Skip to main content

Smith v. Walmart

W.D. Ark.February 26, 2020No. 5:19-cv-05177
RemandedWalmart
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: Labor/Mgt. Relations
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court found that the Administrative Law Judge erred in giving insufficient weight to the treating physician's opinion regarding the plaintiff's dermatological condition and remanded the case for reconsideration with proper application of the treating physician standards.

What This Ruling Means

**Smith v. Walmart: Court Orders New Review of Disability Accommodation Case** This case involved a Walmart employee named Smith who had a skin condition that required workplace accommodations. Smith claimed that Walmart failed to properly accommodate their dermatological condition, which is required under disability laws. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge who first heard the case made a mistake. The judge didn't give enough importance to the opinion of Smith's treating doctor about their skin condition. Treating doctors are supposed to receive special consideration because they know the patient's condition best through ongoing care. The court sent the case back to be reconsidered, ordering the judge to properly follow the rules about how much weight to give treating physicians' medical opinions. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling reinforces that your own doctor's opinion about your medical condition should carry significant weight in disability accommodation cases. If you have a medical condition that affects your ability to work, your treating physician's assessment of your limitations and needed accommodations should be taken seriously by both employers and judges. Workers can point to this case if they feel their doctor's medical opinion is being ignored in accommodation disputes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Colon
D.S.C.Jun 2025
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.