Walmart, Inc. agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit that was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC argued that the Bullhead City, Arizona, Walmart location violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) while enforcing its absenteeism policy with a worker.

Stevey Wiman, the plaintiff in the case, was a cashier at the Bullhead City, Walmart location before she was terminated. Wiman says that she regularly suffered seizures and that under Walmart’s absentee policy, her absences from work were excused because of disability accommodations. However, after about two months, Wiman was told that her absences as they related to her seizures would no longer be excused.

Per the company’s policy, Wiman would go on to submit a written request asking for absentee accommodation because of her disability. However, while the request was still pending, she said that she was terminated from her job.

The EEOC claimed that Walmart’s actions were a direct violation of the ADA. Under this law, employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities unless doing so would cause undue hardship to the business. By firing Wiman while her accommodation request was still under review, Walmart allegedly failed to meet its legal obligations under the ADA, prompting the EEOC to take legal action.

The ADA, passed in 1990, was a landmark piece of legislation designed to prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities in various aspects of life, including employment, transportation, and public accommodations.

In the workplace, the ADA requires employers to provide "reasonable accommodations" to employees who have a disability, as long as it does not impose a burden on the employer to do so. The type of accommodations that can be made will vary based on the job duties and the nature of the disability. For example, employees who need such protections may be accommodated through modified work schedules, physical modifications to the workspace, or, as in Wiman’s case, excused absences related to a medical condition.

One of the key protections the ADA offers is requiring that employers engage in an "interactive process" with employees who request accommodations. This means that the employer and employee must work together to identify potential accommodations and explore options that allow the employee to perform the job effectively. The EEOC’s lawsuit says that Walmart denied Wiman this right because they failed to continue excusing her absences and instead fired her shortly after.

After the facts of the case were brought forward, Walmart agreed to settle the legal case. Wiman was awarded $100,000. The judgment also imposed a two-year injunction against Walmart and other targeted relief. The company will need to provide management and employee training, post notices, and undergo policy reviews to prevent future violations of the ADA. Walmart will also need to report to the EEOC for the next two years to ensure it complies with the ruling.

Melinda Caraballo, district director of the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office, said, “Workers with disabilities should not be concerned that their disability will result in discipline or termination on the job – it is important that corporations obey federal laws protecting workers with disabilities.”