Discrimination Claim Against Walmart Fails in the Seventh Court of Appeals

Posted by HLL Admin

Can two different company policies regarding physical restrictions and leave of absence constitute a type of discrimination? That is the question the Seventh District Circuit Court of Appeals sought to answer in EEOC v. Walmart Stores East

In this case, a discrimination claim was filed on behalf of pregnant Walmart employees by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They claimed that the differences between Walmart’s policies for injured and pregnant workers constituted discrimination.

The Policies in Question

Two specific Walmart policies were highlighted by the case:

  • Employees injured on the job will be offered Temporary Alternative Duty (TAD) – light duty that enables the injured workers to keep working and earning their full wages while complying with any relevant medical restrictions.
  • Pregnant employees with lifting restrictions or other physical limitations related to their pregnancy are required to go on an unpaid leave of absence, and no TAD is or will be made available.

The plaintiffs argued that the exceptions made for employees injured on the job must also be made for pregnant employees, or else their policies were inherently discriminatory. The Seventh District Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree.

Walmart’s Defense

Walmart argued that their TAD exceptions were only meant for workers who were injured on the job. Their stated reasons for this policy were:

  • To reduce their costs and exposure under state workers’ compensation laws.
  • Build and sustain employee morale and other related purposes.

Referring to Young v. United Parcel Service Inc, the Seventh District Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Walmart. According to their ruling, Walmart may maintain separate and unequal policies for those injured while working and those who had become pregnant.

Although Walmart successfully argued its case, there is still legal uncertainty surrounding separate and unequal employment policies. If additional instances of discrimination had been established in court, the resultant ruling may have been different.

Why Should Employers Care About this Case?

Examine your pregnancy leave policy. Does it treat pregnant employees less favorably than those with similar physical restrictions? If so, you might want to revisit and revise that policy with legal guidance. Cases like these are costly and can potentially hamper your ability to recruit new talent. Develop employment policies that minimize the potential for discrimination claims.

If your business faces a discrimination claim or potential case, reach out immediately to develop your legal response. Hughes Lawyers has experience and specialty in many aspects of Employment Law. We can help employers prevent, address, or resolve a variety of issues related to the employer-employee relationship. Contact us today.

Key Developments in Staged...

In a major development in the ongoing investigation into a widespread fraud involving staged accidents with tractor-trailers, Jovanna Gardner, one of the central figures, has agreed to a plea deal with federal prosecutors. Gardner’s decision to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit witness tampering and cooperate with investigators marks a critical juncture in this high-profile

Read more…

Ninth Circuit Ruling in...

On March 12, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a pivotal decision in Ortiz v. Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC, broadening the scope of the “transportation worker” exemption under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). This ruling has significant implications for employers in the transportation and logistics sectors. It highlights the need for meticulous legal

Read more…

Protecting Your Trucking Company:...

In the high-stakes world of trucking, the looming threat of serious accident litigation is a constant reality for many companies. When such situations arise, it’s crucial for owners and executives to understand that the future of their company may be at stake. This was a key takeaway from the recent address by Rob Moseley, a

Read more…

Contact Us






    The content of this website is presented for general informational purposes only. Every effort has been made to ensure the website's accuracy however there is no guarantee that the content provided herein is correct, complete, and up-to-date.

    This website is not intended to be a source of legal advice nor should it be considered as legal advice. The reader should not rely on the information presented on this website and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the state in which the reader resides. Transmission of information on this website does not create an attorney-client relationship with Hughes Lawyers, LLC or with Steven Hughes and Joseph Hoffman individually. The firm assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on the website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.

    The use of email, including the contact form on this website, for confidential or sensitive information is discouraged. If the reader chooses to send an email with confidential or sensitive information, reader accepts the risks of lack of confidentiality.

    The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.

    © 2021 Hughes Lawyers, LLC | All Rights Reserved