Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01737/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01737-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1 

 NO. C 09‐01737 RS

ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 4/23/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

TERESA BLOOMQUIST, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

WALGREENS CO., 

 

 Defendant. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-01737 RS 

ORDER GRANTING 

RECONSIDERATION AND 

GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 This Court initially found triable issues of fact precluded granting defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. 1 In particular, the Court identified as such a dispute, the question of whether 

plaintiff’s manager, Dan Kidson, who participated in the decision to terminate plaintiff’s 

employment held discriminatory animus. On the assumption that plaintiff could have been subject to 

some lesser form of discipline given the nature of the offense, the Court concluded a reasonable trier 

of fact could find that Kidson’s purported discriminatory animus contributed to plaintiff’s firing. 

 

1

 The facts of this action are set out in the Court’s order entered on February 5, 2010, and will not 

be repeated here. 

Case 5:09-cv-01737-RS Document 32 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

 NO. C 09‐01737 RS

ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

 Defendant sought reconsideration, contending it had shown that under its policies and 

practices, termination of employment is an automatic and non-discretionary consequence of 

employee theft, such that any discriminatory animus on the part of Kidson would be immaterial. 

Having been given the opportunity to brief the question further, plaintiff has pointed to no triable 

issue of fact that termination of her employment was other than an automatic consequence flowing 

from the conclusion that she had committed employee theft, no matter how minor. Plaintiff has not 

even argued to the contrary. Instead, plaintiff argues that the investigation into her conduct was 

flawed, and that as a result of his discriminatory animus, Kidson rubber-stamped the conclusions of 

the investigator rather than conducting a sufficient review to ensure that the investigator had reached 

a correct conclusion. 

 Plaintiff has never suggested there was any discriminatory animus on the part of the person 

who first reported her alleged “grazing” conduct. Plaintiff does not contend that it was 

inappropriate for Kidson to refer that report to Debbie Schenkhuizen, a Walgreens Loss Prevention 

Supervisor, whatever animus he may have otherwise held. Plaintiff does not argue, and the record 

does not show, that there was any discriminatory animus on the part of Schenkhuizen. As noted in 

the original order on the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff consistently admitted that she had 

taken the V8 beverage from store shelves, (1) during the course of Schenkhuizen’s investigation, (2) 

at the time of her termination, (3) in the allegations of the complaint herein, and (4) during her 

deposition. 

 Although plaintiff now contends that her repeated admission was mistaken and that careful 

review of store security camera footage “proves” her innocence, she has not shown there is a 

material issue of disputed fact. It simply was not incumbent on Schenkhuizen to attempt to uncover 

evidence that plaintiff’s admission was incorrect. Therefore, whatever responsibilities Kidson may 

have had to review the accuracy of Schenkhuizen’s findings, he likewise was not obliged to distrust 

plaintiff’s admission.2

 

 

2

 As noted in the Order entered March 8, 2010 granting leave to seek reconsideration, review of the 

security video would not immediately and necessarily put anyone on notice that Bloomquist’s 

admission might have been mistaken. 

Case 5:09-cv-01737-RS Document 32 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

 NO. C 09‐01737 RS

ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

 There is no dispute that it was proper for defendant to terminate plaintiff upon concluding 

she had engaged in an act of employee theft. Plaintiff admitted taking the V8 beverage from store 

shelves and consuming it. She could not produce a receipt and an investigation found no evidence 

that she had paid for it. On this record, any discriminatory animus on Kidson’s part cannot be said 

to have contributed to plaintiff’s loss of her job, and no reasonable trier of fact could conclude 

otherwise. The motion for reconsideration is granted. Summary judgment is granted. A separate 

judgment will be entered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 04/23/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:09-cv-01737-RS Document 32 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 3