Walgreens Sued for Discriminating on the Job

Last week the nation’s largest drugstore chain with sales of over $47 billion for the 2006 fiscal year was sued by the EEOC for assigning managers, management trainees, and pharmacists to low-performing stores in predominately African American communities because of their race. The EEOC filed the lawsuit citing a violation of Title VII. The complaints, which sparked the investigation by the EEOC, came from a group of current and former African American managers, who were routinely assigned to low-performing jobs in predominantly black neighborhoods. They alleged that these assignments were executed based on their race.

This case reminds me of the discussions that took place in class a few weeks ago about the requirements needed before the EEOC takes action against an employer. The plaintiffs, in this case the managers, must prove (1) they are part of a protected class, (2) qualified for the position, (3) they were victim of an adverse employment action, and (4) they were denied promotion opportunities. After reviewing this article, I see that the employees who filed the complaints have a valid case against Walgreens for their questionable assignments of black employees.

Walgreens representatives deny that it discriminated against any of it employees. I was wondering what you guys think Walgreens could use as a defense against the claims brought against them by the EEOC? They can not use a BFOQ defense at all because it can not be applied to race or color. Do you think Walgreens has any valid defenses for their controversial employee assignments?