Overview of the case
In EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, the EEOC alleged that Walmart initially accommodated a new employee with a disability by allowing him to use an electric cart typically provided to customers. About seven months later, the EEOC said Walmart revoked the accommodation, did not provide an effective alternative, and placed the employee on indefinite unpaid leave. The case resolved with $70,000 in monetary relief and other non-monetary requirements outlined by the EEOC.
If you want the official summary, start with the EEOC newsroom release: Walmart Agrees to Pay $70,000 and Offer Job to Employee in EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit.
The key question: why did this happen after seven months?
One part of this story that often gets overlooked is the operational "why." The press release focuses on the alleged ADA violation, but employers and providers can learn a lot by examining what tends to break down after an accommodation has been in place for a while.
Two possibilities come to mind. These may or may not reflect the specific facts in this case, but they are common failure points in real workplaces.
Reasonable accommodation policy and procedure
If an accommodation is provided, the process should not stop there. Strong programs include documented procedures for:
- Providing and documenting the accommodation
- Periodically reviewing whether the accommodation is still effective
- Documenting those reviews and any changes made
In this situation, the cart accommodation should have supported the employee's ability to move from point A to point B at least as efficiently as other employees could safely walk, so the employee could perform the essential functions of the job. If it was not effective, the reasons should be documented along with a good-faith interactive process to evaluate other options.
When an accommodation is removed, the documentation matters even more. If no alternative exists or the role cannot be performed safely with reasonable accommodation, employers still need a clear record of the interactive process and the job-related basis for the decision.
Separate accommodation issues from performance issues
A second common failure point is co-mingling performance management with accommodation decisions. If an employee is not performing satisfactorily despite an effective accommodation, that should be handled as a performance issue with standard coaching and documentation.
The key is clarity. Employers need to be able to show that decisions were not made because of disability, but because the employee could not meet the essential functions of the position even with reasonable accommodation. Blurring those lines creates confusion and increases risk.
Practical takeaway: do not revoke without an alternative
The EEOC summarized the issue clearly:
“Revoking a reasonable accommodation without providing an alternative violates the ADA.”
EEOC Charlotte District Regional Attorney Melinda C. Dugas
Whether you are an employer, provider, or advisor, the operational lesson is to treat accommodations as a managed process. Review them, document them, and if something changes, return to essential job functions and work through alternatives in a documented interactive process.
Plugging into Job Function Matching
Many accommodation problems come down to unclear job requirements. When essential functions and critical physical demands are documented in detail, decision-making improves. You can compare job requirements to work ability, identify what can be modified, and document why.
To explore training and tools that support this kind of defensible clarity, visit our Job Function Matching page.
