Cunningham v. CVS Health Corporation

Background

Regina Cunningham and Stacey Wellington alleged that they worked as managers at a CVS store in the Village of Pelham Manor and regularly reported suspected shoplifting to the Pelham Manor Village Police Department. They alleged that Police Chief Jeffrey Carpenter became concerned that the reports made the police department and Village appear ineffective or unsafe.

According to the First Amended Complaint, Carpenter repeatedly contacted CVS’s corporate office and referred to Cunningham and Wellington as “girls,” “women,” or “ladies.” The plaintiffs alleged that he attributed the store’s shoplifting reports to their sex, urged CVS to discourage or discipline them, and advocated additional security measures to protect “the girls.” They further alleged that CVS investigated, suspended, and ultimately terminated them because of pressure from Carpenter and the Village Defendants.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people who violate federal rights while acting under state authority. They also asserted sex-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and a negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim.

Motions and Legal Standards

The court considered motions to dismiss filed by Carpenter and the Village under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts, accepted as true, to state a legally plausible claim. The court need not accept legal conclusions or unsupported statements as factual allegations.

Village’s Section 1983 Claim

A municipality generally cannot be held responsible under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted wrongfully. The plaintiff must plausibly allege that an official policy, practice, custom, or failure to train or supervise caused the constitutional injury.

The plaintiffs argued that Carpenter was a Village policymaker and that his calls to CVS represented Village policy. The court rejected that argument. It found that the meeting minutes and other allegations did not establish that Carpenter had final policymaking authority. The court noted that the materials identified a police commissioner who appeared to supervise Carpenter and that the Village was governed by a five-member Board of Trustees.

The court also held that a few calls to CVS did not plausibly establish an official or discriminatory enforcement policy. In addition, the First Amended Complaint did not plausibly connect Carpenter’s calls to the plaintiffs’ terminations. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a Section 1983 claim against the Village.

Carpenter’s Section 1983 Claim

The plaintiffs alleged that Carpenter used his position as police chief to pressure CVS to terminate them and to discourage them from reporting suspected shoplifting. The court held that the calls, as described in the complaint, were protected speech. It found that the statements did not rise to the level of threats or intimidation that could support a Section 1983 claim. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a Section 1983 claim against Carpenter.

State-Law Claims

The plaintiffs also asserted claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and for negligent infliction of emotional distress. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims.

Disposition

The court granted Carpenter’s and the Village’s motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by August 15, 2025. The court stated that the Second Amended Complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint. If the plaintiffs failed to file it by the deadline, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the two motions.

The supplied case information lists the filing date as July 10, 2025, while the opinion’s signature block states “Dated: July 10, 2024.”