Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Wis.: EEOC denied injunctive relief following verdict for Walmart employee with Down Syndrome, (Feb 12, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

There was no evidence indicating a “pattern or practice of discrimination,” and the likelihood of similar violations occurring in the future was minimal.

A Wisconsin federal court denied the EEOC’s renewed request for injunctive relief against Walmart in a case, involving a former employee with Down Syndrome, that garnered attention for a jury’s initial award of $125 million in punitive damages after a verdict for the EEOC. There was no evidence in the record indicating a “pattern or practice of discrimination,” the court stated, and the likelihood of similar violations occurring in the future was minimal because the employee had declined reinstatement. Additionally, the court held that each of the EEOC’s eight requests for injunctive relief were unnecessary as mere requests for Walmart to follow the law (EEOC v. Walmart Stores East LP, No. 17-C-70 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 7, 2025)).

EEOC’s suit. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Walmart on behalf of an employee, an individual with Down Syndrome, alleging discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The EEOC alleged that “Walmart failed to accommodate [the employee’s] disability by refusing to provide her with a permanent, modified fixed schedule of 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. after Walmart adopted a new customer-demand centric, automatic scheduling system that scheduled [the employee] to work from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.”

Verdict. After a four-day jury trial, a jury verdict awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages and fully $125,000,000 in punitive damages, which was then reduced by the court to the statutory maximum of $300,000.

Then, the court ordered Walmart to immediately reinstate the employee and consult with her guardian regarding any need for discipline or accommodations while she continues her employment. It found that she was entitled to back pay, prejudgment interest, and a tax-component award.

Appeal. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed as to the jury’s finding of liability and the awards of compensatory and punitive damages but vacated the judgment regarding the federal district court’s denial of injunctive relief and remanded the matter.

Renewed motion for injunction. The EEOC then renewed its motion for injunctive relief, requesting that the court enjoin Walmart from denying or failing to provide reasonable accommodations to employees, among other relief.

Unlikely to recur. Walmart asserted that injunctive relief was not appropriate and that the conduct alleged was unlikely to recur, as this unique incident involved only one associate at one store and one kind of reasonable accommodation. The court agreed, holding that, while many of the supervisors and managers involved in the decision-making process remain employed by Walmart, their continued employment alone did not justify granting the requested injunctive relief. The likelihood of similar violations occurring in the future was minimal, as the employee had declined reinstatement and is no longer with Walmart.

No pattern or practice. Furthermore, there was no evidence in the record indicating a “pattern or practice of discrimination,” the court stated. This was not a case where Walmart employees exhibited animus or ill will against the employee individually or against individuals with cognitive disabilities more generally, the court held; in fact, over a period of 15 years, they took steps to help the employee succeed, devoted extra time to her training, and taught her new job skills. “While the jury found that Walmart violated the ADA, Walmart management’s actions were not taken with animosity toward this individual. Instead, the history with this employee shows a positive attitude toward people with disabilities and Down Syndrome in particular,” the court said.

Mere requests to follow the law. Additionally, the court held that each of the EEOC’s eight requests for injunctive relief were unnecessary, as they were merely requests for Walmart to follow the law. “Given the adverse publicity Walmart suffered as a result of the jury’s verdict, especially the $125 million award in punitive damages, and in the absence of any evidence of animus toward individuals with cognitive disabilities, the court is satisfied that Walmart, a nationwide retail store whose success is in no small measure dependent upon its public image, has taken and will continue to take every reasonable measure to ensure no similar incident occurs in the future,” the court concluded.

The case is No. 17-C-70.

Judge: Griesbach, W.

Attorneys: Deborah L. Hamilton for the EEOC. Warren E. Buliox (MWH Law Group) for Wal-Mart Stores East LP.

Companies: Wal-Mart Stores East LP

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge RemediesDamages WisconsinNews