Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—NATIONAL ORIGIN—11th Cir.: Russian folk Christianity adherent failed to show Walmart’s alleged hostile environment, retaliation, (Jan 2, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

When Walmart customers realized she did not speak English, according to the court, “some expressed dissatisfaction and anger and others laughed at her or mocked her.”

Walmart was entitled to summary judgment against the national-origin-based hostile work environment, religious discrimination, and retaliatory discharge claims of a Russian national and adherent of Russian Folk Christianity who alleged that her coworkers and customers treated her poorly because she could not speak English, that she was denied time off on a religious holiday, and that Walmart retaliated against her for raising complaints, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The former employee’s frustration with her inability to communicate did not constitute harassment based on her national origin, and she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her claim of religious discrimination. In addition, nothing in the record supported an inference that Walmart took retaliatory action against her after she complained or requested time off to celebrate New Year’s Eve (Mukhina v. Walmart, Inc., No. 24-11586 (11th Cir. Dec. 22, 2025)).

Adherent of Russian Folk Christianity. The plaintiff, according to the court, is a Russian national and adherent of Russian Folk Christianity. Though she understands some English, she cannot speak the language well, and she began working at Walmart in the apparel department, where she understood that she would communicate with customers.

Customers’ alleged dissatisfaction, anger, ridicule. When customers realized she did not speak English, she alleged, some expressed dissatisfaction and anger. Others allegedly laughed at her or mocked her, and she allegedly experienced this treatment every day. Coworkers also allegedly laughed at her and spoke to her disparagingly because she did not understand them.

Her complaints. She complained to her supervisor that customers were rude to her because she could not understand English, and she requested a transfer to work on the night shift. Her manager told her that he could transfer her to the night shift after he found a replacement for her, but that it might take a few weeks.

Transfer granted. Six weeks later, she complained of harassment and discrimination by both customers and coworkers, and she received the transfer three days later. Her working conditions improved.

Coworkers’ alleged mistreatment. She still allegedly experienced some negative treatment from her coworkers after her transfer. One coworker, she said, pushed a shopping cart toward her, and another accused her of being greedy because the night shift pays a higher rate. She also had to retrieve her own freight and was told she could not use a shopping cart for her work.

New Year’s Eve and attendance points. Then she requested leave on New Year’s Eve. She told her supervisor that New Year’s Eve was an important holiday for her as a Russian and that it was the same for her as Christmas Day purportedly was for “Americans.” Her supervisor denied the leave request because requests were granted on a first come, first serve basis, and other associates had asked for the day off before she did.

She then took New Year’s Eve off without permission and received two attendance points according to Walmart’s attendance policy.

Ethics complaint, resignation, and discharge. She filed an ethics complaint with Walmart based on the denial of her request for time off. After filing her complaint, she alleged, some employees treated her better by greeting her and speaking to her politely, and some treated her worse. One unidentified coworker allegedly approached her and engaged in verbally abusive behavior toward her, allegedly regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

She alleged that she did not tell anyone about the alleged interaction but decided to quit. Walmart officially fired her soon afterward.

EEOC questionnaire and charge. The former employee completed an intake questionnaire with the EEOC, but in it, she listed only “National origin and/or ethnicity” as the reason for the complaint. She stated that she was denied time off on New Year’s Eve, “one of the most important holidays for [[her]] as a Russian person” with many “national traditions.” She said that in Russia, New Year’s Eve “is like Christmas in America.” She did not, however, allege that she considered New Year’s Eve to be a religious holiday.

In her subsequent charge filed with the EEOC, she alleged retaliation and discrimination based on national origin. The narrative section of the charge, however, did not include any details about her being denied time off on New Year’s Eve. The EEOC dismissed her charge and issued her a right-to-sue letter.

Lawsuit. She then filed a pro se complaint against Walmart. She alleged that Walmart subjected her to a hostile work environment (HWE) based on her national origin, discriminated against her based on her religion by failing to provide reasonable accommodations, and retaliated against her for requesting accommodations and complaining about the alleged discrimination. Walmart moved for summary judgment.

Decision below. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Walmart. It ruled that she failed to establish that her alleged HWE was based on her national origin, that the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe, or that Walmart was responsible for any mistreatment. The district court ruled that she also failed to exhaust her claim of religious discrimination, and that, even assuming her claim was not barred, she did not inform Walmart of the religious nature of the holiday and did not suffer an adverse action. As to her retaliation claim, the district court ruled that she could not establish an adverse action causally connected to her complaint of discrimination.

HWE. The Eleventh Circuit first affirmed that the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence of a HWE. Though she experienced daily instances of customers, coworkers, and supervisors laughing at her, mocking her, and becoming angry with her due to her inability to communicate in English, the appeals court noted, “frustration with her inability to communicate does not constitute harassment based on her national origin.”

She also failed to provide evidence that the alleged incidents in which a coworker pushed a shopping cart toward her, prevented her from using a shopping cart, or required her to retrieve her own freight were related to her national origin.

Finally, only an isolated incident, involving a comment about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, involved her national origin. “[T]hat single utterance,” said the appeals court, “was not ‘physically threatening or humiliating’ and did not ‘unreasonably interfere[] with [her] job performance’ so that it could be considered severe.”

Religious discrimination and exhaustion. She also failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her claim of religious discrimination. She argued that her intake questionnaire alleged a claim of religious discrimination because it explained that she was denied time off on New Year’s Eve, “one of the most important holidays for [[her]] as a Russian person” with many “national traditions,” and compared the holiday to “Christmas in America.” However, the employee’s formal charge, not the intake questionnaire, “is what counts,” observed the court. And her operative charge alleged only “retaliation” and “national origin” discrimination, not religious discrimination.

Retaliation. Finally, the former employee failed to present substantial evidence of retaliation. She argued that her complaints to her supervisors about her working conditions, her request for time off to celebrate a religious holiday, and her ethics complaint constituted protected activity, and she further argued that she suffered two adverse employment actions because of her participation in those protected activities: the imposition of two attendance points and her constructive discharge.

Attendance points. Here, the appeals court first found that she failed to prove a causal connection between her protected activity and the imposition of two attendance points. She was assigned the attendance points because she missed work, not because she requested the day off or made an ethics complaint, and she could not establish that, but for her request or her complaint, she would not have been assigned the attendance points.

Constructive discharge. Her argument that she suffered a constructive discharge also failed. Because she argued that the harassment created a hostile work environment before she complained, the court reasoned, Walmart could not have created the hostile environment that led her to quit in retaliation for her complaints.

No convincing mosaic. She also failed to present a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence to support her claim of retaliation, according to the appeals court. “Nothing in the record supports an inference that Walmart took retaliatory action against her after she complained or requested time off. A reasonable jury could not infer retaliatory intent based on this record.”

The case is No. 24-11586.

Judge: Pryor, W.

Attorneys: Elena Mukhina, pro se. Jonathan S. Harbuck (Harbuck Keith Hunt & Jackson) for Walmart, Inc.

Companies: Walmart, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination NationalOrigin ReligiousDiscrimination Retaliation AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews