink

tests to other employees who are outside plaintiff’s protected categories. DSOF ¶¶ 73-78.

Case 2:13-cv-00011-FJM Document 30 Filed 04/29/14 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Sam’s Club presented evidence that from 2010 to 2012 it coached as least ten other

employees and terminated one for cash register discrepancies who were younger than

plaintiff and not African American. DSOF ¶¶ 77-78. 

Plaintiff has failed to establish a claim of discrimination and accordingly summary

judgment is granted in favor of Sam’s Club.

B.

We also conclude that plaintiff has failed to establish a claim of retaliation. To

establish a prima facie case, plaintiff must show (1) she was engaged in a protected activity;

(2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link exists between

the protected activity and the adverse action. The causal link must be “proved according to

traditional principles of but-for causation, not the lessened causation test stated in 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2m.” Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 2533 (2013). “This

requires proof that the unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the

alleged wrongful action or actions of the employer.” Id. In other words, plaintiff must show

that but for the filing her First Charge of Discrimination, Sam’s Club would not have issued

her coachings and would not have terminated her employment. Plaintiff has failed to make

this showing. 

Plaintiff began receiving coachings well before the First Charge of Discrimination was

filed. Moreover, she has not set forth any evidence to support her belief that she did not

actually commit cash register errors or fail shrink tests. Her subjective beliefs are insufficient

to support a prima facie case of retaliation. 

Sam’s Club has shown that it issued coachings to plaintiff because of her cash register

discrepancies and failed shrink tests. It has further demonstrated that it coached other

employees who were not African American and were substantially younger for the same

reasons. DSOF ¶¶ 73-78. Because plaintiff has not shown that Sam’s Club issued coachings

or terminated her in retaliation for filing the First Charge, she has failed to establish a claim

of unlawful retaliation. 

III.

Case 2:13-cv-00011-FJM Document 30 Filed 04/29/14 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant’s motion for summary judgment (doc. 25).

The clerk shall enter final judgment. 

DATED this 29th day of April, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-00011-FJM Document 30 Filed 04/29/14 Page 5 of 5