Walmart Stores, Inc., America’s largest retailer, has been at the center of litigation, consent decrees, motions for contempt, and settlements involving the EEOC and applicants and employees with disabilities. In one case, Jeremy Fass and William Darnell, who are both deaf, applied for work at a Walmart store in Tucson, Arizona, but were denied employment. Walmart was then sued by the Arizona Center for Disability Law (ACDL), a nonprofit public interest law firm, and the EEOC. Five years later, Walmart agreed to the terms of a consent decree regarding Fass and Darnell’s case that included:

• offering them positions and providing them a sign language interpreter for training and orientation and in other regular meetings.
• paying each young man $66,250 plus profit sharing and reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses that would have been covered by health insurance benefits had each been hired when they originally applied.
• providing them start dates from when they originally applied and payment of their $57,500 attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
• making corporate-wide changes in the hiring and training of persons who are deaf or hearing impaired.

The following year, the EEOC returned to court to file a contempt motion against Walmart. The motion alleged that Walmart had violated terms of the consent decree by not creating alternative training materials for nationwide use by the hearing impaired, by not providing training to management on the ADA, and by refusing to allow the EEOC and the ACDL to visit stores to check for compliance. After reviewing the evidence, a judge agreed, awarding more than $750,000 in fines to the ACDL for use in advocacy for employment of people with hearing disabilities. Walmart was required to reinstate William Darnell, who had been hired but quit because of a lack of assistance with training (given his hearing impairment). Walmart consented to pay $427,500 in contempt fines and to air 60-second television ads featuring Fass and Darnell that were close captioned for the hearing impaired. They also featured telephone numbers for the EEOC and the ACDL so that viewers who had questions or felt they had experienced discrimination could seek assistance.

Walmart’s disability-related difficulties with the EEOC continued later that same year, with what was the EEOC’s sixteenth ADA suit against Walmart. Alice Rehberg was a Walmart People Greeter whose disability made her need to sit periodically. According to the suit, Walmart constructively discharged Rehberg by refusing to allow her to sit periodically and failing to follow ADA procedures. Notably, in two of the earlier cases mentioned, juries had levied sizable awards against Walmart for intentionally discriminating against an applicant whose arm had been amputated and another applicant who used a wheelchair. Although one award was the most ever awarded for asking an illegal medical question on an application, Walmart’s disability and employment problems subsequently worsened.

In December of that year Walmart agreed to a $6.8 million consent decree to settle the multiple disability lawsuits that were still outstanding. Under the decree, Walmart agreed to:

• provide nationwide training on the ADA and job offers.
• abolish a pre-employment questionnaire that sought information on disabilities prior to conditional job offers being made.
• institute new or revised selection policies.
• provide priority consideration for hiring those applicants who were qualified but had been rejected based on medical or disability-related information obtained through the improper questionnaire.

Questions to Consider

1. Walmart is the largest retailer in the United States. What role may its size have played in Walmart’s persistent issues with disability discrimination, the EEOC’s persistence in litigating these cases?

2. Walmart agreed to provide priority consideration for hiring applicants who were qualified to work at Walmart but had been rejected based on illegal information obtained through its employment questionnaire.

• What are the likely qualifications required for most jobs in Walmart stores?
• How might being open to hiring people with disabilities benefit organizations with similar jobs?

3. What might other firms learn from Walmart’s experiences regarding application forms, selection decisions, accommodations, management training, and other human resource management issues discussed in this feature? Have you seen inappropriate questions on employment applications?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1 Role of Walmarts Size in Disability Discrimination Issues Walmarts size could contribute to its persistent issues with disability discrimination in several ways The sheer scale of the company means ... View the full answer