Odom v. CVS Caremark Corporation et al
Filing
61
ORDER AND OPINION adopting 57 Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 6/4/2015. (cbru, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
James D. Odom,
) Civil Action No.: 3:14-456-MGL-SVH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
ORDER AND OPINION
vs.
)
)
CVS Caremark Corp., CVS Rx Services,
)
Inc., and South Carolina CVS Pharmacy,
)
LLC,
)
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________ )
In this action, Plaintiff James Odom (“Plaintiff”) sues his former employer CVS Rx Services,
Inc., and its related entities CVS Caremark Corporation and CVS Caremark Pharmacy, LLC
(“Defendants”) based on his termination from employment. Defendants filed a partial motion to
dismiss the claims in Plaintiff’s second amended complaint for wrongful discharge in violation of
public policy and defamation. (ECF No. 45.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges
for consideration. The Magistrate Judge has prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation
recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF
No. 57.) Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on May 15, 2015. (ECF No.
58) and Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on June 1, 2015. (ECF No. 59.) For the
reasons set forth below, this Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law
on this matter, and the Court incorporates such without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270 (1976). Parties are allowed to make a written objection to a Magistrate Judge’s report
within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the
matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss as
to Plaintiff’s cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. In this case,
Plaintiff attempts to invoke the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine to
maintain his wrongful termination claim and argues that the exception should be expanded to cover
the circumstances of his termination. The Magistrate Judge recognized that, in declining to
recognize a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine for reporting suspected
crimes, the South Carolina Supreme Court recently called for restraint when courts undertake “the
amorphous inquiry of what constitutes public policy.” Taghivand v. Rite Aid Corp., 768 S.E.2d 385,
387 (S.C. 2015). Based on the Supreme Court’s recent guidance on this issue, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that this Court decline to recognize Plaintiff’s suggested public policy exception and
that Plaintiff’s third cause of action be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge recommends
that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied as to Plaintiff’s defamation claim, based on a finding
that Plaintiff has pleaded a claim for defamation sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, arguing that the Magistrate
-2-
Judge erred in finding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Taghivand v. Rite Aid Corporation
controls and precludes an extension of the public policy exception here.
Having reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s objections and the record in this case, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned analysis and recommendation and overrules
Plaintiff’s objections. The Court has reviewed the Taghivand decision which addressed a certified
question from the federal district court and delineated the limited parameters of the public policy
exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Plaintiff’s arguments are unpersuasive in light of the
clear holding of Taghivand which forecloses Plaintiff’s claim as there is no clear public policy
mandate protecting a pharmacist from being discharged after having assisted in a Department of
Health and Environmental Control (“DHEC”) investigation.
CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed the objections made by Plaintiff and has conducted the
required review. After considering the motion, the record, the Report and Recommendation and the
objections, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. The Court
hereby GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for wrongful
discharge in violation of public policy and DENIES the motion as to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action
for defamation. (ECF No. 57.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
June 4, 2015
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?