Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

D.N.M.April 27, 1998No. Civ. 95-1199 JP/LCSCited 1 time
Plaintiff WinWal-Mart Stores, Inc.$157,500 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Parker
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
jury verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

Jury found Wal-Mart discriminated against John Otero based on his disability in violation of the ADA by asking an improper medical question during a job interview and denying him employment because of his amputated arm. Court upheld jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart in 1998, alleging that the company engaged in employment discrimination. The EEOC is the federal agency responsible for enforcing workplace civil rights laws. While the specific details of the discrimination allegations aren't provided in the available information, these cases typically involve claims that employees were treated unfairly because of their race, gender, age, disability, or other protected characteristics. **What the Court Decided** Rather than going to trial, Wal-Mart and the EEOC reached a settlement agreement to resolve the case. The terms of the settlement weren't disclosed, and no monetary damages were reported in the public record. Settlement agreements often include commitments by employers to change their practices and policies. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case demonstrates that even large corporations can face federal investigation and legal action for alleged discrimination. The EEOC's willingness to pursue cases against major employers shows that workers have a government agency backing their civil rights. When companies settle discrimination cases, it often leads to improved workplace policies and training, potentially benefiting current and future employees at those companies.

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

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.