Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—SEX—8th Cir.: Walmart’s district court win upheld where female employee lacked qualifications for promotion, (Jul 22, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The hiring manager’s comment that the male employee “had a family to support” did not relate “to the abilities of female applicants” to perform the job.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment in Walmart’s favor on an employee’s Title VII sex discrimination claim, the Eighth Circuit ruled the employee failed to present direct evidence of discrimination and was not qualified for the promotion she did not get. A comment from the store manager, who hired a male instead of her, was facially and contextually neutral as to sex. In addition, she failed to meet the requirements—either passing a test or having certain experience—for the position and, thus, could not present a prima facie case required to raise an inference of discrimination (Brady v. Walmart Stores East I, LP, No. 24-2408 (8th Cir. July 21, 2025)).

Open position. The female employee started her career with Walmart in 1987 as a stocker and checker and later became a claims associate. In 2007, the store opened a daytime support manager position, and both she and a male employee were interested in applying. Walmart required applicants for the position to pass an aptitude test called the Supervisory Leadership Assessment (SLA).

However, employees who had been serving in hourly supervisor positions, including as support managers, since before the introduction of the SLA in 2006 were not required to take the SLA to qualify. At the time, neither the female nor male employee had passed the SLA, but the male employee was serving as a nighttime support manager. Thus, he met the minimum qualification, but she did not. The hiring manager selected him for the daytime support position.

Store manager’s comments. The female employee testified that after telling the store manager about her interest in the support manager position, he told her that he was not going to fill it. She also testified that, about two weeks after the male employee received the promotion, the store manager explained that he was given the position “because he was sick” and “had a family to support.”

Prior proceedings. After receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, the employee sued Walmart for Title VII sex discrimination in state court, and Walmart removed the action to federal court. The district court granted Walmart’s motion for summary judgment on most of her claims. The employee filed this appeal, challenging only the district court’s grant of summary judgment on her claim of disparate treatment in promotion due to sex discrimination.

No direct evidence. Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Walmart’s favor, the court first found the employee did not present direct evidence of discrimination. The store manager’s remark that a male employee was hired as the support manager “because he was sick” and “had a family to support” did not constitute direct evidence. The comment was facially and contextually neutral as to sex. On its face, the comment neither related to the female employee nor “to the abilities of female applicants” to perform in the support manager role.

In addition, she failed to allege any other facts from which a juror could conclude that the store manager was motivated by sex discrimination. In her deposition, she admitted that he never made any derogatory comments toward her regarding her sex or gender. She failed to establish “a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision,” and thus failed to present direct evidence of discrimination.

No conflict with other circuits. The court also rejected the employee’s argument that this conclusion conflicted with decisions from several other circuits. In those cases, the comments that were made were non-neutral as to sex, such as a supervisor explicitly referencing an employee’s womanhood and motherhood and a college administrator telling a female college math teacher that men had more financial responsibilities than women did. Here, the employee did not allege any facts suggesting that the store manager’s family support remark was discriminatory in context.

Not qualified. Turning to the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the court found the employee failed to establish a prima facie case because she was not qualified for the support manager position. To be qualified for the position, Walmart required applicants to have passed the SLA exam or have been serving in an hourly supervisory position. Though she eventually passed the SLA in 2008, she had not yet passed the exam when the support manager position was opened and filled in 2007. She also was not already serving in an hourly supervisory role. The male employee, who was already serving as a nighttime support manager, was qualified for the position. Having failed to establish a prima facie case, the employee could not create an inference of discrimination.

Thus, the appeals court found the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Walmart on the disparate treatment in promotion claim, and it affirmed the district court’s judgment.

The case is No. 24-2408.

Judge: Gruender, R.

Attorneys: Sonal Bhatia (Keenan & Bhatia) for Cloetta Brady. LaceShionna Niccara Cline (Littler Mendelson) for Walmart Stores, Inc., Walmart Stores East I, LP and Walmart, Inc.

Companies: Walmart Stores, Inc.; Walmart Stores East I, LP; Walmart, Inc.

Cases: Discrimination SexDiscrimination ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews