Dive Brief:
- Walmart can’t shake a worker’s discrimination, retaliation and failure-to-accommodate claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an Illinois district court judge ruled Aug. 13.
- The worker in Peterson v. Walmart Associates, Inc., allegedly developed a torn ligament in one foot and a limp due to a physically demanding schedule that required about 15,000 steps of walking per day. She requested Family and Medical Leave Act leave and asked for short, hourly stretch breaks, per a doctor’s recommendation, but was denied both and fired the next day, according to the opinion.
- Walmart filed for summary judgment, arguing, among other points, that the worker was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because she had an intermittent episodic injury, not a long-term or permanent disability. The judge rejected this and the company’s other arguments, finding “it’s too soon to say” how lasting her disability will be.
Dive Insight:
The short opinion by Judge Iain Johnston offers a few lessons for employers in how to approach ADA requests.
For example, Johnston points out that, with little information, it is not for Walmart to determine the nature of the worker’s disability. Walmart leaned on a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision from 1995, which found that “intermittent, episodic impairments are not disabilities,” using a broken leg as the example.
“Walmart hasn’t shown [the plaintiff’s] injuries to be intermittent or episodic, despite bearing the burden on this motion,” Johnston wrote. “There’s simply no indication that Peterson’s injuries come and go. And unlike a sprained ankle or a fractured bone, absent surgical intervention (the success of which is questionable) cartilage loss is generally permanent.”
“The ADA defines ‘disability’ broadly and encourages courts to do the same,” Johnston reminded Walmart.
Further, Walmart objected to the worker’s “threadbare” and “formulaic” case, but the company is “only entitled to a short and plain statement of the claims against it and their factual basis,” the judge noted. While Walmart wanted to know “when exactly [the worker’s] injuries started, how
long they’ll last, what specialized qualifications she needs to fill orders, and how her mobility compares to an average person,” all would come out in discovery, Johnston said.
The judge said the factual allegations were “clear and detailed.”
While employers are within their rights to ask workers for documentation when they disclose a disability and request accommodation, a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance explained, they must then engage in a process to clarify what is needed and identify a suitable accommodation. Leave is a common form of reasonable accommodation, EEOC noted.
Walmart did not respond to a request for comment by press time.