Dive Brief:
- A 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.)
- 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.
- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Walmart for allegedly violating the ADA. Through this decision, the 7th Circuit upheld a jury verdict made in 2021 for the EEOC. Walmart did not respond to a request for a comment prior to press time. However, in 2021, following the verdict, Walmart told HR Dive it often adjusts schedules to meet customer demand and “while Ms. Spaeth’s schedule was adjusted, it remained within the times she indicated she was available.”
Dive Insight:
Scheduling can be a challenge. First, there’s the need to synchronize business demands with worker availability.
Then, there’s the issue here — possibly having to modify an employee’s schedule to comply with the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement.
The ADA generally expects employees to start the process by letting their employer know they need an accommodation, such as a modified schedule, according to the EEOC.
Yet, while employees don’t have to use “magic words,” those with intellectual disabilities may have a harder time expressing their need for accommodation, the EEOC points out in a guidance.
Walmart argued the evidence failed to show the employee put the company on notice of her need for an accommodation, such that it had to treat her request to be returned to her old schedule as an accommodation request.
According to Walmart, many workers were upset with the new policy and had asked for their old hours back. It argued the evidence failed to prove managers knew the employee’s request was different and that her difficulty adjusting to her new hours was linked to her Down syndrome.
The 7th Circuit rejected the argument and upheld the verdict.
In particular, Walmart knew the employee had a disability: Managers acknowledged at trial that it was obvious to them that she had Down syndrome, the panel said.
But also, managers knew from past experience the employee had difficulty coping with changes to her routine and needed more time, attention and patience whenever she was required to modify her tasks.
Additionally, despite 15 years of reliable attendance, after Walmart changed her shift, she exhibited immediate and obvious difficulties complying with her new hours, the 7th Circuit said.
Finally, her sister called Walmart before and after her discharge, expressly advising managers she could not adapt to the new schedule because of her Down syndrome, the court noted. After she was discharged, her sister told Walmart she was invoking her rights under the ADA because it had failed to reasonably accommodate her disability by refusing to reinstate her original work schedule, the panel said.
Walmart additionally raised questions about its obligation to consider an accommodation or engage in an interactive process to find one. It suggested it had no duty to do so unless and until the employee, without being asked, came forward with the requisite medical documentation.
The 7th Circuit rejected this assertion as well. “We have pointed out in multiple cases that when clarification is needed as to the nature of an employee’s disability or the particular accommodation needed, it is the employer’s responsibility to solicit that information from the employee,” the court said.