Case 3:21-cv-00792-DJN Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Richmond Division
`
`DOMONIC A. DAVIS,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`Case No.
`
`3:21cv792
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`McKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL, INC.,
`a Virginia corporation,
`
`Defendant
`
`Serve: Corporation Service Co.
`100 Shockhoe Slip, 2nd Floor
`Richmond, Virginia 23219-4100
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Domonic A. Davis (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Davis”), by counsel,
`
`and as and for his Complaint against the Defendant, McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc.
`
`(“Defendant” or “McKesson”) states as follows:
`
`Parties
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
`
`Plaintiff is an African-American male.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant is a Virginia corporation with its principal office location being in
`
`Henrico County, Virginia. Defendant “is a medical distributor offering medical supplies,
`
`healthcare solutions, distribution services and clinical resources.” See https://mms.mckesson.com/
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Richmond Division
`
`DOMONIC A. DAVIS,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`Case No.
`
`3:21cv792
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`McKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL, INC.,
`a Virginia corporation,
`
`Defendant
`
`Serve: Corporation Service Co.
`100 Shockhoe Slip, 2nd Floor
`Richmond, Virginia 23219-4100
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Domonic A. Davis (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Davis”), by counsel,
`
`and as and for his Complaint against the Defendant, McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc.
`
`(“Defendant” or “McKesson”) states as follows:
`
`Parties
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
`
`Plaintiff is an African-American male.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant is a Virginia corporation with its principal office location being in
`
`Henrico County, Virginia. Defendant “is a medical distributor offering medical supplies,
`
`healthcare solutions, distribution services and clinical resources.” See https://mms.mckesson.com/
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00792-DJN Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 17
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`3.
`
`This civil action arises under the laws of the United States, specifically, Title VII
`
`of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. At all relevant times, Defendant has
`
`employed more than fifteen persons. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this District and Division because the Defendant conducts
`
`business within Henrico County, Virginia and the events complained of herein took place within
`
`Henrico County, Virginia.
`
`Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
`
`5.
`
`Prior to instituting this civil action, Plaintiff timely filed an administrative claim
`
`with the Richmond office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). See
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`6.
`
`On or about September 21, 2021, the EEOC issued a “right to sue” letter to
`
`Plaintiff after failing to resolve the Plaintiff’s administrative claim, with Plaintiff receiving such
`
`notice thereafter. See Exhibit 2. Plaintiff has filed the instant civil action within ninety (90) days
`
`of his receipt of the notice authorizing him to file this civil action in federal or state court.
`
`Facts and Background
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff began employment with Defendant on or about November 14, 2016 as an
`
`inside sales representative. At that time, Plaintiff worked out of Defendant’s office in New
`
`Jersey. As an inside sales representative, Plaintiff’s duties included communicating with
`
`Defendant’s customers to sell Defendant’s medical supply products. As a part of Plaintiff’s job
`
`duties, he was expected to be knowledgeable about Defendant’s medical supply products and to
`
`be able to make product recommendations to Defendant’s customers based upon customer needs
`
`and Plaintiff’s knowledge of Defendant’s products.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00792-DJN Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 18
`
`8.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a member of a team of inside sales
`
`representatives.
`
`9.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant made what was referred to as a “sample account”
`
`available to members of Plaintiff’s inside sales representative team. The sample account, inter
`
`alia, was used by members of the team to send samples of Defendants’ products to customers.
`
`10.
`
`At all times during Plaintiff’s employment up until September 23, 2020, members
`
`of the inside sales representative team commonly ordered medical supplies for personal use
`
`and/or use by family or friends. Such usage of the sample account was common and openly
`
`known among the team as well, upon information and belief, outside of the team within
`
`Defendant.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff understood usage of the sample account to be a benefit of working for
`
`Defendant on the inside sales representative team, as well as a means by which inside sales
`
`representatives gained knowledge and familiarity with Defendant’s products, which was
`
`necessary in order for team members to perform their job duties. Upon information and belief
`
`and based upon Plaintiff’s discussions with other team members, this understanding was
`
`common among members of the team.
`
`12.
`
`On or about July 1, 2020, Plaintiff’s team was transferred from Defendant’s
`
`Moorestown, New Jersey office to Defendant’s principal office in Henrico County, due to a
`
`corporate restructuring in which Defendant closed the New Jersey office. Due to the ongoing
`
`COVID-19 pandemic and the nature of his employment, Plaintiff largely worked from his home
`
`in Pennsylvania but obtained an apartment in Richmond for his use when he needed to be
`
`physically present at the Henrico County office.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00792-DJN Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 19
`
`13.
`
`On or about September 23, 2020, manager Steve Amadio sent out an email to the
`
`team stating that team members could no longer use the sample account for personal use without
`
`managerial approval. As of September 23, 2020, Plaintiff accordingly ceased any use of the
`
`sample account for personal use.
`
`14.
`
`At no time prior to September 23, 2020 did Defendant advise Plaintiff that
`
`personal use of the sample account was inappropriate and Plaintiff had received no warnings
`
`about his usage of the sample account from Defendant, whether formal or informal. Prior to
`
`September 23, 2020, personal usage of the sample account was common among members of the
`
`inside sales representative team.
`
`15.
`
`Approximately three weeks subsequent to September 23, 2020, Defendant’s
`
`Director of Investigations, Global Security and Safety, Michael McKinney (“Mr. McKinney”)
`
`contacted Plaintiff and other members of the team regarding usage of the sample account. During
`
`the course of his investigation, Mr. McKinney held individual interviews with Plaintiff and other
`
`team members. During Plaintiff’s interview with Mr. McKinney, Plaintiff was forthright about
`
`his usage of the sample account and offered to pay Defendant any and all monies it claimed were
`
`due and owing by virtue of Plaintiff’s use of the account.
`
`16.
`
`Following Mr. McKinney’s investigation, on or about November 9, 2020,
`
`Defendant terminated two team members—Plaintiff and another African-American male—for
`
`the stated reason of unauthorized use of the sample account and/or employee theft. Other team
`
`members who were not African-American and who had also used the sample account for
`
`personal purposes were not terminated.
`
`17.
`
`Prior to his termination, Plaintiff had been one of the top producers on his team
`
`and had received consistently positive performance reviews.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00792-DJN Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 20
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff was treated in a disparate and discriminatory manner in comparison to
`
`similarly-situated co-workers outside of his protected class (African-American) in that he and
`
`another African-American male were terminated, while those outside of the protected class were
`
`not terminated, despite engaging in similar behavior.
`
`Count I--Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs One through
`
`Eighteen as if set out in full herein.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff with regard to the terms and conditions
`
`of his employment, specifically, with regard to his termination, due to his race.
`
`21.
`
`The termination, of Plaintiff constituted a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
`
`Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
`
`22.
`
`The Defendant’s conduct was motivated by malice, spite and ill will; was willful
`
`and wanton, and evinced conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.
`
`23.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered
`
`and continues to suffer economic and non-economic damages, including lost back pay, lost front
`
`pay, lost benefits and other wages, emotional distress and attorney’s fees and costs. Due to the
`
`severity of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages.
`
`WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Domonic A. Davis, by counsel, prays that this honorable
`
`Court grant him such relief to which he is entitled including, but not limited to, lost back pay,
`
`loss of front pay, compensatory damages, nominal damages and punitive damages, as well as
`
`pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and litigation costs and such other relief as
`
`deemed just and proper.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00792-DJN Document 1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 21
`
`PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
`
`DOMONIC A. DAVIS
`
`___/s/Steven B. Wiley_____________
`Steven B. Wiley (VSB No. 47531)
`WILEY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
`440 Monticello Ave., Suite 1817
`Norfolk, Virginia 23510
`(757) 955-8455
`(757) 319-4089 facsimile
`swiley@wileylawoffices.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
