Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—D. Conn.: Black Walmart employee fails to show race bias, but retaliatory discharge claim goes to trial, (Sep 23, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

He presented evidence that the retailer violated its policies by failing to timely send his end-of-leave letter and prematurely hiring his replacement, and that decisionmakers refused to speak to him about coming back from medical leave since he had counsel.

Walmart won’t face trial on a former asset protection associate’s Title VII and Section 1981 claims that his white supervisors discriminated against him because he was Black when they issued him false disciplinary “coachings” and passed him over for several manager roles, but a jury will decide whether he was fired in retaliation for complaining. Granting summary judgment against the employee on his race discrimination and tort claims, a federal court in Connecticut held that the write-ups did not constitute adverse employment actions even under the Muldrow standard, and that he failed to refute that the selected candidates, many of whom were minorities, had supervisory experience that he did not also possess. However, a triable issues existed as to whether he was terminated in retaliation for his internal complaints and administrative charge since, amongst other things, triable issues existed as to whether Walmart properly followed its end-of-leave process and whether it posted and filled his position before or after his alleged voluntary termination (John v. Walmart Store No. 5294, No. 3:22-cv-00007 (VAB) (D. Conn. Sept. 19, 2025)).

Walmart hired the employee in May 2017 as an asset protection (AP) associate in its Milford, Connecticut store. His general responsibilities included patrolling the store, investigating potential shoplifting incidents, and preventing theft. He reported to the store’s assistant AP manager, who in turn reported to the market asset protection manager (the MAP manager).

First two write-ups. On September 13, 2017, the MAP manager issued him a “coaching” for a an alleged “bad stop” of a customer since he did not have the element of “continuous observation” necessary to conduct a stop. He appealed, claiming that the stop was made at the direction of his supervisor (who was white). After further investigation, the MAP manager rescinded the coaching. Sometime thereafter, his supervisor issued him a coaching for using a store coupon in violation of a company policy, which he unsuccessfully appealed.

Passed over for promotions. In late 2018, the employee unsuccessfully applied for open AP manager positions in three stores. The interviews were conducted by the MAP manager and the HR manager, who ultimately selected candidates with prior supervisory or managerial experience that the employee did not possess. The three positions went to a Hispanic male, a Hispanic female, and a Black female. A position for which he was not interviewed went to a Caucasian male, and they also selected a Black man to fill an open position that was not posted externally.

Complaint after third coaching. In February 2019, the store manager coached the employee at the MAP manager’s direction for another alleged “bad stop.” He appealed, asserting that his new supervisor (who was also white) was responsible for the stop, and that this was the second time the MAP manager wrongfully accused him for a bad stop in order to protect “a person of his own race and a friend of his.” He also stated that a “similar situation” happened with his prior white supervisor. After an investigation, the coaching was rescinded.

CHRO charge. Walmart also conducted an ethics investigation which determined in May 2019 that the employee’s allegations against the MAP manager were unsubstantiated. On July 17, 2019, he filed a charge alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) and the EEOC.

Attempt to return from medical leave. In March 2020, the employee began medical leave due to a knee injury that left him unable to walk for extended periods of time. He claimed that when he attempted to return on June 18, the personnel coordinator told him she needed to speak with the store management in order to put him back on the schedule. She subsequently told him by phone that an offer letter had been sent to another person for his position, that he would have a certain number of days to find a different job, and that she could not speak with him about his position because he was represented by counsel.

Terminated. On August 8, Walmart sent him an “end of leave” letter which stated that his leave had expired on June 23, and if he failed to take action within three days of receiving the letter, he would be deemed to have voluntarily terminated. On August 21, Walmart updated his record to reflect he had voluntarily terminated his employment, and the retailer claimed that it was then that it began searching for his replacement. In contrast, the employee claimed that after receiving the letter he continued calling regarding returning to work until December 2020, at which point the new personnel coordinator told him that returning would be impossible. He also claimed he was told by personnel staff that he could not speak to the MAP manager since he was represented by counsel.

Exhaustion. At the outset, the court rejected Walmart’s contention that he failed to administratively exhaust any claims not specific alleged in his CHRO charge. Rather, his retaliation claims were reasonably related to the allegations in his charge.

“Coaching” not adverse action. However, his three coachings (two of which were rescinded) did not constitute adverse employment actions even under the Supreme Court’s more lenient Muldrow standard since he could not show that they made him “worse off.” Indeed, he was interviewed for several promotion opportunities after receiving the first two coachings, and while he was not offered any of the positions, the decisionmakers testified the selected candidates were chosen because of their supervisory experience, not because of his prior coachings.

Failures to promote or hire. He also failed to advance his discriminatory failure to promote claims since he could not demonstrate pretext. Though he claimed that the MAP manager and HR coordinator fabricated their affidavits regarding the racial makeup of the candidates hired for the AP manager jobs, there was no evidence supporting his argument. Moreover, he failed to provide any evidence regarding his qualifications compared to several successful candidates.

Retaliation claim. However, a jury will decide whether Walmart terminated him in retaliation for his complaints of race discrimination. Though the retailer argued his protected activity was too far removed from his internal complaints and the CHRO charge, which occurred over a year before his termination, temporal connection was not the only evidence he offered to demonstrate causation and pretext. For instance, he testified that his efforts to return to work between June 17 and his voluntary dismissal on August 21 were affected, in part, by the personnel coordinator, the HR manager and the MAP manager not speaking with him because of his having counsel for the CHRO complaint. A triable issue also existed as to whether Walmart properly followed its end-of-leave process in his case and whether it posted and filled his position before or after he was voluntarily terminated. “

Tort claims. Finally, the court tossed all of his tort claims. His intentional infliction of emotional distress claim failed since the alleged conduct was undisputedly not extreme and outrageous. His claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress also failed since the termination process was within the “bounds of socially tolerable behavior.” The record also did not support his claims for negligent hire, supervision and retention since he did not claim to have suffered any injury beyond those of his Title VII claim. Similarly, his claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing failed since his injuries could be remedied under Title VII and Section 1981.

The case is No. 3:22-cv-00007 (VAB).

Judge: Bolden, V.

Attorneys: Mark John, pro se. Lawrence Peikes (Wiggin & Dana) for Walmart Store, Walmart Stores East, LP and Walmart.

Companies: Walmart Store; Walmart Stores East, LP; Walmart

Cases: RaceDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Procedure Retaliation StateLawClaims TortClaims ConnecticutNews