After a court battle that stretched over half a decade, a federal court recently decided that Walmart discriminated against former employee Marlo Spaeth on the basis of disability.
The ruling from February of 2022 awarded Ms. Spaeth $50,000 in back wages after she was fired from a Wisconsin Walmart in 2015 after 16 years of service. The federal court ruling also determined that Walmart must rehire Ms. Spaeth immediately. Additionally, a jury trial from 2021 awarded Ms. Spaeth $125 million in damages (which was later reduced by a judge to the state maximum of $300,000).
Spaeth’s story
Marlo Spaeth is a woman in her 40’s with Down syndrome. Until her firing in 2015, Ms. Spaeth had worked at the same Walmart in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, for 16 years, where she regularly received positive performance reviews and raises. But in 2014, an automated scheduling system began generating employee schedules, drastically changing her hours. The changes often prevented Ms. Spaeth from accessing public transportation necessary to get to and from work. Additionally, the changes altered her regular mealtimes, which can be highly disruptive for people with disabilities who rely on routine scheduling.
Ms. Spaeth attempted to adapt to the schedule changes but often had to leave work early. Ms. Spaeth’s guardian, sister Amy Jo Stevenson, repeatedly asked Walmart managers to revert Ms. Spaeth’s schedule to the one she’d had for so many years, but the company refused and instead fired Ms. Spaeth.
With Walmart being such a big part of Ms. Spaeth’s life for many years, losing her job was a traumatic experience. Her sister Amy Jo reported a loss of enthusiasm for daily activities, indicating that Ms. Spaeth seemed to have lost her sense of purpose. For that reason, Ms. Spaeth’s sister began pursuing legal action against the retail giant shortly after the firing in 2015.
Discrimination allegations
The retail giant has faced a multitude of disability discrimination lawsuits in the past decade along with a spate of pregnancy discrimination suits.
For both situations, Walmart allegedly refused accommodation requests, as in the case of Ms. Spaeth, denying scheduling accommodations and refusing to reassign pregnant employees away from positions that required carrying and lifting heavy loads, against advice from medical professionals.
As part of the EEOC complaint filed on Ms. Spaeth’s behalf, attorneys asked Judge William Griesbach to mandate Walmart adopt new protocols that would help prevent future disability discrimination. Noting multiple lawsuits in other states, the EEOC stipulated that Walmart’s treatment of Ms. Spaeth was part of a pattern of discriminatory behavior.
The EEOC also requested that the retailer be required to implement training for managers to educate them on their obligations to employees with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and be mandated to notify all employees about the jury’s verdict in Ms. Spaeth’s case as a means to educate them on their legal rights and their ability to report any discriminatory practices to the EEOC.
But Judge Griesbach denied these requests, stating, “The substantial verdict against Walmart and the publicity it generated serve as strong deterrents against any repeat of the conduct at issue in this case.”
What’s next
As far as Ms. Spaeth’s case goes, while it’s mandated that Walmart offer her former position back, her exact monetary compensation resulting from the lawsuit is still up in the air.
Representatives from each side disagree on how to calculate the precise amount of Ms. Spaeth’s back pay and how to offset the tax liability she would incur from a large payout.
Ms. Spaeth could also receive no compensation. Walmart can still appeal the court’s decision about back pay as well as the jury verdict that awarded Ms. Spaeth $300,000 in damages, and they have not ruled out doing so.
The EEOC could also appeal Judge Griesbach’s denial of imposing requirements on Walmart that would help prevent further discrimination. However, the agency has not stated its intention one way or another.
Comments