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.

Hanna v. Giant Eagle Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

April 6, 2017

CE'MONNE HANNA, Plaintiff,
v.
GIANT EAGLE INC. and BENJAMIN SIMMONS Defendants.

          ORDER

          ROBERT C. MITCHELL, United States Magistrate Judge

         I. RECOMMENDATION

         It is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Giant Eagle, Inc. and Benjamin Simmons [ECF No. 70] be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, it is respectfully recommended that the motion for summary judgment be: 1) granted in part at Counts I and II as to the claims of racial discrimination the application of the attendance policy, and denied in all other respects; 2) granted in part as to Counts III and IV as to the hostile work environment constructive discharge claims and denied as to hostile work environment more generally; 3) granted in full at Counts V and VI as to the retaliation claims; and 4) denied as to Counts VII and VIII.

         II. REPORT

         A. Introduction

         Plaintiff Ce'Monne Hanna, a 32-year old African-American female, sues her former employer Giant Eagle, Inc. and one of her former managers, Benjamin Simmons, claiming she was subject to racial discrimination while employed as a pharmacy technician in the McKees Rocks Giant Eagle pharmacy. She has filed a seven count complaint. [ECF No. 1-2]. Counts I and II allege racial discrimination against Giant Eagle, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. § 955, respectively. Counts III and IV allege hostile work environment under Title VII and the PHRA against Giant Eagle. Count V alleges retaliation against Giant Eagle in violation of the PHRA, and Count VI alleges retaliation against Ben Simmons in violation of the PHRA. Count VII alleges battery against Giant Eagle. Count VIII alleges battery against Simmons.

         This cause of action was originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County and was removed on August 3, 2015. The matter was referred to the undersigned after a party elected to have a district judge assigned to the case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). [ECF No. 17].

         On October 6, 2016, discovery in this case ended. On October 27, 2016, Giant Eagle and Simmons filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 70], a Brief in support [ECF No. 71], a Concise Statement of Material Facts (“SOF”) and an Appendix in support. [ECF Nos. 72, 73]. Hanna has responded with a Brief in Opposition [ECF No. 77], a Responsive Concise Statement of Material Facts [ECF No. 78] (“Resp. Fact”), and an Appendix [ECF No. 79]. Defendants have filed a Reply Brief [ECF No. 80].

         The matter is now ripe for disposition. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's federal claims based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a), and on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). The court can exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's pendent state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 since the alleged unlawful employment practices occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

         B. Factual Background

         Unless otherwise noted the following facts are not in dispute. Hanna was hired by Giant Eagle on November 22, 2013 to work as a pharmacy technician in the McKees Rocks Giant Eagle pharmacy. Plaintiff contends that from the time that she was hired until her employment ended less than one year later on October 6, 2014, she was discriminated against by numerous Giant Eagle employees because of her race.

         1. Hiring Process and Initial Training

         Hanna applied for the position through an online application, was soon contacted by Giant Eagle, and participated in a phone interview. ECF No. 78 at 18. Hanna was then invited for an in-person second interview scheduled for November 6, 2013. She alleges that when she showed up for the interview, she first went to the employee smoking area to have a cigarette. While there, she said “hi” to a woman who “looked like she could be management, ” but the woman did not respond or acknowledge her. Hanna contends that this is the first instance of discrimination and that the woman did not talk to her “[b]ecause I was black.” Hanna observed the woman conversing with a white person who came to the smoking section after Hanna. Resp. Fact ¶ 4. The woman said in a “condescending” manner that Hanna should “sit down” after Hanna told her she had an appointment to be interviewed. Resp. F ¶ 5. Hanna again approached the table and introduced herself for her interview, and the woman said “I didn't know you were you” and told her that she was going to get the Pharmacist. When the woman returned, she told Hanna that the head Pharmacist “didn't have time” for her, and that Hanna would instead meet with Sarah Floyd. Hanna contrasts this allegedly racially hostile interaction with her first conversation with the same woman on the telephone for her first interview; when the woman did not know Hanna's race - at that point the woman was “delighted” to meet Hanna. Resp. F. ¶ 5.

         Hanna then interviewed with Sarah Floyd, a licensed pharmacist who worked at the McKees Rocks pharmacy. Floyd offered the job to Plaintiff at the end of the interview. Despite being offered the job by Floyd the same day, Hanna was “offended” by the interview because she claims that Floyd “lied” about the duties of the job and, according to Plaintiff, was “disgusted” by Hanna because she was black. SOF at ¶5. Hanna remembers Floyd saying that Hanna “won't be doing much work . . . won't really be touching anything” and told Hanna not to “get overly excited. Resp. Fact ¶ 113. Hanna remembers Floyd saying “[all] you'll be doing here is answering the phone and ringing people out.” Resp. F. ¶114.

         Hanna now claims that Giant Eagle discriminated against her by refusing to give her information about the job for “weeks and weeks and weeks.” She claims Giant Eagle withheld crucial information until training; she contends Giant Eagle would not tell her what her rate of pay would be. SOF at ¶9; Resp. F ¶9. Nevertheless the record evidence shows Giant Eagle confirmed the employment offer by email and letter dated November 8, 2013. The letter specifically informed Plaintiff that she was being hired as a “Pharmacy Tech, Probationary PT [part-time]” (brackets supplied) at $9.00 per hour. SOF at ¶6; ECF No. 73 at 173. On November 13, 2013 Hanna was sent an email welcoming her to the Giant Eagle Pharmacy team and explaining the process for registering online, attending a welcome workshop, and attaching a team member handbook. ECF No. 175-76.

         Hanna requested additional verification of her employment status by email dated December 10, 2013; her childcare agency needed confirmation she worked at least 20 hours and what her start date would be. Resp. F. ¶ 7; ECF No. 79 at 163. Hanna emailed Giant Eagle on December 30, 2013 stating that she needed an offer letter “stating my position title and pay rate as well as if I am fulltime or part-time” so that she could give it to the agency that was providing her childcare. ECF No. 73 at 174. Giant Eagle resent the November 8, 2013 offer letter the next day. SOF at ¶¶7-8.

         Hanna also alleges that Giant Eagle discriminated against her by refusing to give her full time hours. Yet Hanna admitted that she was hired as a part time employee because she was not available to work on Tuesdays and Thursdays. SOF at ¶10; ECF No. 73 at 174. In her email dated December 30, 2013 to Christie Engel and Rebecca Labutis she specifically states, “I have one Biochemistry Class which will meet every Tuesday and Thursday mornings” and asks that Giant Eagle “[p]lease keep this into consideration.” ECF No. 73 at 174. According to Hanna, she wanted to work full-time and applied for a full-time slot but was informed by Defendant that she could not work full-time on evenings and weekends because of a schedule conflict with interns. Plaintiff asserts that similarly situated non-minority employees with less seniority than Hanna were permitted to work the schedule that she requested. Resp. F. ¶ 10; ECF No. 73 at 21-25.

         All new Giant Eagle employees must complete an orientation training class before beginning employment. New employees are required to bring proof of citizenship - an identification card and a social security card - to the orientation or they will not be permitted to participate. SOF ¶ 11; ECF No. 73 at 176. Hanna arrived at the November 14, 2013 orientation without her social security card. Plaintiff denies she was specifically told prior to the orientation to bring the proof of citizenship documents with her to the orientation. Resp. F. ¶ 12. The record reflects an email was sent to her on November 13, 2013 telling her to “note the details of your Welcome Workshop” dated November 14, 2014 from 3:30 - 6:30 p.m.; the email explained she must bring “the necessary original documentation that matches [her] selection in the I-9 portion of the New Team Member forms to have it verified by a company representative.” ECF No. 73 at 176 (emphasis in original). As a result, Hanna was not permitted to participate in the orientation and she was rescheduled for orientation on a later date. Plaintiff testified this was due to her race but admits she was told to bring it.[1] Plaintiff was rescheduled for orientation shortly thereafter on November 22, 2013. This time, Hanna brought the required documentation and was permitted to attend. SOF at ¶¶ 11-14. Employees are provided a Giant Eagle handbook and other materials at the orientation. ECF No. 73 at 178.

         After orientation and before beginning employment at the store, new employees are required to complete on-line training in certain additional subjects through Giant Eagle's Learning Resource Center (“LRC”). All new employees are told that LRC training is a prerequisite to employment and that the employee can begin LRC training immediately after completion of orientation. Employees are provided a personal access code to the LRC and instruction on how to complete the training. Upon gaining access to the LRC, each employee has an on-line “To-Do” list that he or she must complete before beginning employment. Affidavit of Suzanne Martin (Team Member Relations Specialist assigned to McKees Rocks pharmacy) at ¶¶ 8-9, ECF No. 73 at 178.

         Hanna asserts that Defendant was purposefully trying to delay her employment, as another instance of alleged discrimination, by failing to contact her “for weeks and weeks and weeks.” On Friday, December 6, 2013 - two weeks after she had attended orientation - Hanna telephoned Giant Eagle's MyHR Connection, an employee help line for Giant Eagle employees that connects employees to the appropriate person at Giant Eagle who can provide the requested assistance, because she was having difficulty working within the LRC platform and completing her training. Suzanne Martin has stated in her sworn affidavit that Giant Eagle attempted to respond to Hanna's call on the next business day (December 9), twice on December 10, and once more on December 12. Giant Eagle records of the interaction state Hanna “did not accept” the calls. SOF ¶ 17; ECF No. 73 at 196. Hanna denies she did not accept these calls. Resp. F. ¶ 17. Finally, on December 12, the issue appears to have been resolved and Hanna's LRC training was completed and recorded. ECF No. 73 at 197.

         Once that occurred, Giant Eagle contacted Hanna on December 16, 2013 to schedule her for “on boarding, ” or pharmacy-specific training, a requirement for all new employees hired as probationary pharmacy technicians. . SOF ¶ 18; ECF No. 73 at 202. Giant Eagle will not schedule a new pharmacy tech employee for onboarding training until the employee has fully completed general orientation training. On-boarding training, which takes place in an actual working Giant Eagle pharmacy location, lasts a maximum of five days and is taught by a Giant Eagle pharmacy trainer. The pharmacy trainer schedules the date, time and location of the training depending upon various factors, including the number of trainees, their respective locations, and the size of the pharmacy needed to accommodate the training. SOF at ¶20.

         On December 16, 2013, Giant Eagle emailed Hanna and informed her that she had been scheduled for a 4-day onboarding training course to be held at the Donaldson's Crossroads and Washington Giant Eagle stores, both of which are located in Washington County, Pennsylvania. SOF ¶ 21. Because Hanna relies on public transportation and there were no bus routes to those locations, she did not attend the scheduled training. SOF ¶ 22. She called Giant Eagle and explained she needed to use public transportation within Allegheny County. Resp. F. ¶ 22. Accordingly, three days later, on December 19, 2013, Giant Eagle rescheduled Hanna for an onboarding training course to be held at the Giant Eagle location in Robinson Township, Allegheny County beginning on December 23, 2013. SOF ¶ 23. Hanna responded that she “look[ed] forward to start training” and did not complain to Giant Eagle about the location. ECF No. 73 at 229.

         Hanna now alleges that, by scheduling onboarding training at locations where there were no public bus routes and by not scheduling training at the McKees Rock location where she would be working, Giant Eagle was purposely discriminating against Hanna and “discouraging her from the position” because she is black. SOF at ¶¶21-25. All of the individuals training with Hanna were employed by Defendant for their McKees Rocks location. Of the class, only one person of five was non-minority. Resp. F. ¶ 25. Although Hanna claims she was not scheduled to train at the McKees Rocks store because she is black, her cousin, Essence McKamey, who is also black, was trained at the McKees Rocks Store where she was assigned to work. SOF ¶ 26.

         Hanna attended the onboarding training classes at the Robinson location and completed her onboarding training on December 27, 2013. SOF ¶ 27. Hanna had informed Giant Eagle by email that she was not available to work on January 3, 6 and 7 because of scheduled court dates; Giant Eagle therefore scheduled her first day of work at the McKees Rocks Giant Eagle pharmacy as a probationary pharmacy technician on January 8, 2014. SOF at ¶¶ 27-28; ECF No. 73 at 174.

         2. Pharmacy Technicians' Duties and Training

         Giant Eagle has submitted the Affidavit of Zachary Weisser (Pharmacy Intern at McKees Rocks Giant Eagle from 2010 to May 2014, and a Pharmacy Manager beginning in September 2014) and Kristin McNicholas (Regional Trainer for Giant Eagle's pharmacy department who trained Hanna at her pharmacy on-boarding). These individuals explain the following. Pharmacy technicians at Giant Eagle work at four different work stations in the pharmacy and they will generally rotate through these four workstations during their shift in accordance with the daily schedule (the “grid”) prepared by the pharmacy manager. ECF No. 73 at 230. The four work stations are (i) front end, (ii) front end help, (iii) data entry, and (iv) filling. ECF No. 73 at 230. The duties of the “front end” technician are generally cashier type duties that include greeting the customer, handing the prescribed medication to the customer, and collecting the payment or required co-pay for the prescription from the customer. ECF No. 73 at 230-31. When working the “front-end help” station, the technician will handle any customer overflows, accept customer drop off prescriptions, and assist the pharmacist as needed. Technicians working the “data entry” station must read and interpret prescriptions received by the pharmacy and enter the appropriate prescription information into the computer system. Finally, the technicians working the “filling station” are required to count out the proper amount of medication required by the prescription, place the medication in the proper container, and put the prescription label on the container. SOF at ¶¶29-30; ECF No. 73 at 231.

         Hanna disputes that an employee's rotation between those four positions can legitimately depend on their skill and experience, as set forth in the daily grid schedule. According to Hanna, it is inaccurate to say that all trainees at the beginning of their employment primarily work at the front of the pharmacy unless they have prior experience, and also begin to fill prescriptions. Rather, she asserts, all pharmacy technicians were allowed equal access to all four stations, except Hanna and other minority employees. Resp. F. ¶ 29.

         The pharmacy technician position is a challenging job that requires employees to learn and practice new skills in an environment that is at times very stressful, particularly when the pharmacy is busy. During 2014 when Hanna was employed, Giant Eagle experienced an approximate 70% turnover rate at the position among new probationary employees. SOF at ¶31; ECF No. 73 at 230. New hires for the pharmacy technician position who have no prior experience are probationary employees and are required to complete pharmacy-specific training during the probationary period and to pass certain tests to become permanent employees. SOF ¶ 32; ECF No. 73 at 231.

         A probationary technician must first complete the onboarding training discussed above before he or she is permitted to work in a pharmacy. Attached to the Affidavit of Kristin McNichols is the Giant Eagle Pharmacy Technician Training Outline and Gateway Exam. ECF No. 73 at 223-224. It reflects the following. Upon completion of the on-boarding training, the probationary technician is eligible to work the front end, front end helper and filling stations, but not the data entry station. (Hanna disagrees with the notion that after on-boarding, employees are not yet eligible to work the data entry station. Resp. F. ¶ 33). After completing onboarding training, a probationary technician must pass a “Level 1” test which evaluates the technician's skills and knowledge learned during the onboarding training. Although there are no hard dates as to when the probationary technician must take the Level 1 exam and the timing is left to the discretion of the pharmacy trainer, the general guideline at Giant Eagle is that it be taken within 30-60 days of employment in the pharmacy. ECF No. 73 at 223. Hanna passed her Level 1 exam on March 7, 2014. SOF at ¶¶33-34.

         Thereafter, a probationary technician is required to attend a course in Prescription Comprehension, Pharmacy Calculations and Pennsylvania Qualification (“Level 2” course) and he or she is then tested on the subjects covered in the course, preferably within 120 days of employment, although it may be as late as 180 days. The Level 2 exam may only be taken twice and the probationary technician must pass the test to remain employed in the pharmacy. SOF ¶ 35; ECF No. 73 at 223-224.

         Shortly after she had passed the Level 1 test, according to Giant Eagle, Hanna was given the opportunity to take the Level 2 course that was scheduled for March 20 and 27, 2014 . By email dated March 11, 2014, Christie Engel asked that Hanna be notified of the class. ECF No. 73 at 248-49. The email to the pharmacy team leader from Engel states “[t]his training is the first step before one may take the Data Entry testing.” ECF No. 73 at 248. Hanna denies she was informed that she was eligible to take the Level 2 course, and testified that Defendant affirmatively prevented her from learning about the Level 2 course. Resp. F. ¶ 36. Hanna instead waited until April 23, 2014 to complete the Level 2 course. SOF ¶36. Hanna claims she was forced to take the examination twice. Resp. F. ¶ 37. Hanna took and passed the Level 2 test on May 9, 2014. SOF at ¶¶35-37.

         The Level 2 course is where the data entry function and its requirements are first introduced to the technician trainees. The data entry function includes (i) interpreting and entering all information from a prescription into a computer system in accordance with the applicable software protocol and (ii) interfacing the patient's health care coverage with the requirements of the applicable health care provider/insurer. According to Giant Eagle, data entry is the most difficult function performed by pharmacy technicians and it is critical that a technician be proficient in this function for purposes of both pharmacy efficiency and patient safety. A prescription that is incorrectly entered into the system will, in the worst case scenario, result in the wrong prescription being given to the patient and, in the best case scenario, result in a delay when the error is discovered down the line and the prescription has to be re-entered and re-filled to correct the error. SOF at ¶38.

         Hanna denies that data entry is the most difficult function performed by pharmacy technicians, because the Fill Station (where the medication is counted, put in the container and labelled) is supposed to catch data entry errors. Resp. F. ¶ 38.

         According to Giant Eagle, and Hanna disputes this, due to the critical nature of the data entry function, probationary technicians are typically not assigned to the data entry station until after they have attended the Level 2 course. Thereafter (and generally not before) a probationary technician may begin to rotate into the data entry station and begin on-the-job training in the data entry. Giant Eagle asserts that despite the fact that Hanna was told that she needed to take the Level 2 course before she could begin training in data entry - she delayed her ability to train at the data entry station by nearly one month when she passed on the offered March 2014 Level 2 course and chose instead to take the course in April. SOF at ¶¶ 39-40. Hanna has sworn in an affidavit that she was not told she needed to take a Level 2 course until after she made several complaints in regards to rotating to the data entry position. Hanna denies she is responsible for the delay in her training, as she was not informed that the training was either necessary nor available. Resp. F. ¶ 40.

         Giant Eagle prefers that on-the-job data entry training be completed by the probationary technician's 180th day of employment, at which time he or she is required to pass a data entry test, preferably by day 180 but no later than day 270. SOF ¶ 41. To pass the data entry test, a technician trainee must be able to accurately enter into the system a minimum of 24 prescriptions in one hour, but preferably should be able to enter a minimum of 40 prescriptions in one hour. SOF ¶ 42. Those who pass the test by entering the minimum 24 prescriptions can become permanent employees (i.e., are no longer probationary), but only those technicians who can enter a minimum of 40 prescriptions per hour are assigned to the “primary” data entry station during busy periods when the pharmacy is receiving a high volume of prescriptions. High volume prescription activity typically occurs weekday mornings and early afternoons (9 a.m. to 3 p.m.) when physicians' offices are open. Those who cannot process 40 prescriptions per hour and/or have not passed the data entry test continue to train on data entry by working the “secondary” data entry station or the primary data entry station during times when it is less busy (late afternoons and weekends). In this way, trainees who have not yet become proficient in data entry are not overburdened so as to cause data entry errors, pharmacy delays, and/or the issuance of an incorrect prescription to a patient. SOF at ¶¶41-44. Hanna states this information was hidden from her. Resp. F. ¶¶ 43, 44.

         3. Alleged Workplace Discrimination-Filling Station and Data Entry Station

         Hanna contends that, because she is black, she was not permitted to rotate through the four technician stations and that she was generally required to work the front end stations. SOF ¶ 45. Hanna claims this arose early in her employment, she was not permitted to rotate to the filling station position. Hanna contends that co-workers instructed her to move to the front end because she is black; according to Giant Eagle they were actually motivated by their desire to avoid having to work at the less desirable front end positions so as to avoid the “intense labor” and having to “deal with the customers.” Hanna's cousin, Essence McKamey, an African-American female who worked at the pharmacy before Hanna, testified that the same co-workers Hanna has mentioned tried to force McKamey to work the front end but failed because McKamey refused to move and, as a result, she worked the stations to which she was assigned. She believes that they treated Hanna in that manner “because she was small.” ECF No. 73 at 252. When asked if management was aware of rudeness to black employees, McKamey stated:

A. Oh, yeah.
Q. How did you know that management was aware?
A. They would be right there. They didn't care.
Q. So by that, do you mean management would be nearby while these things were happening?
A. Yeah. But I don't know if they took it - because Casey [Howard], like, she was a rude person all around. So I don't know if they just took it as that's her personality, letting it slide because she was working there for so many years. I don't know. But yeah, she was - she was just a rude person all together.
Q. Was she rude to white employees as well as black employees?
A. Yeah, sometimes. But for the most part, it would be toward black people.

ECF No. 73 at 253.

         McKamey testified that Howard and another white woman “had some type of vendetta against each other” where they would argue about which one of them would have to go up front. SOF at ¶¶ 45, 47-49.

         In February 2014, Defendant Benjamin Simmons became the pharmacy manager at the McKees Rocks pharmacy. The pharmacy manager is the supervisor of the pharmacy technicians and prepares the work schedules for the technicians, including the “grids”. Hanna testified that when Simmons became the manager, she complained to him that she had not been rotating; she further states that Simmons “took charge” of the pharmacy and after Hanna complained, Simmons told Casey Howard and Kate Rich that they had to rotate with Hanna. Thereafter Hanna worked the filling station more. Resp. F. ¶ 53. Nevertheless, Hanna contends that although Simmons would “try” to let Hanna rotate, “the other girls (Howard and Rich) would give him a hard time” and would not cooperate. SOF at ¶¶ 50-54.

         Hanna testified that Defendant Simmons attempted to allow her to rotate to all the positions, but she was not allowed to rotate or to perform data entry, and in fact was not scheduled for data entry until after filing a Charge with the EEOC. Resp. F. ¶ 45. According to Hanna, Simmons soon succumbed to not allowing Hanna to rotate throughout the pharmacy, and did not instruct Hanna that she needed a Level 2 course, but in fact mislead Hanna that she had to count a certain number of prescriptions per hour. Resp. F ¶ 52. Hanna further testified that she was subject to testing on her counting ability before she could do data entry. Resp. F. ¶ 45.

         Zachary Weisser, who replaced Simmons as the pharmacy manager at the McKees Rocks pharmacy in September 2014, states he never saw anyone instruct Hanna to move to another station to which she was not assigned, nor did Hanna ever complain to Weisser that she was being forced to move to another station. SOF ¶ 46. Hanna disagrees. Hanna claims Weisser personally witnessed Hanna being told to move to the cash register, personally instructed Hanna to move to the cash register, and personally received Hanna's complaints about being forced to the cash register. Resp. F. ¶ 46.

         According to Giant Eagle, because Hanna did not take the Level 2 course until April 23, 2014, she would not have been permitted to begin on-the-job training at the data entry station from January 8, 2014 through April 23, 2014. SOF ¶ 57. After Hanna completed the Level 2 course on April 23, 2014, she was permitted to rotate through the data entry station for purposes of on-the-job training. Because she had not yet taken the data entry test or shown a proficiency in data entry, she was scheduled for data entry at less busy times. Hanna never became competent at data entry during her employment. She never passed the data entry test (requiring a minimum of 24 prescriptions per hour), and did not come close to meeting the 40 prescriptions/hour requirement that would have allowed her to be assigned to the primary data entry line during busy times. SOF at ¶ 57; ECF No. 73 at 233.

         Hanna denies this, instead stating that her alleged incompetence is wholly the fault of Defendant who refused to allow Hanna to work on data entry, as she was affirmatively prevented from performing the task, lied to about the requirements, and had the actual requirements hid from her. Resp. F. ¶ 57. Hanna states she was never allowed to take the data entry test. Resp. F. ¶ 57.

         According to Giant Eagle, Hanna refused to take the data entry exam. In support of that claim, Giant Eagle notes that Christie Engle, who was the regional pharmacy trainer for the region that includes the McKees Rocks pharmacy during Hanna's employment, specifically mentioned Hanna's data entry deficiencies - and her reluctance to be tested on data entry - in her contemporaneous training notes. Engle also noted that on a day that she had scheduled Hanna for two hours of data entry training, Hanna left work early before the training could take place. The Regional Technician Trainer/DL Communication forms around that time state, “Cemmone needs to step it up to [data entry] she is beyond due for testing. (but “cherry picks” what she wants to do) and struggles with that”; Hanna left work early when ...


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.