Jury Decides Walmart Must Pay Over $125 Million in Disability Discrimination Case

A jury found Walmart liable for disability discrimination, awarding over $125M in damages. The case raises key questions about ADA compliance and employer obligations.

walmart discrimination lawsuit

An eight-member Wisconsin jury recently decided Walmart should pay $125,150,000 in damages after finding company liable for three counts of disability discrimination.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought the case. It alleged the company failed to provide reasonable accommodations to Marlo Spaeth, an employee with Down Syndrome. Allegedly, the company eventually fired Spaeth due to her disability.

The Case Against Walmart

The EEOC presented evidence indicating that Walmart decided to change Spaeth’s work schedule, modifying its long-standing pattern. The new schedule caused hardships for Spaeth, who requested that Walmart adjust her start and end times. She requested a return to her previous schedule, which worked well for her. Instead, according to the EEOC, Walmart fired Spaeth and refused to rehire her.

Walmart fired Spaeth in July 2015. At the time, Spaeth had worked for the company for approximately 16 years.

At trial, the jury found that Walmart failed to provide reasonable accommodations as required by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The jury also found that Walmart violated the ADA in Spaeth’s rehiring decision. They determined Walmart decided not to rehire Spaeth due to her disability or the need to provide reasonable accommodations for it.

The jury awarded Spaeth $150,000 in compensatory damages and $125,000,000 in punitive damages.

ADA Violations and the Walmart Discrimination Lawsuit

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on actual or perceived disabilities. Among other things, the ADA requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” for a worker’s disability.

Which accommodations are “reasonable” depends on a number of factors. Factors include the employer’s available resources, the accommodations required, and whether the employer demonstrated previously that the accommodations are workable.

During the case, the EEOC presented evidence that Spaeth maintained the same schedule for several years before Walmart made changes. While Spaeth’s schedule remained unchanged, Spaeth received consistently positive reviews and feedback from her managers. However, the schedule change proved challenging for Spaeth. She struggled to keep up with the new hours and eventually faced disciplinary action for absenteeism.

Spaeth’s mother and sister attempted to help her reach a resolution with Walmart, They requested Spaeth’s schedule revert to its previous instance. Walmart argued that returning to Spaeth’s previous schedule would have been unreasonable. The company noted that the changed schedule remained within the hours Spaeth had stated she was available to work.

How Damages Exceeded $125 Million

The jury deliberated for approximately three hours before rendering its verdict. Before ruling in Spaeth’s favor, however, the jury asked whether it was limited in the damages amount it could set. The court told the jury it had no limits, after which it returned the verdict for $125,150,000.

Nevertheless, the judge later reduced the verdict to the statutory maximum of $300,000 by the judge. Walmart may have to pay additional amounts to cover Spaeth’s back pay, front pay, litigation costs, and interest. Those amounts will be calculated at a later date, according to the EEOC.

The case is not the first where the court required Walmart Stores to pay to settle an EEOC disability discrimination lawsuit. In 2019, for example, Walmart Stores East, LP agreed to a $100,000 settlement. The settlement focused on resolving claims that the company refused to provide reasonable accommodations. The accommodations were for two deaf employees who worked at a Walmart store in Washington DC. That store was also required to provide ADA-related training to managers and staff in the wake of the lawsuit.

About the author

Dani Alexis Ryskamp, J.D.

Dani Alexis Ryskamp, J.D.

Dani Alexis Ryskamp, J.D., is a multifaceted legal professional with extensive experience in insurance defense, personal injury, and medical malpractice law. Her diverse background includes valuable internships in criminal defense, which have enriched her understanding of various legal sectors. She served as the Executive Note Editor of the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, demonstrating a strong commitment to legal scholarship. Dani graduated with a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2007, following a summa cum laude B.A. in English from Ferris State University in 2004. She is an active member of the Michigan State Bar and the American Bar Association, reflecting her dedication to the legal profession.

Currently, Dani has channeled her legal expertise into a successful career as a freelance writer and book critic, primarily focusing on the legal and literary markets. Her writing portfolio encompasses a wide range of topics, including landmark settlements in medical negligence cases, jury awards in personal injury lawsuits, and analyses of legal trial tactics. Her work not only showcases her legal acumen but also her exceptional ability to communicate complex legal issues effectively to a broader audience. Dani's unique blend of legal practice experience and her prowess in legal writing positions her at the intersection of law and literature, allowing her to contribute meaningfully to both fields.

Dani earned her Bachelor of Arts in English from Ferris State University, where she was involved in various activities, including serving as a tutor at the Writing Center, editor in chief of the Muskegon River Review, president of the Dead Poets' Society, secretary of the Public Administration Association, and a member of the varsity synchronized skating team. She obtained her Doctor of Law from the University of Michigan Law School, participating in the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, Wolverine Street Law Moot Court, and the Mock Trial Team. Additionally, Dani holds a Master of Arts in English Language and Literature/Letters from Western Michigan University, where she was a graduate assistant for the Hilltop Review.

background image

Subscribe to our newsletter

Join our newsletter to stay up to date on legal news, insights and product updates from Expert Institute.