EEOC 'Fumbles' in Discrimination Case Against Walmart, DC Judge Says
“A well-pled complaint requires more; namely, the facts alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote.
October 26, 2018 at 10:23 AM
3 minute read
A Washington federal judge has dismissed an U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission suit accusing a Walmart store of failing to accommodate two deaf employees, concluding the complaint fell short of stating a proper disability discrimination claim.
The lawsuit filed in June alleged a Walmart store in Washington did not provide the two former employees access to translators and comprehensive note-taking in meetings. The two employees communicate primarily through sign language.
Senior Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said in her ruling Thursday the EEOC failed to explain what job duties the workers performed and why accommodations were necessary to perform those duties.
“A well-pled complaint requires more; namely, the facts alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” Collyer wrote. ”Here, to the contrary, EEOC presents an amalgam of bare assertions that do not provide factual support for a claim that is plausible on its face. It is not the province of the Court to speculate and strain to have a complaint meet pleading standards, especially where Plaintiff is a sophisticated federal agency.”
Collyer dismissed the EEOC's complaint without prejudice. The EEOC did not immediately comment on whether the agency intends to file a new complaint. A lawyer for Walmart, represented by Littler Mendelson, was not immediately reached for comment. A Walmart spokesman did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act must show that the employee had a disability, the employer had notice of the disability and that the employee could perform essential functions with, or without, reasonable accommodations.
The EEOC, according to Collyer, showed that the workers had disabilities and that Walmart was aware, but added, “It is the third element of the reasonable accommodation claim that EEOC fumbles.”
The EEOC's lawsuit claimed one of the plaintiffs was not given accommodations to, among other things, participate in meetings, including daily meetings for department managers. The complaint alleged the employee requested access to sign language interpreting or comprehensive note-taking for certain meetings.
The other former employee was not provided access to sign language or detailed written notes for meetings and trainings, including new employee orientation, daily group meetings and one-on-one meetings related to personnel matters, according to the lawsuit.
Disability discrimination was one of the top charges filed by the EEOC against businesses during the most recent fiscal year. In September, the EEOC sued a Walmart store in Wisconsin for alleged discrimination against an employee who is deaf and visually impaired. Walmart, represented by MWH Law Group, has denied the charges. That case is ongoing.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Attorneys Go to DC Federal Court Seeking Damages for Plaintiffs in Oct. 7, 2023, Attack on Israel
3 minute read'Possible Harm'?: Winston & Strawn Will Appeal Unfavorable Ruling in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
- 2European, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
- 3UPS Agrees to $45M Settlement With SEC Over Valuation Claim
- 4For Midsize Law Firms, Curbing Boys-Club Culture Starts with Diversity at the Top
- 5Southern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250