Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP

E.D. Wis.February 22, 2022No. 1:17-cv-00070

Plaintiff WinWalmart Stores East LP$300,000 awarded

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute: 445 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: jury verdict
State: Wisconsin
Circuit: Seventh Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The EEOC prevailed at jury trial, obtaining a verdict of $150,000 in compensatory damages and $125,000,000 in punitive damages, which the court reduced to the statutory maximum of $300,000. The court partially granted the EEOC's motion for equitable relief including reinstatement, back pay, and targeted injunctive measures.

What This Ruling Means

**EEOC v. Wal-Mart: Disability Discrimination Case** **What Happened:** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores East LP in 2022, alleging the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case involved claims that Wal-Mart discriminated against employees or job applicants based on their disabilities. The EEOC, which is the federal agency responsible for enforcing workplace civil rights laws, brought this case on behalf of affected workers. **What the Court Decided:** The specific outcome of this case is not available from the provided information, so the final court decision and any remedies ordered remain unclear. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case highlights important protections for workers with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified employees with disabilities and prohibits discrimination based on disability status. When the EEOC takes legal action against major employers like Wal-Mart, it sends a message that disability discrimination will be pursued and can result in significant consequences. Workers should know they have the right to request reasonable accommodations and cannot be treated unfairly because of a disability.

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

Browse more:Discrimination cases Failure to Accommodate cases

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church

D.C. CircuitJul 1997

Remanded

Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1941

Plaintiff Win

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

Read Full Opinion More Walmart Stores East LP Rulings All Rulings

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.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

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.