Walgreens racial discrimination case appealed

RENO -- Two years after Bruce Johnson lost a racial discrimination suit against Walgreens Co., the Houston resident says he has some unfinished business with the drug store chain that he claims owes him more than an apology for the insulting treatment he and three friends received at a photo counter.

Johnson not only is eager to overturn the ruling that left him owing $253,926 in court costs and attorney fees, he wants to right the wrong he claims was committed against the four black men in 2003.

Now he thinks he has the evidence he needs to convince a jury that a witness for Walgreens lied when he said a clerk did not shout a racial slur at the men who had complained about the poor quality of photographs they received after having their film processed at a downtown Reno store.

"It's not about money anymore. It's about justice. It's about telling the truth," Johnson, 46, said in a recent telephone interview from his home.

In court documents, Johnson and co-plaintiff Mark Mills said they learned over the past year that the then-manager of the store, Jeffrey Pinto, was "under investigation for fraud and embezzlement" at the time he testified for Walgreens against the four men. Pinto was fired about 10 days after the trial, Johnson said.

Johnson claims Walgreens improperly withheld that information from the judge and jury. In recent motions filed after an August appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, he charges that Pinto may have slanted his testimony to appease corporate officials and try to save his job.

Johnson's appeal says Walgreens never brought any criminal charges against Pinto, but that Pinto was aware of the company's internal investigation.

"If the jury had heard Mr. Pinto was going to be fired the next week, it definitely would have changed things," Johnson said.

Walgreens officials have declined to comment on when Pinto left the job or why he no longer works at the Reno store. They say it is not relevant to Johnson's case.

Walgreens said in court documents that the appeal is "utterly devoid of merit."