EEOC Sues Wal-Mart for Firing Disabled Employee

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
9-19-11

Carlsbad Store Refuses to Accommodate Employee With Cerebral Palsy After More Than 20 Years of Service, Federal Agency Charges
DALLAS — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that it has filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for refusing to allow a long-term employee with cerebral palsy to return to work after a medical leave because of restrictions imposed by her doctor that would have been temporary.
The EEOC charged in its suit, Case No. 2:11-CV-00834 in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, that a Carlsbad, N.M., Walmart terminated sales clerk Marcia Arney, who was attempting to return to her job following a medical leave for surgery. The surgery had been necessary due to her disability, cerebral palsy. When Arney, who had worked at the store as a sales clerk for 22 years, showed the store manager a note from her doctor stating that she needed to take periodic breaks, he refused to return her to her job, and instead required that she produce a medical release with no restrictions. The EEOC alleges that the medical restriction could have been accommodated by the giant retailer.
“This skilled employee had decades of experience with customers who recognized and greeted her. She had a loyal customer base that also benefited the store. Not allowing her to return to her job or even discuss her temporary restrictions meant the loss of a loyal employee, and violated the federal law against disability discrimination,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Toby Wosk Costas.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct disability discrimination. The suit also seeks damages for Ms. Arney and punitive damages against Wal-Mart.
“Employers need to make sure that they understand and comply with the simplified coverage definitions of the ADA Amendments Act, which has been in effect now for over two years, said Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the Dallas District Office of the EEOC. “Prior skewed interpretations of the law have been corrected by Congress to ensure that persons like Ms. Arney, who suffer from debilitating conditions, are given opportunities to continue their employment through reasonable accommodations.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-19-11a.cfm

Court Rules Against Wal-Mart in Sexual Harassment, Retaliation Case

Workforce Management
August 30, 2011
Jorge Pérez-Cordero filed a lawsuit in October 2001, alleging sexual-based discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Puerto Rico law.

A Wal-Mart Stores Inc. unit must defend a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in a case in which its alleged negligence of the initial harassment complaints claim may have led to the retaliation claim, a federal appeals court has ruled.
According to the Aug. 26 decision in Jorge Pérez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico Inc., Pérez-Cordero had been employed at Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club store in Humacao, Puerto Rico, as a butcher since 1998. In 2000, Madeline Santiago was assigned as his team leader and given some supervisory authority over him.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/court-rules-against-wal-mart-sexual-harassment.php

Court Says Injured Wal-Mart Worker Can Pursue Retaliation Claim

Workforce.com
After the fall, Cox returned to work in May 2007 and Wal-Mart afforded her several accommodations, court records state. But she alleges that Wal-Mart disciplined and fired her after she invoked her rights under Oregon’s workers’ compensation law. July 11, 2011


A woman can proceed with a lawsuit alleging that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and retaliated against her for demanding her workers’ compensation rights, a federal appeals court has ruled in a split decision.
The July 6 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Heidi M. Cox vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. overturned a district court ruling that had granted Wal-Mart summary judgment in the case involving the Oregon employee who was injured in a fall.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/court-says-injured-wal-mart-worker-can-pursue-retaliation.php

Walmart to Pay $440,000 to Settle EEOC Suit for Harassment of Latinos

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
4-14-11
Mexican-American Subjected Other Hispanic Employees to Ethnic Slurs at Fresno Sam’s Club, Federal Agency Charged

FRESNO, Calif. – Sam’s Club, the wholesale chain store owned and operated by Walmart, will pay $440,000 and furnish other relief to settle a national origin harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC contends that at least nine employees of Mexican descent at the Sam’s Club in Fresno, along with one who was married to a Mexican, endured ethnic slurs and derogatory remarks by a fellow co-worker who is Mexican-American. Since late 2005, the victims were barraged with near-daily insults about Mexicans such as “f----n’ wetbacks,” and references to Mexicans only being good for cleaning the harasser’s home, according to the EEOC. The harasser even threatened to report three of the victims to immigration authorities despite their legal status. The victims and harasser – all female – worked in the demonstration department, serving food samples to customers.
The victims complained about the hostile work environment to management as early as April 2006 to no avail. Instead, the complaints only intensified the harassment and led to intimidation, said the EEOC. Another employee also began deriding a victim for her inability to speak English. It was not until after an official EEOC charge of discrimination was filed in October 2006 that Sam’s Club finally discharged the harasser in December 2006.
In May 2009, the EEOC filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (EEOC v. Walmart Stores, Inc. dba Sam’s Club, et al., Case No. 09-CV-00804), claiming that the harassment, and Walmart’s failure to appropriately address it, were in direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Aside from the monetary relief, the parties entered into a three-year consent decree which requires Walmart to comply with the following at its Sam’s Club locations in Fresno and/or Bakersfield, Calif.:
review and make available its policies against and complaint procedures for national origin discrimination, harassment and retaliation;
provide training to non-management employees in the Fresno location regarding anti-discrimination laws, including national origin discrimination and harassment;
provide separate training to management employees in the Fresno and Bakersfield locations which will including training on how to receive, investigate, or report to designated officials complaints of national origin discrimination, harassment and retaliation;
set up a record-keeping procedure for the Fresno location that provides for the centralized tracking system for such complaints;
report the handling of such complaints and compliance with the decree to the EEOC; and
provide neutral references for the victims upon inquiry.
“We commend Walmart for taking the issues of national origin harassment seriously and implementing preventative measures,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, which includes Fresno in its jurisdiction. “A work environment that is free of harassment ensures a more productive and vibrant workplace for all.”
Melissa Barrios, director of the EEOC’s Fresno Local Office, added, “National origin discrimination remains a serious problem in this region, and it is important to remember that harassment can manifest even within the same ethnic group. Employers failing to take immediate action send a message that such behavior is tolerated, giving license for others to do the same.”
According to company information, Walmart Stores, Inc. is an Arkansas-based international retailer, operating more than 8,300 stores worldwide, including Sam’s Club warehouses.
The EEOC is the federal agency that enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-14-11.cfm

Supreme Court hears oral arguments in largest sex discrimination case in US history

Lexology.com
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge
Windy Rosebush Catino and Barbara A. Lee
USA
March 30 2011

Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the world (with 3,400 stores globally), has been accused of sex discrimination in its promotion and compensation policies by a group of female employees. The case, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, was filed in 2001, and no ruling on the merits of the case have yet occurred. The litigation so far has centered on whether the courts will allow the plaintiffs to pursue the case as a class action. Should the Supreme Court side with the plaintiffs’ class action request, the case will involve between one and 1.5 million plaintiffs, the largest discrimination class action in US history.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs who seek class action certification must satisfy four requirements: 1) a sizable number of plaintiffs (not a problem in this case); 2) common questions of law or fact; 3) similar or common claims or defenses by the class representatives; and 4) a representative plaintiff who will adequately protect the interests of all members of the class. The primary issue before the Court is the second prong of the test: whether Wal-Mart’s promotion and compensation policies are sufficiently similar or common across the company to meet the test of “commonality” under the Federal Rule. In order to satisfy this portion of the test, the plaintiffs must identify one or more corporate policies that result in pay and promotion decisions that, in this case, are less favorable to women than to men.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b6b5b024-26bc-4617-84f7-1580a4c7ee04&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-04-11&utm_term=

Wal-Mart v. Dukes: The Supreme Court's Big Case Threatens the Ability to Fight Corporate Misbehavior

The Huffington Post Posted: 03/28/11 03:05 PM ET Nan Aron President, Alliance for Justice What's it like to be a female employee of Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer? According to Betty Dukes, it's frustrating, as well as economically and psychologically debilitating. Ms. Dukes was an enthusiastic Wal-Mart employee, eager to work her way up from store "greeter" to a position in management. But after years passed watching male colleagues move up and finding no opportunities for her own advancement, she discussed her concerns with a district manager. The result was a pattern of retaliation that eventually led to a demotion and pay cut -- and the biggest sex discrimination case in history. It turns out Ms. Dukes wasn't alone. When a woman with a master's degree who had worked at Wal-Mart for five years asked her department manager why she was paid less than a 17-year-old boy who had just been hired, she was informed, "You just don't have the right equipment... You aren't male, so you can't expect to be paid the same." Another female employee was informed that a male employee got a bigger raise then she did because he had "a family to support." Another was told that men would always be paid more than women at Wal-Mart because "God made Adam first, so women would always be second to men." Full Story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nan-aron/walmart-v-dukes-the-supre_b_841551.html

Supreme Court to Decide Wal-Mart Class-Action Lawsuit

Workforce Management
December 7, 2010

The Supreme Court agreed Dec. 6 to decide whether Wal-Mart Stores Inc. must face what could be the largest workplace class-action lawsuit ever certified.The case—Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Betty Dukes et al.—involves charges that Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart paid female employees less than men in comparable positions despite higher performance ratings and seniority. The six female employees who brought the lawsuit, initially filed in 2001, also allege that women received fewer and waited longer for promotions to in-store management positions than men.The lawsuit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, lost pay and punitive damages.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/supreme-court-decide-wal-mart-class-action-lawsuit.php

Court to look at huge sex bias suit vs. Wal-Mart

The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Monday, December 6, 2010

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court will consider throwing out a massive lawsuit that claims Wal-Mart pays women less than men and promotes women less frequently.
The justices stepped into a case Monday that could involve 500,000 to 1.5 million women who work or once worked at the world's largest private employer. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. calls it the largest employment class action in history.

Full Story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120602733.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert

EEOC Sues Walmart for Firing Veteran Employee over Cancer-Related Disability

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release 10/07/10

Retail Giant Punished Forklift Operator It Called ‘Outstanding’ Because He Couldn’t Do Another Worker’s Job and in Retaliation for His Complaints

GREENEVILLE, Tenn. -- Walmart violated federal law when it fired a longtime employee because of a cancer-related disability and retaliated against him for complaining about the discrimination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.
According to the EEOC’s suit, the employee had successfully worked as a forklift operator at a Walmart distribution center in Midway, Tenn., for 12 years. He was a productive worker for three years following cancer surgery which left him with weakness in his right shoulder and arm. On November 24, 2008, Walmart asked the former employee to relieve a shipping department employee for a 20-minute break. Because his cancer surgery left him unable to manually lift, he could not replace the worker at this task. He then requested the reasonable accommodation of remaining in the forklift operator position he had worked for his entire career at Walmart, where no manual lifting was done.
Walmart refused this reasonable accommodation, the EEOC said. Instead, according to the agency, Walmart removed him from his forklift position, declared he could not perform the essential functions of his job, and placed him on unpaid leave – ironically, on the same day it issued him an “outstanding” work evaluation. The EEOC further contends that the man continued to request an accommodation, and then filed a discrimination charge. Shortly thereafter, on July 16, 2009, Walmart discharged him because of his disability and in retaliation for complaining about Walmart’s failure to accommodate him, the EEOC charged.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit (Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00222), in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
The lawsuit asks the court to, among other things, grant a permanent injunction enjoining Walmart from failing to provide a reasonable accommodation for disability, discharging an employee due to a disability, and retaliating against any employee for complaining about the refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation. The lawsuit also seeks appropriate back wages and compensatory and punitive damages for the former employee.
“This man had clearly demonstrated his worth and value to Walmart, but the company punished him because his disability prevented him from filling in for someone else’s job,” said Katharine W. Kores, director of the EEOC’s Memphis District Office. “This treatment was not only outrageous, but unlawful, and the EEOC will continue to fight for such people’s rights.”
According to company information, Walmart is a discount convenience retail store with more than 8,576 retail units under 55 different banners in 15 countries, with fiscal year 2010 sales of $405 billion.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-7-10b.cfm

A Million Women vs. Wal-Mart

The New York Times
Published: August 30, 2010
Editorial

For nine years, Wal-Mart has fought to stave off a class-action lawsuit alleging that the company has long discriminated against its female workers in pay and promotions. So far it has avoided a trial on the merits of the issue. The battleground instead is whether the million or so women who have worked for Wal-Mart since 2001 really constitute a class, which the company vigorously disputes. In 2004, a federal district court judge said they did, and in April the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, ruling the case could proceed.
Now Wal-Mart has taken the class issue to the Supreme Court. It is probably a smart legal move, given the court’s clear tendency to rule in favor of corporations, particularly when big classes or discrimination claims are involved. We hope the court resists the temptation to toss out the case, which would force women to file lawsuits one by one. Wal-Mart’s employment practices deserve a full hearing.

Full Editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/opinion/31tue2.html?th&emc=th

Wal-Mart appeals to Supreme Court in gender bias case

chron business
Bloomberg News
Aug. 25, 2010, 2:33PM

Wal-Mart Stores asked the Supreme Court to block female employees from suing on behalf of as many as 1.5 million women in what would be the largest gender-bias suit against a private employer in U.S. history.
The world's largest retailer today appealed a 6-5 lower court decision allowing women who have worked at Wal-Mart since 2001 to be part of a single class-action lawsuit. The justices likely will say later this year whether they will hear the case.
Saying the workers are seeking billions of dollars in back pay, Wal-Mart told the justices that the claims of workers around the country were too diverse to proceed as a single case under the rules that govern federal lawsuits.

Full Story: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7171133.html

Report Warned Wal-Mart of Risks Before Bias Suit

The New York Times
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
June 3, 2010

More than six years before the biggest sex discrimination lawsuit in history was filed against Wal-Mart Stores, the company hired a prominent law firm to examine its vulnerability to just such a suit.
The law firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, found widespread gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and urged the company to take basic steps — like posting every job opening and creating specific goals to promote women and minorities — to avoid liability.
The 1995 report said that women employed by Wal-Mart earned less than men in numerous job categories, with men in salaried jobs earning 19 percent more than women. By one measure, the law firm found, men were five and a half times as likely as women to be promoted into salaried, management positions.
Without significant changes, the lawyers said in their confidential analysis, Wal-Mart “would find it difficult to fashion a persuasive explanation for disproportionate employment patterns.”
In 2001, seven women filed a class-action suit on behalf of all women working at the company. They complained of a general pattern of discrimination in pay and promotions.

Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/business/04lawsuit.html?adxnnl=1&ref=business&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1275908404-Bo/4cM4hzVaXBTY3yfLwqw

Court: Wal-Mart gender pay lawsuit can go to trial

Cnn.com
By Bill Mears, CNN
Washington (CNN) -- A federal appeals court has certified the largest class-action employment lawsuit in U.S. history, in a long-standing dispute against retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. over alleged gender bias in pay and promotions.
The divided 6-5 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday allows the combined multiparty litigation to move ahead to trial, where a decision against the company could result in billions in damages. The Arkansas-based chain of stores has the option of appealing Monday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
At issue is whether more than a million current and former Wal-Mart employees can band together in their claims of discrimination, which they say has occurred over the past decade, at least.

Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/26/walmart.suit/index.html

WAL-MART TO PAY $250,000 FOR DISABILITY BIAS

EEOC Said Long-Time Pharmacy Technician Fired Because of Gunshot Disability
June 9, 2008

BALTIMORE – Retail giant Wal-Mart will pay $250,000 and furnish significant injunctive relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged that Wal-Mart failed to accommodate and then fired a long-time pharmacy technician who suffered a disability resulting from a gunshot wound.
In its suit (1:06-cv-2514), filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the EEOC said that Glenda D. Allen had been employed with the Arkansas-based company as a pharmacy technician since July 1993, most recently at its store in Abingdon, Md. As a result of a gunshot wound sustained during the course of a robbery at a different employer in 1994, Allen suffered permanent damage to her spinal cord and other medical issues, including an abnormal gait requiring the use of a cane as an assistive device.
The agency charged that despite Allen’s successful job performance throughout her employment, Wal-Mart declared her incapable of performing her position with or without a reasonable accommodation, denied her a reasonable accommodation, and then unlawfully fired her because of her disability. The lawsuit settled shortly after the court denied Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment on March 10, and partially granted the EEOC’s cross-motion for summary judgment finding that Wal-Mart had no undue hardship defense.
Disability discrimination violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.
Commenting on her case, Allen said, “After beating all the odds -- surviving my injury when not expected to survive, walking again when told that I would never walk again, and returning to work where I received excellent performance evaluations and consistent merit increases -- I was devastated to have the rug pulled out from underneath me simply because Wal-Mart could ‘no longer accommodate my handicap needs.’ I am hopeful that this settlement will make Wal-Mart take a closer look at its policies and practices with respect to the employment of individuals with disabilities so that what happened to me will not happen to someone else.”
Along with the monetary payment, the consent decree settling the suit requires Wal-Mart to:
Observe the ADA and post a notice to employees on the ADA;
Have all salaried supervisors and managers of its Abingdon stores and in pharmacies in the district that includes Abingdon complete training on the ADA with annual refresher training for the next three years; and
Submit a list of all employees at the Abingdon store and the pharmacies in the Abingdon district who have been denied reasonable accommodation and/or complained that they have been unlawfully denied reasonable accommodation or terminated because of their disabilities.
The EEOC will monitor the company’s compliance with the decree for the next three years.
“When an employer is faced with an employee who has difficulty performing certain tasks because of his or her disability, it cannot sit back passively and then turn around and fire the employee because of its own failure to accommodate,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Jacqueline McNair. “Federal law mandates that employers engage in a good-faith interactive dialogue with the qualified disabled employee to identify potential reasonable accommodations.”
This is the EEOC’s second settlement this year with Wal-Mart concerning the ADA. In April 2008, the EEOC settled a lawsuit concerning Wal-Mart’s failure to hire an individual with cerebral palsy in Richmond, Mo., (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 04-cv-0076 (W.D. Mo. April 18, 2008) for $300,000 and injunctive relief. According to its web site (www.walmart.com), “Today, 7,357 Wal-Mart stores and Sam’s Club locations in 14 markets employ more than 2 million associates, serving more than 179 million customers a year.”
During Fiscal Year 2007, disability discrimination charges filed with the EEOC under the ADA increased 14% to 17,734 -- the highest level in a decade. Approximately one out of every five private sector charge filings with the EEOC contains an allegation of disability discrimination.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Court To Rule On Wal-Mart Transfer Of Worker with Disabilities

ADA WATCH NEWS from the National Coalition for Disability Rights
Court To Rule On Wal-Mart Transfer Of Worker with Disabilities

By Mark H. Anderson, Dow Jones Newswires
WASHINGTON - In a case involving Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), the U.S. Supreme Court Friday said it will determine if a disabled employee, under federal disabilities law, gets preference over other employees for a vacant position even if they aren't the best qualified for the job.
The Wal-Mart case involves Pam Huber, a Wal-Mart warehouse worker in Clarksville, Ark., who injured her right arm and hand on the job. Huber worked as an order filler, a warehouse floor job pulling products from storage shelves, and requested a transfer to an open position as a router, a desk job.
Wal-Mart gave the position to a colleague with more seniority than Huber, however, and offered her a position at another company facility making significantly less money, court documents said.
Huber accepted the lesser-paying job and sued. A U.S. District Court ruled in favor of her. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis in May 2007 reversed that holding and ruled for Wal-Mart.
Attorneys for Huber, in the high court appeal, said Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules require employers to favor disabled employees under the Americans With Disabilities Act, a federal law on the rights of the disabled. "The Eighth Circuit not only disregarded the statutory text but also entirely ignored the EEOC's interpretation," the attorneys said, adding the ruling deepened a split on the issue in the federal appeals court circuits.
Wal-Mart, in court documents, said Huber's transfer was handled under standard company transfer policies where "vacant positions go to the most qualified applicant" and "Huber's disability had nothing to do with this decision."
Justice Stephen Breyer, who reported holding Wal-Mart stock in his most recent financial disclosure, recused himself from the case, opening the appeal up to a possible 4-4 tie.
The case is Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, 07-480. Oral arguments will be held in the spring of 2008 and a decision is expected before July 2008.
_________________________________________________________
ADA Watch is a project of the National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR), and alliance of hundreds of national, state and local disability, civil rights and social justice organizations united to defend and strengthen the civil rights of children and adults with physical, mental, cognitive, sensory and developmental disabilities.
National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR)
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900S Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: 202-661-4722