ppod_citn-728x90
ppod_citn-320x100

walgreens photo

When was the last time you saw a legitimate printable coupon for $8 off a Charmin product?

Probably never. Neither had employees of a Walgreens in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when a woman handed over eight of them while checking out recently. So the store refused to take them, the woman objected, police were called – and now the woman is suing Walgreens for $20,000.

It all started a week and a half ago, when 36-year-old Khara Davis went to her local Walgreens to stock up on some toilet paper. Davis is “a retired Army veteran that shops using coupons to provide for her family,” her lawsuit reads. She “customarily acquires these coupons from newspaper print ads, sponsoring company websites and/or in-store advertisement papers.”

It’s not known, however, where she acquired eight print-at-home Charmin coupons, valued at $8 apiece. As manufacturer Procter & Gamble will be happy to point out, it has never offered a printable coupon for $8 off Charmin.

“In truth and in fact, the coupons were real, usable and legitimate as Charmin brand paper products,” the lawsuit insists.

But Walgreens employees weren’t buying it. “The cashier physically took the coupons from plaintiff and immediately exclaimed to plaintiff, in public and within earshot, hearing and site (sic) of others present, that plaintiff presented fake and/or counterfeit coupons and that they would not be honored or accepted.” The store manager was called over, and concurred that the coupons were not legit.

ppod_672x560

Things got a bit more heated, when Davis asked for the coupons back – and the Walgreens employees refused. After she insisted, the employees called police. An officer responded, investigated and ended up not charging Davis with anything.

So Davis wants her coupons back. Plus several thousand dollars for the “anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish” as well as the “public hatred, contempt, ridicule and disgrace” that the incident caused her, “beyond that which a reasonable person could be expected to endure.” Her lawsuit claims she was “publicly embarrassed, humiliated, pressured, belittled and preyed upon by the Walgreens store employees,” whose actions “were so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and would be considered atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.”

Well, then. It’s a good thing for Davis that hubby is an attorney (and has an apparent knack for hyperbole). He filed the lawsuit on her behalf last week, a mere four days after the incident. The lawsuit names both the Tulsa Walgreens store, and the Walgreens corporation itself, as defendants. They’re accused of intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, negligence and conversion (for keeping Davis’ personal property), which has “forever and irretrievably deprived her use of said coupons.”

Davis is seeking a minimum of $10,000 in damages, and an additional $10,000 in punitive damages.

Davis’ husband/attorney did not respond to a request for comment on the case. The manager of the Walgreens store referred inquiries to the corporate office, which also declined to offer any comment.

So we may have to wait to hear the full story in court. In the meantime, if you find any “real, usable and legitimate” $8 Charmin coupons, there’s a shopper in Tulsa who’s looking to get her hands on a few.

Photo by JeepersMedia

2 Comments

  1. The store should have quietly refused the coupons and they should have given them back to her. There was no need to humiliate the customer. That is what this lawsuit is about. They should not have called the police. That’s a waste of taxpayer money to bring them in to a situation like this. Walgreen’s should have handled this in a more respectful manner.

    • Honestly, it really doesn’t matter. If P&G says it never had these coupons, they were fake. Unless she tells them where she got them from. Though, the police was not necessary. The manager should have disposed the coupons due to being protocol.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

Privacy Policy
Disclosure Policy