Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—D. Conn.: Walmart employee’s disability discrimination claim may move forward, (Sep 22, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

She was purportedly fired for excessive absenteeism, but she claims several of those days were related to her disability and that she had requested accommodation.

A federal court in Connecticut ruled against Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment on an employee’s claims under federal and Connecticut law. She was fired, purportedly for excessive absenteeism, but contends that it was because of her disability and her request for accommodation. The court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment against the digital personal shopper’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims. It further rejected the employer’s argument that the employee never made a request for an accommodation for her absences from work (Murray v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, No. 3:23-CV-01019 (SVN) (D. Conn. Sept. 17, 2025)).

Relevant to the time at issue, the employee was a Digital Personal Shopper. As such, the employee’s job duties included non-physical tasks such as providing customer service and directly interfacing with customers, as well as physical tasks such as moving, lifting, carrying, and placing merchandise weighing between 10 and 50 pounds.

Injury leads to lifting restriction. In February 2021 the employee injured her neck in a non-work-related accident. On February 24, 2021, the employee’s doctor provider her a note stating that she was cleared to return to work but needed light duty and could not lift items weighing more than 10 pounds. Because of the medical restrictions noted in the employee’s medical certificate from her doctor, the employer stated that her accommodation request could not be approved because the restrictions prohibited her from performing her job either with or without accommodation.

Concussion. The employee’s medical leave of absence continued through June 13, 2021, when she returned to work following her neck surgery. In the summer of 2021, the employee was absent from work on June 18, July 4, August 8, 11-13, 16, 19, and 20. The last two absences related to symptoms and treatment for concussion; she also left early on August 18 to seek treatment for her concussion. The employee contends that after she missed those days, she asked the store manager if those three days could be “forgiven” because she was “out for the concussion.” She alleges the store manager said she “would think about it.”

Employer’s attendance policy. Regardless of whether an employee’s absence is authorized or not, the employee must report an absence using one of two methods: calling the Associate Information Line call-in number, or using the Report and Absence form available on WalmartOne. Under the policy, failure to report any type of absence pursuant to one of these two methods “will result as the absence or late arrival counted as a No Call/No Show.” The policy further specifies that if an employee accumulates five or more occurrences/points in a rolling six-month period, the employee will be subject to termination. The number of points awarded for an unauthorized absence varies, with a No Call/No Show resulting in up to three points: two for failing to report the absence and one for the absence itself.

Fired, filed suit. The employer terminated the employee on August 26, 2021, purportedly for excessive absenteeism. The employee contended that she was terminated because of her concussion disorder, which she characterized as a disability.

The employee sued the employer, alleging six counts: one count each for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation, under the ADA, and one count each for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”). The employer moved for summary judgment.

Disability discrimination claims. The court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the ADA and CFEPA claims for disability discrimination, concluding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the employee was terminated because of her disability.

Although the court rejected the employee’s argument that the employer had a no-fault leave policy, enforcement of which would be “per se discriminatory,” it explained that under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the employee had established a prima facie case for disability discrimination. (The court explained that the employer’s leave policy could not be “fairly characterized as a no-fault policy” under the definition provided by an EEOC guidance document from 2022, upon which the employee sought to rely.)

In this case, the employer conceded that the employee’s concussion constituted a disability. The only remaining questions were whether the employee was qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodation, and whether the employee raised an inference of discriminatory intent. The court concluded that the employee had done both, and thus she had “cleared the low threshold” for demonstrating a prima facie case of disability discrimination.

The court concluded that the employer’s argument that the employee was fired because she had accrued at least five points for absences under its attendance policy constituted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the firing.

Requested accommodation, was fired. Thus, the final question under the McDonnell Douglas framework was whether the employee had produced evidence to carry her burden of proving that the employer’s proffered reason for the firing was a pretext for discrimination. Based on the employer’s pleadings, the court determined that the employee was eligible for termination on August 20. Sometime after this date, but before her actual termination on August 26, the employee asked management for accommodation for her absences. Concluding that a reasonable jury could find that employee’s alleged disability and her request for accommodation of that alleged disability was the but-for cause of her termination under the ADA and the CFEPA, the court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment against the employee’s claims for disability discrimination.

Retaliation claims. As for her retaliation claim, as with her disability discrimination claims, the court noted that the employee’s firing occurred within a week of her requesting management accommodation for her absences. Based on the temporal proximity between the request for accommodation and her firing, a reasonable jury could find that the employee’s termination was retaliation for her protected activity. Accordingly, the court rejected the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s retaliation claims.

Failure to accommodate. The court also denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s claim that the employer failed to reasonably accommodate her requests relating to her concussion. The only question at issue was whether the employee had requested accommodation for her absences for missing work on August 18, 19, and 20. The employee claimed that she made the request for accommodation through (1) text messages exchanged with her supervisor; and (2) a subsequent request to the store manager that the three days be forgiven. The court concluded that, although the text messages did not suffice to put employer on notice of employee’s request, there is a question of fact about whether her request to the store manager did.

The employee stated that, on an unspecified day after the absences in August, she asked the store manager if the employer could “forgive” the three days “for going to the hospital” and being “out for the concussion.” According to the employee, the store manager stated that she would “think about it.” The store manager, however, stated that the employee never “advise[d] management that she required an accommodation as a result of a head injury/concussion.” Thus, there is a genuine dispute of fact about whether the employee conveyed the request for accommodation through this alleged conversation.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the employee/plaintiff in the case, a reasonable jury could conclude that the employee made a request for a reasonable accommodation for her disability that was rejected by the employer. Accordingly, the court denied the employer’s motion with respect to the employee’s failure to accommodate claims as well.

The case is No. 3:23-cv-01019-SVN.

Judge: Nagala, S.

Attorneys: James V. Sabatini (Sabatini & Associates) for Tina Murray. Johanna G. Zelman (Ford Harrison) for Wal-Mart Stores East, LP.

Companies: Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge StateLawClaims Retaliation ConnecticutNews