Jain v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 14-1498 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCVS hired Jain, a woman of East Asian descent, as a pharmacist in 2006. She claims that coworkers and supervisors discriminated against her, calling her the "little Indian lady," and her Indian clothing “unprofessional.” Referring to her "bossy" attitude, the manager remarked that "she was from India but might as well be from Germany." Jain became "pharmacist-in-charge" (PIC) at another store, with permission to work a three day schedule. Supervisor Deaner later learned that the store was struggling in numerous performance metrics; that Jain had not been following company policies; and that multiple complaints had been filed. Deaner issued a performance action plan and began holding weekly meetings to help Jain. Problems continued. Jain was issued another warning. After inspections revealed additional problems, Jain was terminated. Jain sued for discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 213.055, 213.070. Jain opposed a summary judgment motion with a declaration from her husband, stating that an "arithmetic comparison" of scores showed that the pharmacy had improved in every performance metric after Jain became PIC. The court struck the declaration because Mr. Jain "never worked for [CVS] and did not claim to have industry experience” and granted CVS summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court did not err in striking plaintiff's husband's declaration that plaintiff was meeting work standards as he had no firsthand knowledge or personal experience in analyzing the defendant's performance metrics; no error in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's race or national origin discrimination claims as she failed to show she was treated differently than similarly-situation white managers; plaintiff failed to show any causal connection between the company's actions and her complaints regarding discrimination and the district court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.