7th Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict Against Walmart for Discrimination Against Worker with Down Syndrome

The Seventh Circuit Court of appeals rejected Walmart’s appeal, holding that the “jury heard sufficient evidence to find Walmart violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it changed its scheduling policy and failed to accommodate an employee with Down syndrome who had difficulty adapting to her new hours, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Aug. 27. (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.)” Read opinion here.

“The employee, a sales associate in Wisconsin for more than 15 years, worked an afternoon shift so she could catch a bus to and from work, according to court documents. After she was given an adjusted, slightly later shift, she repeatedly expressed confusion and asked for her old shift back, the documents said. She also often left early — the same time as before to catch her bus — or missed work altogether. After multiple absences and coaching, Walmart fired her.” — via HRDive

The jury awarded $125 Million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $300,000 by statutory caps.

Walmart's $44M Settlement: A Win for Employee Rights in COVID-19 Workplace Measures

In a significant victory for workers' rights, Walmart has agreed to a $44 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit concerning uncompensated time for mandatory COVID-19 screenings. This case highlights crucial issues in wage and hour law, particularly in the context of pandemic-related workplace safety measures.

The Lawsuit and Its Implications

The lawsuit, filed in November 2020, alleged that Walmart violated California labor laws by failing to compensate employees for time spent on mandatory pre-shift COVID-19 screenings. These screenings, which included temperature checks and health questionnaires, added several minutes of unpaid time to employees' workdays.

This case underscores a critical principle in employment law: time spent on mandatory work-related activities should be compensable. The settlement serves as a reminder that employers must carefully consider whether health and safety measures constitute work time under applicable laws.

Settlement Details and Employee Impact

The $44 million settlement will benefit over 250,000 current and former Walmart employees in California. While Walmart has not admitted wrongdoing, this resolution avoids protracted litigation and sets a notable precedent for similar cases.

For affected employees, this settlement not only provides financial compensation but also validates their right to be paid for all work-related activities, including those implemented for workplace safety during extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic.

Legal Implications and Future Considerations

This case exemplifies the importance of collective action in addressing workplace issues. It demonstrates how class-action lawsuits can effectively challenge large corporations and enforce labor laws on a broad scale.

The settlement raises important questions for both employees and employers:

1. What constitutes compensable work time, especially in the context of health and safety measures?

2. How should employers implement necessary safety protocols while ensuring compliance with wage and hour laws?

3. What rights do employees have regarding compensation for time spent on mandatory workplace activities outside of regular duties?

Moving Forward: Advice for Employees and Their Representatives

1. Stay Informed: Employees should familiarize themselves with their rights under federal and state labor laws, particularly regarding compensable time.

2. Document Time: Keep detailed records of all time spent on work-related activities, including health screenings or other mandatory procedures.

3. Communicate Concerns: If you believe you're not being compensated fairly, raise the issue with your employer or HR department.

4. Seek Legal Advice: If concerns persist, consult with an employment law attorney to understand your options.

5. Consider Collective Action: This case demonstrates the power of collective legal action in addressing systemic workplace issues.

For employment lawyers, this case emphasizes the need to stay vigilant about emerging workplace practices, especially those arising from extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. It also highlights the potential for class-action lawsuits to effect significant change in employment practices.

This settlement serves as a reminder that even as workplace norms evolve, the fundamental principles of fair compensation and adherence to labor laws remain paramount. It underscores the ongoing need for robust legal representation to protect and advance employee rights in an ever-changing work environment.

Employers Not Allowed to Hide Discrimination Through Use of a Staffing Company

Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc., the operator of the New York E-ZPass toll collection system, and Broadleaf Results, Inc., an employment agency, have reached a settlement agreement of $120,000 and other relief in a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The case not only highlights the issue of disability discrimination but also raises important questions about joint employment and the responsibilities of client employers and staffing agencies under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The settlement aims to rectify the alleged violations and includes both monetary and non-monetary provisions to prevent future discrimination.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit, filed by the EEOC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EEOC v. Broadleaf Results, Inc. and Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-4557-PKC-LB), revolves around an employee who was terminated after requesting an accommodation for her hearing-related condition. The employee was placed by Broadleaf to work as a customer service representative at Conduent's E-ZPass Customer Service Center in Staten Island, N.Y. When she experienced difficulties hearing customer calls, she promptly informed both Broadleaf and Conduent supervisors and requested a reasonable accommodation. Additionally, she sought a meeting with management to discuss the status of her accommodation request. Unfortunately, a Broadleaf manager responded by stating, "If you cannot hear, then you can't do the job," resulting in immediate termination. Conduent, as the client employer, failed to take appropriate corrective action to address the discriminatory decision made by Broadleaf, despite being aware of the situation.

Joint Employment and ADA Violations

This case not only sheds light on disability discrimination but also raises the issue of joint employment. In an economy where staffing agencies are increasingly utilized by companies to source workers for essential business functions, it becomes crucial for both client employers and staffing agencies to establish processes that allow workers with disabilities to request accommodations to perform their job's essential functions. The ADA mandates that employers engage with applicants and employees to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities and prohibits adverse actions against qualified employees based on their disability. Client employers cannot simply hide behind staffing agencies as the employer-of-record to evade their obligations under the ADA.

The EEOC's Legal Action: The EEOC filed the lawsuit after attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through the conciliation process. EEOC Trial Attorneys Edumin Corrales and Anastasia Doherty led the litigation, with supervision from EEOC Assistant Regional Attorney Kimberly A. Cruz. By taking legal action, the EEOC aims to ensure that individuals with disabilities are protected from discrimination and that employers fulfill their responsibilities under the ADA.

Settlement Details

The settlement agreement consists of two consent decrees, providing a total payment of $120,000, including compensation for lost wages and other damages suffered by the employee. In addition to the monetary relief, the agreement includes significant non-monetary provisions designed to prevent further discrimination. These provisions encompass injunctive measures that prohibit both Broadleaf and Conduent from discriminating against employees and contingent workers based on disability. Moreover, the settlement requires updates to each company's internal policies to ensure compliance with federal anti-disability discrimination laws. Additionally, mandatory training for management employees about disability accommodation and discrimination laws is part of the settlement to foster awareness and prevent future violations.

Summing it Up

The settlement reached between Conduent and Broadleaf not only resolves the specific disability discrimination case but also highlights the importance of addressing joint employment issues in employment cases. Employers are not allowed to hide discriminatory actions through their use of a staffing company.

Read the EEOC’s Press Release

Jury Whacks Walmart with $5.2 Million Verdict In Favor of Disabled Worker

A federal jury in Wisconsin awarded a disabled Walmart Inc. employee $5.2 million in damages, finding that the retail chain had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to accommodate the long-time worker.

The employee, who has a developmental disability and is deaf and visually impaired had worked as a cart pusher at the store for 16 years before a new manager started at the store. The new store manager suspended the employee in his first month and forced him to resubmit medical paperwork to keep his reasonable accommodations, according to the lawsuit. The store then fired the employee.

Last week a Wisconsin jury found in the employee’s favor after a 3½-day trial and awarded him $200,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $5 million in punitive damages. Sadly, this amount will likely be reduced by operation of the statutory damages caps found in the ADA. These caps have not been adjusted for inflation in almost 30 years.

State of Michigan Hammered with a $11 Million Dollar Verdict in Race and Retaliation Case

Genesee County Courthouse

A Michigan jury awarded more than $11 million this month to a husband-and-wife pair who sued the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging claims of race discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation.

A six-member all-white jury delivered its unanimous verdict after a six-week trial that included 41 witnesses and hinged on allegations of racial discrimination and retaliation. The plaintiff alleged that she was racially harassed on a daily basis including being called 'Mammy', (being) asked if she wanted chitlins on her pizza, called the "black one" in her all-white office, and told she was not wanted in the all-white office. She also claimed she was put into life-threatening situations after complaining about racism.

The plaintiff had worked for the state for 19 years. Because of the work environment, the plaintiff transferred to another office, but she said the race discrimination and retaliation continued. Her husband also was allegedly forced to retire from his job as a deputy warden when phony disciplinary charges were brought against him. The jury awarded the plaintiff $5.1 million and her husband $6.25 million.

Read More: Detroit News

Learn More About Racial Discrimination and Retaliation