Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: EEOC v. WalMart (Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

 

As with many labor & employment law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


A recent case out of the Seventh Circuit caught my eye as it turns on whether WalMart provided a reasonable accommodation to a disabled employee.  In the case, Paul Reina (“Reina”), worked at WalMart as a cart attendant but was limited due to his severe cognitive delay and legal blindness.  While Reina could physically push carts, he could not steer them.  As well, he was unable to attend to motorized carts and could not response to basic customer service questions.  WalMart chose to hire a job coach for Reina who helped Reina steer the carts, operate the motorized carts, and answer customer questions.

Following a new manager being hired, it was determined that the job coach assisting Reina should no longer continue.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) subsequently sued WalMart and alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  The case went to a jury in 2019 in which the jury found WalMart in violation of the ADA.

WalMart subsequently appealed the jury’s verdict on the grounds that Reina was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA.  WalMart argued that its decision to accommodate Reina beyond what the ADA required should not be held against them.  In this case, WalMart noted that if another employee came to them and said they could not steer carts, operate motorized carts, or answer customer questions, “no one would claim that the ADA would require WalMart to hire and allow a job coach to perform these essential job functions for [the employee].”

It is worth noting that generally speaking, the ADA has not required employers to hire another employee to provide a disability accommodation.  However, whether the hiring of another employee creates an “undue hardship” on the employer (in regard to the accommodation request) focuses on the resources of the employer.  If this were a “mom and pop” employer, I think this would be an entirely different situation.  I find it hard to believe that a court would find that a small(er) employer would be required to accommodate a disabled employee by hiring another person to do many/a majority of the disabled employee’s job responsibilities.  However, an employer like WalMart likely could accommodate this request to enable a disabled employee to do their job.  Does that mean the Seventh Circuit will uphold the jury verdict?  Not necessarily.  With that being said, oral arguments are set for Friday.  For those interested, this is a case worth keeping an eye on going forward.


For additional information:  https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/EEOCvWalMartStoresIncetalDocketNo20034737thCirDec182020CourtDocke?1632836502

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more